The silent control of the press
New and emerging technologies coupled with the current state of the mid-2020s, where the rich is favored by multiple governments, leaves the field of journalism and it’s producers in a state of limbo.
You have the implementation of artificial intelligence in the newsroom with more than half of journalist using it to gather and spread information, according to the Associated Press. For a journalist to share information, it doesn’t take as much effort and time like it used too. The emerge of AI in newsroom points out how scarily fast news and information is spread.
It’s great that information spreads to the public easier. The public have a right to quick and fast information about the current state of the world. However, the state of journalism is in danger as the wealthy-who also influences the government-slowly buy out news outlets to monitor what’s going in and out of the newsroom. This snowballs into extremely biased and nonfactual information spreading rapidly.
I believe the current state of the press in the 2020s is flimsy. There is The Washington Post, privately owned by Jeff Bezos. The historically acclaimed New York Times, figuratively influenced by the company’s largest shareholders, the Sulzburger Family. At last, there is The Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch. These three publications are great powerhouses in their fields. The Washington Post has developed- as well as the other two -significant historical value as they set a foundation for modern investigative journalism, their famous project being Watergate. The New York Times, the eldest of the three, is also famously known for their investigative works such as the release of The Pentagon Papers. The Wall Street Journal sticks out among the three, as the publication set the foundation for financial and business journalism.
Before I delve into main thought, keep in mind I did not mention these powerhouses to bash them. All of these publications has positively impacted the field of journalism, and I hold a distant but certain level of respect due to history. I mentioned the outlets in order to point out the red flag. They are owned by billionaires. I wanted to showcase the concern critics have that has decreased the trust of large media outlets: modern journalism slowly shifting from being loyal to it’s citizens to being loyal to the wealthy and the government.
These wealthy individuals are silently controlling the media how they want. They don’t do it outwardly. The wealthy care about their reputation and image to a certain degree. They do it subtly. Very subtly. One way they can control the media is through feeding the public articles that are seemingly irrelevant and unnewsworthy, but catches attention to push a narrative.
An example of this would be the New York Times publishing an article about the New York Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, and his Columbia University application. The article was “newsworthy,” because when asked about his race on the application, Mamdani checked off Black or African American and Asian. He also added that he was Ugandan to emphasize his background. The article was criticized by the founder and editor of The Press Watch, Dan Froomkin, for it’s headline: Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application. Froomkin expressed frustration on how the headline misleads readers by expressing a weak accusation into something that sounds legitimate. The Times’ sources a hacker who found Mamdani’s Columbia University undergraduate application. Froomkin criticizes the source, “you don’t print articles based on hacked data unless they are truly news worthy.” I agree with Froomkin’s analysis on the Times’ article. I believe it’s irresponsible for mainstream outlets to rush to publish articles spreading unnecessary information to push an underlying political agenda.
The New York Times has been viewed as an outlet with a “liberal” bias to some critics, and has recently shifted to support the other side.
I don’t care about news outlets having a slight political bias, as it’s common and doesn’t necessarily go against journalism ethics. Bias is natural.
However, it’s necessary to question if the Time’s political shift is due to the billionaires behind it. I observed that the wealthy benefits from Trump’s second term, so it’s interesting to observe the Time’s political shift. When it comes to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, they share equal guilt.
A big example would be during the 2024 election. The Washington Post was planning to post an article endorsing Kamala Harris, but Jeff Bezos intervened and the article never published. This decision went against the Posts’ tradition, as they always endorsed presidential candidates since 1976.
The handling of Kamala’s endorsement was a major violation of journalistic integrity. It’s never the job of someone else, especially a billionaire, to stop the press from informing the public.
There’s another example to be explored.
The Wall Street Journal was criticized by it’s own staff during Trump’s first term for suppressing information about the Trump administration. According to a letter from it’s staff, the Journal tried to take an online graphic off of it’s sites because the facts were not “politically palatable,” according to the Columbia Journalism Review. This suppression of pure accurate news was because of the Journal’s editor-in-chief at the time, Gerard Baker, expressing his concerns about the graphic being “too liberal,” Columbia Journalism Review states.
The situation regarding The Wall Street Journal is a little different from the New York Times as it’s more of an Internal issue. An issue slightly separated from it’s rich owner. But it still highlights how easily an individual with higher power can influence the spread of information.
Most people who pay attention to the news are aware of the spread of misinformation even by the outlets that are professional and accredited. There’s a reason why there is a surge of independent journalist growing loyal audiences. People don’t want to feel under control anymore and left feeling “a fool.”
Moreover, it’s up to emerging journalist to fight for the freedom of press and the natural rights the public possess. There is a shift now. The bigger news outlets are noticing, and as their money decreases overtime they will scramble to find ways to adjust. In the end, it’s not the wealthy who determines where the everyday persons put their money.
