"Some of the world's most powerful people are conducting the same experiment: do audiences really want "both sides" treated equally? After Trump's reelection, CBS, Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show, the Washington Post, and othershave pursued a similar vision: an approach to news that allows Republicans and Democrats to make their cases with minimal interference from those doing the reporting. The evidence is in, and if you're an out-of-touch billionaire, the results might be surprising."
"But squint just a little closer, and the argument starts to fall apart. The old model assumed a shared factual baseline, and you got a quote from the other side because policy disagreement was happening within the bounds of reality. That's different from platforming someone to claim an election was stolen, or that January 6th was a tourist visit. Trump didn't light the old order on fire - you can thank the internet for that."
Powerful owners and media figures have tested a neutral 'both sides' approach that minimizes reporter intervention. Audience response shows rejection of false equivalence when factual baselines collapse. Pre-internet journalism relied on a shared factual baseline that justified soliciting opposing quotes. Platforming demonstrable falsehoods—such as stolen-election claims or calling January 6th a tourist visit—differs fundamentally from that model. Three groups push 'both sides': billionaires treating outlets as ancillary investments, cowardly managers avoiding conflict, and actors using neutrality as a cover to aid Donald Trump. High-profile ownership decisions, such as Jeff Bezos's purchase of the Washington Post, illustrate these tensions.
Read at Consequence
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]