This column was originally published by Sheila Kennedy on her blog, “A Jaundiced Look at the World We Live In.”
By Sheila Kennedy
June 18, 2025
History confirms the existence of what we might call “fringe folks” in every society–people who, for whatever reason, have embraced conspiracy theories and/or rejected credible evidence of reality. The question for our age is: how did we get to a point where these deluded and arguably dangerous individuals have assumed authority? What has enabled a certified nutcase like RFK, Jr. to hold sway over the health of Americans, or a man seemingly devoid of contact with either knowledge or reality to become President of the United States?
As regular readers of this blog know, I attribute much of this state of affairs to our current information environment–a fragmented environment that allows Individuals to “curate” their preferred realities. (I used to tell the students in my Media and Public Affairs classes that if they really believed aliens had landed in Roswell, I could find them five internet sites with pictures of the aliens.…)
I think it is fair to say that one of the reasons for the proliferation of alternate media sources, including widespread propaganda outlets, has been the inadequacy of mainstream, “legacy” journalism. There’s a reason that so many of the most professional journalists have abandoned their positions with those legacy outlets and decamped to places like Substack–a reason why so many of us depend upon the daily reports from reputable scholars like Heather Cox Richardson and Paul Krugman, and look askance at news reporting that continues to “sanewash” and normalize behaviors that are objectively insane and abnormal.
A recent example: my husband and I were watching an NBC national news report on the shocking assault by administration goons on California Sen. Alex Padilla, when he tried to ask a question of Secretary Kristi Noem. The report repeated Noem’s assertion that the Senator had failed to identify himself. It didn’t call that assertion a lie, despite the fact that widely available video of the incident showed that Padilla had done so.
Shouldn’t we be able to rely on journalists to highlight lies being told by Trump’s collection of clowns and ideologues? Why has it been so difficult forlegacy media to call a lie a lie?
Recently, a reader shared with me an article from the Columbia Journalism Review, exploring that question. It began,
Perhaps the most basic task of journalism is to distinguish truth from falsity. To identify the facts, and to present those facts to a readership eager for information. Journalists may once have believed that their responsibility stopped there—but in today’s media environment, it’s become clear that delivering facts to the public is not so straightforward. Distinguishing true from false, which often entails calling attention to false information, risks amplifying and even legitimizing that information. There is no better contemporary example of this problem than the media coverage of Donald Trump.
Trump’s brazen dishonesty in his public comments is without political precedent in this country. During his first term, the Washington Post’s fact-checking database clocked 30,573 untruths. That rate shows no sign of slowing during his second term, and now he seems to be combating accusations of lying by simply manipulating who is allowed in the press pool.
Granted, as the article notes, journalistic norms weren’t created for a President like Trump. The belief that “both sides” of a situation should be covered ignores the reality that both sides often don’t deserve equal weight. (It also ignores the fact that many issues have more than two sides, but that’s a different problem.)
The article argues that legacy journalists need to find new ways to talk about false information–for example, not describing a tweet or statement as “racially charged,” but as racist; calling a lie a lie, not a “misleading statement.”
The Columbia Journalism Review is a respected journal, and I was happy to see that it was
taking on what has proved to be a hugely consequential problem, although its discussion is arguably too little and too late. Thousands–probably millions–of citizens now get their information (or misinformation/lies) from non-legacy sources, from the Internet’s wild west of sources peddling everything from informed analyses to ideological claptrap.
Journalists used to be gatekeepers, deciding what news was needed to keep the citizenry informed. There were certainly problems with that role, but I would argue that the information world we inhabit today–where each of us must be our own gatekeeper–is no improvement. Quite the contrary.
I wonder: If mainstream journalists had been doing their jobs these past couple of decades, would we now have a federal government composed of racist cranks and misfits and conspiracy theorists? I doubt it.
Sheila Suess Kennedy is Emerita Professor of Law and Public Policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. As an attorney, she practiced real estate, administrative and business law in Indianapolis before becoming corporation counsel for the City of Indianapolis in 1977. In 1980, she was the Republican candidate for Indiana’s then 1th Congressional District and in 1992, she became executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environment al Affairs in 1998.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
