More on Stupid, Cowardly Corporate Media [View all]

[ancianita]

Take this astounding example from a recent New York Times piece about Trump’s use of military force against boats in the Caribbean.

Some legal experts have called it a crime to summarily kill civilians not directly taking part in hostilities, even if they are believed to be smuggling drugs.

“Some legal experts?” Are you kidding me? Summarily executing civilians is a war crime under international law. This isn’t a matter of debate among competing schools of legal thought. There isn’t another camp of legal experts arguing that, actually, murdering civilians is totally fine. The Times is creating false balance where none exists, making it sound like there’s some reasonable disagreement about whether mass murder constitutes a crime.

Or consider this gem from CNN, fact-checking Trump’s claim that he reduced prescription drug prices by 1500%:

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

Experts say? You need experts to tell you that 1500% is more than 100%? This is elementary school math. A 100% reduction means something is free. A 1500% reduction would mean pharmaceutical companies are paying you a decent sum of money to take their pills. You don’t need to consult the National Academy of Sciences to determine this is bullshit—you need to remember fourth grade.

This kind of reporting is journalistic malpractice disguised as objectivity. When reporters feel compelled to add “experts say” to basic mathematical facts or treat war crimes as matters of legitimate debate, they’re not being neutral—they’re actively misleading their audience into believing basic facts are up for debate among “experts.”

The pattern is clear: mainstream media has become so terrified of appearing biased that they’ve abandoned their basic responsibility to clearly communicate truth to the public. They’d rather hide behind the false comfort of “some say” and “experts disagree” than plainly state obvious facts.

This isn’t objectivity—it’s cowardice. And it’s precisely why trust in media continues to crater.

There’s an old joke in the journalism field (with disputes over where it originated from) but the line is “if one person says it’s raining and another says it’s not, the journalist should look outside and report the truth” rather than suggesting whether or not it’s raining is a matter of dispute.

We’re seeing the opposite from the mainstream media these days.

... we get reporters who bury the most important quotes of their own interviews and editors who think basic arithmetic requires expert verification. Is it any wonder people are losing faith in institutions that seem incapable of simply stating reality on its own terms?

The media keeps wondering why trust in journalism is at historic lows. Here’s a thought:
maybe it’s because when the President reveals he’s making military decisions based on old Fox News footage and lies from his advisors, the reporter who got that admission decides it’s not worth mentioning.

Or maybe it’s because the likes of CNN and the NY Times are so worried about angry people attacking them for calling bullshit on the President that they have to cower behind “experts say” on basic objective facts.

That’s not journalism. That’s stenography. And the American people can tell the difference, even when their media apparently cannot.



https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/30/the-mainstream-media-is-catastrophically-failing-to-meet-the-moment/

NOTE: Techdirt, as a blog, always provides most of its content, including articles and podcasts, to anyone for free.
A central theme of Techdirt's reporting is criticizing what it views as the overreach and abuse of copyright law, particularly against individual internet users.