In a recent email exchange with one of my Substack subscribers, I was asked if I think the independent media (such as the Substack community I am building) can provide a “de-escalation” space that legacy media has largely abandoned.
I am not optimistic about today’s independent media. Most of its practitioners are untrained amateurs who lack the basic reportorial skills to gather accurate, fair, and balanced information.
In my opinion, news media watchdog organizations such as ProPublica, FRONTLINE, the Media Research Center, and the 117-year-old Society of Professional Journalists, which I have belonged to for 50 years, are not holding legacy and independent media accountable for providing the public with honest, unbiased news.
While some of the biased and dishonest journalism I see can be ascribed to deceitful hacks who are more propagandists than journalists, I think the news business is suffering from a crisis of competence.
That is arguably more dangerous than the bias itself. When the guardrails of professional standards and the basic reportorial skills are removed, the vacuum isn’t filled by objective truth; it’s filled by whoever can shout the loudest or confirm the most prejudices.
I spent almost 30 years as a foreign correspondent and editor with the Chicago Tribune and another decade as a tenured professor of journalism and dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois. Going from a professional newsroom to the classroom gave me both an up-close-and-personal, hands-on view and an abstract, 30,000-foot view of the media landscape.
As a consequence, I see a two-front failure in the “de-escalation” potential of media:
First, there is what I call the “Death of the ‘Process’.” In legacy media, the value isn’t just the person with the byline; it is the institutional process: the multi-layered editing, the legal review, and the standard of seeking a “comment for the record” from all sides.
There is also the “Amateur Problem.” Most independent creators are “teams of one.” Without an editor to challenge their assumptions or a set of ethics, such as the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, to guide them, they often drift into advocacy rather than journalism.
The result is predictable. We lose the common set of facts required for any real conversation.
Second is the Failure of Oversight. If organizations like the Society of Professional Journalists or publications like the Columbia Journalism Review aren’t seen as having “teeth,” then there is no professional cost for being wrong.
In the era when I was a practicing reporter/correspondent, a major correction in one’s story was a mark of shame. Today, in the digital economy, a controversial “take” (even if factually thin) is often rewarded with more subscribers and higher engagement.
This creates a perverse incentive structure: Accuracy is expensive and slow; outrage is cheap and fast.
That leaves me with a critical question. Is there a “Middle Path?”
While the amateur landscape is messy, a platform such as Substack represents a rare hybrid for journalists like me: an independent platform + professional pedigree.
The “de-escalation” space might not come from the “untrained amateurs,” but from those I call the “refugees of integrity”—experienced journalists who are bringing 30-40 years of professional training and experience to Substack.
In that respect, those journalists aren’t just “sharing an opinion”; they are applying a lifetime of reportorial discipline to a platform that often lacks it.
There is a cynical reality at work here. If the public no longer knows the difference between a sourced report and a viral thread, then even the best journalism becomes just another voice in the dissonance. If the audience doesn’t value the boring work of verification, the watchdog organizations lose their power because the public isn’t looking to them for a “seal of approval” anyway.
We haven’t just lost our trustworthy media—we’ve lost our standards for what constitutes news.
That leads me to another question: Is there any way to “re-train” a public that has become addicted to the dopamine hit of biased, amateur reporting, or has the “legacy” standard of objective truth become a relic of a bygone era?
The “dopamine hit” I mention is real. Algorithmic feeds on social media are designed to trigger emotional responses (outrage, validation, or fear) because those emotions drive engagement.
Objective truth is often nuanced, quiet, and occasionally boring. It doesn’t “trend” the way a biased, high-heat take does. If the public continues to equate “truth” with “how this makes me feel,” then the legacy standard of objective reporting risks becoming a relic.
While the vessels for news have changed, the necessity for a disciplined, objective standard hasn’t. But can the Public be retrained?
While it’s an uphill battle, there are three ways independent voices are attempting this re-education:
The “Slow News” Movement: Just as people turned to organic food after decades of processed options, there is a growing segment of the public “detoxing” from mainstream outrage loops. They are looking for long-form, thoughtful analysis that respects their intelligence rather than insulting it.
Via Radical Transparency: Since the public has lost trust in “institutional” objectivity (a recent Gallup Poll showed just 28 Percent of Americans trust the legacy media) independent journalists are winning by showing their work. Providing direct links to primary sources and explaining the reporting process helps rebuild the trust that amateur, biased “influencers” lack.
The Subscription Model: By moving away from ad-supported clicks, platforms like Substack allow creators to prioritize accuracy over virality. When a reader pays for my work, they aren’t the product being sold to advertisers; they are a patron of the truth.
I think that while the channels for consuming news have changed, the need for a disciplined, objective standard hasn’t.
I would like to end this post with a “Call to Action” that specifically asks my readers and subscribers how they personally vet the information they see on social media. Please look at the three questions I pose below and let me know what you think by hitting the “Leave a Comment” button on Substack or the Comments option on my website.
- When you see a headline on social media that immediately triggers an emotional reaction—whether it’s anger or validation—what is your first move? Do you look for a second source, or do you hit the ‘share’ button first?
- Many of us grew up in an era where ‘objective truth’ was the goal, if not always the reality. Do you think we can ever return to that standard, or has the media landscape shifted too far toward entertainment and bias?
- As we move further into the era of independent media, what is the one thing you look for in a writer that proves they are worth your time and trust?
Thanks for reading my analysis and, if you choose to, taking the time to discuss this important topic with me.
–30–
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to ForeignCorrespondent and tell your friends to subscribe. “It’s free—what a deal!” If you’ve received this from a friend and would like to be added to our distribution list for future blog posts, simply enter your email in the notifications box to sign up:
https://ronaldyatesbooks.com/category/foreign-correspondent.
You can also find my commentaries on Substack at https://ronyates.substack.com/ and the American Free News Network at https://afnn.us.
Please feel free to comment: We genuinely love hearing from you!
