This is why I've largely jettisoned legacy and corporate media. They routinely engage in bad faith laundering. I'm working on once it becomes a pattern, they're out philosopy. Even when a print or video story does delve responsibly into the complexities of a given issue, they almost invariably contain insane throw away lines or guest shots from irresponsible actors laundering and giving oxygen to their corrosive viewpoints into the public sphere. This is how we got trump. He is the noxious product of the media sphere.
And the headlines! Knowing that most people scan headlines but don't read the attending articles deeply or at all, especially the paywalled publications, those pernicious headlines that launder insanity is what people are going to see. I'm looking at you New York Times. I recently quit supporting the Atlantic and Guardian over sane-washing the administrations talking points, fangirling Bari Weiss (Atlantic's final straw) and propping up tech-bro bad actors. It was a pattern. I complained each time with specifics. $181 and $350 a year, buh-bye. I sent that money to the ACLU.
Democratic Party Branding: Indivisible Support In Democratic Primaries
The most unpopular politician in America right now is Chuck Schumer Suprising? Not if you realize that the Democratic party as a whole is unpopular Why especially when the country is undergoing a Nazi Republican fascist takeover of the government? Because the electorate has become distrusting of D leadership who have concentrated power and wealth and not represented WE the People
WE believe that elections cannot be bought $$$ have destroyed our voting systems and the crypto industry wants to concentrate power with their dollars Musk found that out in Wisconsin in the state 2022 SC race and most recently in the NJ CD 10 Malinowski D primary
So Indivisible national in partnership with local Indivisible groups are endorsing what WE the People feel are candidates who should be supported and who offer holding electeds accountable
Brad Lander vs Dan Goldman(Goldman qualified but taking $$ from crypto industry and 80-90% of Indivisible in CD10 endorsed Lander DNC leadership including Goldman didn’t back Mandami and the party needs to get behind the D after the primaries and defeat the fascists) NY CD10
Peggy Flanigan vs Angie Craig(Craig has voted to endorse ICE in the House) Senate Mn to replace Klobuchar running for Mn governor
Jasmine Clark vs David Scott(Scott has been a complete no show as D representative and constituents have had enough) Ga CD13
I used to enjoy watching Meet the Press with Tim Russert. After he died, not so much. I'd get frustrated with the hosts because they don't ask a follow up question when a guest lies or gives a non-answer. They just nod their heads or say uh huh, and move on the next question. What's happened to the "why" part of the five w's in journalism? Isn't that part of getting to the truth, or is the "why do you think/say that" just giving them oxygen?
Why do journalists want a one on one interview with Trump. He lies, he brags about false accomplishments, he generalizes, he deflects, he projects, and he personally attacks the interviewer on the rare occasion they do call him out. Talk about someone sucking all the oxygen out of the room.
I truly appreciate the term "don't give it oxygen." I'm terrible about that, giving life to things long after they should have naturally died. I absolutely appreciate the entire piece, but that part especially resonated with me today.
Oxygen journalism may be more of a reflection of the deep pockets of corporate media versus the litigiousness of MAGA. Everything is "alleged" and the obvious a question to stave off the lawyers. The solution is a better system for civil suits where the jury has the option of punishing the frivolous filers. It's not justice when the cost of the defense is greater than settling a frivolous lawsuit.
This is why I don’t watch CNN. Actually, I cannot stand the lies. Although I am an old (75) white woman, I do have an A.A. and a B.A. in journalism. We learned early what propaganda is, how to recognize and avoid it. But I will not sit and listen to the liars. It’s not just a different point of view; it is flat out promoting lies, as you are writing. Thank you for starting this important conversation. Love, Susan
❤️❤️💙💙 Susan — I’m right there with you. I don’t watch CNN either. The only time I ever see it is when it hits my YouTube rabbit hole, and even then I can’t spend much time on it before I have to click out. It’s exhausting.
And I really appreciate you sharing your background in journalism, because you’re naming the exact distinction that gets blurred on purpose: this isn’t “a different point of view.” It’s propaganda techniques dressed up as balance — the kind of thing you were trained to recognize early because you were actually taught what misinformation looks like and how it operates.
That’s why the “both sides” framing is so corrosive. It turns verification into a style choice, and it turns lying into a legitimate seat at the table. And once you normalize that, the audience ends up spending their time adjudicating reality instead of demanding accountability.
Thank you for being here, for supporting the work, and for calling it what it is. Love right back, Susan. ❤️❤️💙💙
Gary — exactly. That’s the part that drives me up the wall: a lie doesn’t become “balanced” just because it’s delivered calmly in a blazer with good lighting.
Wrong is wrong, and “polite” misinformation is still misinformation. The performance of seriousness is how oxygen journalism slips poison into the room and calls it “debate.”
The 'both sides' argument. "And now, we have the Angel Gabriel here to debate Lucifer himself as to the efficacy of sin". And Old Scratch wins handily as he appeals to the baser instincts of the audience and lies like the Master of Lies he is.
There is 'right or wrong' in this world. I can remember a time not so far back when the right pummeled those whose viewpoint made things they didn't agree with because they were embracing 'wrongness'. Not that the actual subject was wrong, but the right didn't want to provide 'oxygen' to the idea that others have rights, and needs, and are due respect for their differences. Today the right promotes 'alternate facts' (or is it 'alternate reality?) and wants people to believe that what they are saying, devoid of substance, is real. How should it be handled? A reply: "I can present evidence to show that what you are saying is a lie. Can you now present evidence that it is not?" The person being questioned immediately shifts direction and ignores the query, acting like it never happened; or doubles down on the big lie.
The Trump era is the era of state supported, or blessed, violence against their perceived enemies, AKA human beings. Whether it's the Tiki Torch carrying thugs in Charlottesville or the numerous incidents of violence against people using their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest, the Trumpians think that their 'king' has the right to squash any and all resistance to his will.
As for today's corporate 'journalism'. Humpf. I grew up in the days of Chet and David, and Walter Cronkite. They were there to give straight forward coverage of the issues, and the newsroom was not looked upon as a profit center. The Fourth Estate had a duty to truthfully inform. But today, the cowardous or collusion of the powers on high silence anyone who steps out of line with what varies from their own opinions or those of the government which might interfere with their operations.
Word trickery is absolutely wrong. Pretending that stuff don't stink and encouraging people to sniff it is wrong. The 'context' argument: Bulls___. It's always Bulls___ when it's from the authorities. When a fully armored and heavily armed agent of the government, alone or with assists, starts to roughly handle (at best) any person, unless they have a weapon pulled and with the physical strength to use it, then they are way overstepping their bounds. 'The felt threatened'. Sad. Perhaps the authorities are hiring people who aren't exactly strong emotionally to begin with. Perhaps they're hiring people they know will overreact, and are prepared to stand behind them with this old saw. 'Obstruction' Though we have a First Amendment that guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble to protest to their government, this is the most restricted right in the entire Bill of Rights. Anyone standing up to authority and voicing their disdain is 'obstructing' the questionable, if not unlawful, activity of the government.
The sad part is, that the 'news' establishment in America thinks that their viewers have no access to less varnished truths. Example, NBC hiding the booing of Mini-Me Vance at the Olympics opening ceremony while the rest of the free world heard it clearly. Writers will write truth, whether it has audience in the here and now or not. It will surface at some point. Arresting (at best) writers and speakers who disagree with the government POV only gives more credence to their points.
There are few on today's news, print or video, that I choose to listen to, for various reasons. Absolutely nothing from the right. My heart does not need the anguish it brings. Network coverage? Not at all since your arguments sum up why it's a waste of my time. On the 'left', I stopped watching Rachel and Lawrence because of their predictability. Yes, I agree with them, but living in an eco chamber does not serve me. The exception is Nicolle Wallace, who is certainly not a liberal nor is she a conservative, regardless of her past credentials. Deadline: White House has far better panels than almost any other program out there.
OldnTired, there’s a lot in your comment and I appreciate the depth of it.
Your Angel Gabriel vs. Lucifer analogy is sharp because it captures the asymmetry problem. When one side is arguing in good faith and the other is appealing to instinct, grievance, or outright fabrication, a “balanced” debate becomes a performance, not an exchange of ideas. The audience doesn’t see symmetry — they see spectacle. And spectacle often wins.
You’re also right that there is right and wrong in the world. Not everything is a gray-area philosophical dispute. Some claims are empirically false. When someone responds to evidence by pivoting, deflecting, or doubling down, that’s not a healthy democratic exchange — that’s narrative warfare. And treating that as just another respectable viewpoint is part of the problem I’m writing about.
On the violence and intimidation point: what concerns me most is the normalization. When threats, strong-arm tactics, or rhetorical dehumanization get reframed as “politics as usual,” the guardrails weaken. Once that happens, media coverage often shifts from accountability to context-setting — explaining motives instead of evaluating actions.
Your comparison to Cronkite is important. Walter Cronkite didn’t treat truth as left or right. He treated it as truth. That’s the distinction. The job wasn’t to split the difference between facts and falsehoods. It was to inform the public as accurately as possible, even if that displeased someone in power. The Fourth Estate function wasn’t performative balance — it was verification.
On today’s corporate journalism: the profit center shift matters. When newsrooms become revenue engines, access and advertiser comfort start shaping tone. That doesn’t mean every journalist is compromised. But it does mean structural incentives have changed.
You also raised the “context” argument. Context is valuable when it clarifies facts. It becomes corrosive when it’s used to soften or obscure them. There’s a difference between explaining circumstances and laundering misconduct through euphemism.
As for your media consumption point: I understand the fatigue. Echo chambers don’t serve anyone, but neither does constant exposure to bad-faith content. It’s reasonable to be selective. On Nicole Wallace — I agree with you. Her having conservative leanings on some issues is completely fine. That’s not the issue. A range of ideological perspectives is healthy. What I object to are commentators who knowingly distort facts and then demand equal footing in debate. Ideological difference is not the same thing as dishonesty.
Your larger point — that writers committed to truth endure even when the immediate audience is small — is historically sound. Serious reporting often feels drowned out in the moment. But it accumulates. It documents. It becomes record.
Thank you for engaging at this level. Even where people may disagree on emphasis, the core issue you’re pointing to is the same one I’m trying to surface: truth is not partisan, and it shouldn’t be treated like it is.
Good take. I would add that it goes beyond this to the proliferation of discussion over reporting in the first place and the answer to why that happened is, like so many things, money, honey. It costs a lot less to put a half-dozen people in a room around a table than to send a reporter and photographer/videographer out covering a story. The result is most of us know less but feel more strongly about what we do know.
You nailed the economics of it: discussion is cheaper than reporting. A panel is a studio expense. Real journalism is flights, time, FOIA requests, camera crews, producers, editors, and the risk of upsetting powerful people who control access. So they swap investigation for conversation and then pretend the conversation is the investigation.
And that “money, honey” line is dead on. It’s profit incentives all the way down: it costs less to put six people around a table than to send one reporter into the field to actually learn something new.
Your last sentence might be the most important part: we know less but feel more strongly about what we do know. That’s the toxic output of the whole system. The audience walks away emotionally charged, not better informed — because the format rewards certainty, not accuracy. It rewards the loudest take, not the best evidence.
That’s oxygen journalism in the wild: a cheaper product that still keeps the ratings machine fed. ❤️❤️
I love your metaphor and definition. It shows how corrosive and misguided “bothsides” journalism is. I just wish actual journalists, especially top editors who decide what gets covered and how, could see what they’re doing. The Piers Morgans know why they do it. But it’s the high minded NYT etc that seems to believe this IS journalism, the only way to do it “fairly.”
“But her emails” and “but he’s old” has become shorthand for me for the dilemma you describe so well:
“Attention sustains. Attention keeps things alive. Attention can make something small feel big, something unserious feel legitimate, and something evil feel like just another topic that deserves a calm, balanced, respectable debate.
That’s oxygen journalism.
Oxygen journalism is when corporate media breathes life into narratives that should’ve died on contact with reality. It’s the decision to treat attention like it’s harmless, like it’s just “coverage,” when in practice it becomes a ventilator for lies, bad faith, and manufactured controversy. It’s the constant platforming of “debates” over things we already know—like climate change and vaccine efficacy …”
You’re absolutely right that some actors — like Piers Morgan types — know exactly what they’re doing. Outrage is the product. But what troubles me more is what you’re pointing to: the high-minded institutional outlets that genuinely believe this is “fairness.” That if they just put two people in chairs across from each other, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to the public.
That’s how “but her emails” and “but he’s old” became shorthand for moral flattening. It’s how trivial things get inflated and serious things get diluted until everything feels like just another topic for polite discussion.
Your paragraph on attention sustaining things is the core of it. Attention is not neutral. It legitimizes. It scales. It normalizes.
And the COVID vaccine coverage is a perfect example of how detestable that dynamic became. The science was clear. The data was clear. The global research community was aligned in a way that is actually rare. But because one political faction decided to treat public health as a culture war, mainstream outlets treated settled science as if it were just another “perspective.”
While I absolutely blame the president at the time — he knew the pandemic was legitimate, but he resented how it inconvenienced him politically — the media’s role in turning vaccines into a both-sides spectacle made it worse. Once you frame epidemiology like it’s a partisan opinion, you’ve already surrendered the ground. You’ve taken something rooted in research and turned it into a personality debate.
That’s oxygen journalism at its most corrosive: when life-and-death science gets packaged like cable news theater.
What you wrote about climate change and vaccine efficacy being treated as “debates” really gets at the heart of it. When institutions confuse performance of balance with pursuit of truth, the public ends up less informed but more emotionally charged.
Thank you for articulating it the way you did. That comment alone could be its own piece.
Well said. I often envision a news channel hosting s debate between a flat earther and an astronomer, and treating both sides as legitimate viewpoints.
Jon — exactly. That flat-earther vs. astronomer example is the perfect snapshot of how “both sides” turns into credibility cosplay. One side is bringing vibes and a YouTube playlist, the other side is bringing physics — and the audience gets told the responsible position is to “hear them out.”
That’s oxygen journalism in a nutshell: treating settled reality like it’s just another opinion so the segment can stay “balanced,” the host can stay “civil,” and the network can keep the conflict going. Appreciate you putting it that cleanly.
Finally! As a Libra, I have often done the both sides argument in my head while trying to write my "Letters to editors" and your article was freeing. This admin--oops--regime is so clearly more corrupt, dangerous and disgustingly power hungry than ANY democratic admin in history. Thanks for giving that fact...oxygen!
❤️💙❤️💙🙏🏾🙏🏾 Thank you, Jan — I really appreciate you.
And I love how you put that: the “both sides argument” running in your head while you’re trying to write. That’s exactly how oxygen journalism sneaks in — it trains good-faith people to pre-compromise with bad faith before they even finish a sentence.
You’re also right about the “admin—oops—regime” point. When one side is openly corrupt, power-hungry, and willing to break norms to get what it wants, treating that as just another routine partisan disagreement isn’t “balance.” It’s mislabeling reality. Sometimes the most responsible thing you can do is stop performing neutrality and just tell the truth clearly.
And that last line you wrote — “thanks for giving that fact…oxygen!” — is exactly the point. Facts shouldn’t need oxygen. But here we are. ❤️💙🙏🏾
Thank you Kristoffer! This was an important piece that I hope many read. I've been studying our media industry since Trump came on the scene and I am convinced the media is anything but "liberal" as MAGA love to parrot. We've been conditioned to think FOX is rightwing and CNN is leftwing. That's not the case. I don't know why CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC report the way they do but it has very little to do with journalism.
Joe, I really appreciate you saying that — and thank you for being a paid subscriber. That support matters more than you know.
You’re absolutely right about the conditioning piece. A lot of Americans have been trained to think in a cartoon spectrum: FOX = right, CNN = left, and everything else just sort of floats in between. But what we actually have is one openly partisan network and several corporate networks that are primarily driven by access, ratings, shareholder pressure, and risk aversion — not ideology.
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC — they’re not “left-wing.” They’re institutional. They protect their access to power. They platform bad faith under the banner of balance. They normalize extremism by treating it as one side of a legitimate debate instead of identifying it as what it is. That’s not liberalism. That’s oxygen journalism.
And to your point about it having very little to do with journalism — I’d frame it this way: it has very little to do with accountability journalism. It has everything to do with conflict packaging. Debate is cheaper than investigation. Panels are cheaper than field reporting. False equivalence is safer than clarity.
The irony is that when people call the corporate press “liberal,” they’re often responding to cultural tone, not power analysis. But when it comes to structural power, corporate media has consistently shown it is far more comfortable protecting institutions than challenging them.
That’s why this conversation matters. If we misdiagnose the problem as “left bias,” we never fix the actual disease: profit-driven normalization of extremism.
Glad you’re thinking about it this deeply. That’s how we keep the oxygen where it belongs.
Kristoffer,
Great discourse on a topic of shared interest. A dissertation on how I feel about giving additional oxygen to fabricators. Thanks!
Outstanding commentary, Kristoffer! A new way to operationalize "click-bait."
This is why I've largely jettisoned legacy and corporate media. They routinely engage in bad faith laundering. I'm working on once it becomes a pattern, they're out philosopy. Even when a print or video story does delve responsibly into the complexities of a given issue, they almost invariably contain insane throw away lines or guest shots from irresponsible actors laundering and giving oxygen to their corrosive viewpoints into the public sphere. This is how we got trump. He is the noxious product of the media sphere.
And the headlines! Knowing that most people scan headlines but don't read the attending articles deeply or at all, especially the paywalled publications, those pernicious headlines that launder insanity is what people are going to see. I'm looking at you New York Times. I recently quit supporting the Atlantic and Guardian over sane-washing the administrations talking points, fangirling Bari Weiss (Atlantic's final straw) and propping up tech-bro bad actors. It was a pattern. I complained each time with specifics. $181 and $350 a year, buh-bye. I sent that money to the ACLU.
I'm. Not. Having. It,
Democratic Party Branding: Indivisible Support In Democratic Primaries
The most unpopular politician in America right now is Chuck Schumer Suprising? Not if you realize that the Democratic party as a whole is unpopular Why especially when the country is undergoing a Nazi Republican fascist takeover of the government? Because the electorate has become distrusting of D leadership who have concentrated power and wealth and not represented WE the People
WE believe that elections cannot be bought $$$ have destroyed our voting systems and the crypto industry wants to concentrate power with their dollars Musk found that out in Wisconsin in the state 2022 SC race and most recently in the NJ CD 10 Malinowski D primary
So Indivisible national in partnership with local Indivisible groups are endorsing what WE the People feel are candidates who should be supported and who offer holding electeds accountable
Brad Lander vs Dan Goldman(Goldman qualified but taking $$ from crypto industry and 80-90% of Indivisible in CD10 endorsed Lander DNC leadership including Goldman didn’t back Mandami and the party needs to get behind the D after the primaries and defeat the fascists) NY CD10
Peggy Flanigan vs Angie Craig(Craig has voted to endorse ICE in the House) Senate Mn to replace Klobuchar running for Mn governor
Jasmine Clark vs David Scott(Scott has been a complete no show as D representative and constituents have had enough) Ga CD13
I used to enjoy watching Meet the Press with Tim Russert. After he died, not so much. I'd get frustrated with the hosts because they don't ask a follow up question when a guest lies or gives a non-answer. They just nod their heads or say uh huh, and move on the next question. What's happened to the "why" part of the five w's in journalism? Isn't that part of getting to the truth, or is the "why do you think/say that" just giving them oxygen?
Why do journalists want a one on one interview with Trump. He lies, he brags about false accomplishments, he generalizes, he deflects, he projects, and he personally attacks the interviewer on the rare occasion they do call him out. Talk about someone sucking all the oxygen out of the room.
I truly appreciate the term "don't give it oxygen." I'm terrible about that, giving life to things long after they should have naturally died. I absolutely appreciate the entire piece, but that part especially resonated with me today.
Oxygen journalism may be more of a reflection of the deep pockets of corporate media versus the litigiousness of MAGA. Everything is "alleged" and the obvious a question to stave off the lawyers. The solution is a better system for civil suits where the jury has the option of punishing the frivolous filers. It's not justice when the cost of the defense is greater than settling a frivolous lawsuit.
I really hate the "alleged" especially when it's right there on video and admitted to.
This is why I don’t watch CNN. Actually, I cannot stand the lies. Although I am an old (75) white woman, I do have an A.A. and a B.A. in journalism. We learned early what propaganda is, how to recognize and avoid it. But I will not sit and listen to the liars. It’s not just a different point of view; it is flat out promoting lies, as you are writing. Thank you for starting this important conversation. Love, Susan
❤️❤️💙💙 Susan — I’m right there with you. I don’t watch CNN either. The only time I ever see it is when it hits my YouTube rabbit hole, and even then I can’t spend much time on it before I have to click out. It’s exhausting.
And I really appreciate you sharing your background in journalism, because you’re naming the exact distinction that gets blurred on purpose: this isn’t “a different point of view.” It’s propaganda techniques dressed up as balance — the kind of thing you were trained to recognize early because you were actually taught what misinformation looks like and how it operates.
That’s why the “both sides” framing is so corrosive. It turns verification into a style choice, and it turns lying into a legitimate seat at the table. And once you normalize that, the audience ends up spending their time adjudicating reality instead of demanding accountability.
Thank you for being here, for supporting the work, and for calling it what it is. Love right back, Susan. ❤️❤️💙💙
Oh, it is. Wrong is wrong no matter how calmly or dressed up it is stated.
Gary — exactly. That’s the part that drives me up the wall: a lie doesn’t become “balanced” just because it’s delivered calmly in a blazer with good lighting.
Wrong is wrong, and “polite” misinformation is still misinformation. The performance of seriousness is how oxygen journalism slips poison into the room and calls it “debate.”
So very true, Kristoffer.
Excellent as always.
Thanks, Alan.
The 'both sides' argument. "And now, we have the Angel Gabriel here to debate Lucifer himself as to the efficacy of sin". And Old Scratch wins handily as he appeals to the baser instincts of the audience and lies like the Master of Lies he is.
There is 'right or wrong' in this world. I can remember a time not so far back when the right pummeled those whose viewpoint made things they didn't agree with because they were embracing 'wrongness'. Not that the actual subject was wrong, but the right didn't want to provide 'oxygen' to the idea that others have rights, and needs, and are due respect for their differences. Today the right promotes 'alternate facts' (or is it 'alternate reality?) and wants people to believe that what they are saying, devoid of substance, is real. How should it be handled? A reply: "I can present evidence to show that what you are saying is a lie. Can you now present evidence that it is not?" The person being questioned immediately shifts direction and ignores the query, acting like it never happened; or doubles down on the big lie.
The Trump era is the era of state supported, or blessed, violence against their perceived enemies, AKA human beings. Whether it's the Tiki Torch carrying thugs in Charlottesville or the numerous incidents of violence against people using their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest, the Trumpians think that their 'king' has the right to squash any and all resistance to his will.
As for today's corporate 'journalism'. Humpf. I grew up in the days of Chet and David, and Walter Cronkite. They were there to give straight forward coverage of the issues, and the newsroom was not looked upon as a profit center. The Fourth Estate had a duty to truthfully inform. But today, the cowardous or collusion of the powers on high silence anyone who steps out of line with what varies from their own opinions or those of the government which might interfere with their operations.
Word trickery is absolutely wrong. Pretending that stuff don't stink and encouraging people to sniff it is wrong. The 'context' argument: Bulls___. It's always Bulls___ when it's from the authorities. When a fully armored and heavily armed agent of the government, alone or with assists, starts to roughly handle (at best) any person, unless they have a weapon pulled and with the physical strength to use it, then they are way overstepping their bounds. 'The felt threatened'. Sad. Perhaps the authorities are hiring people who aren't exactly strong emotionally to begin with. Perhaps they're hiring people they know will overreact, and are prepared to stand behind them with this old saw. 'Obstruction' Though we have a First Amendment that guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble to protest to their government, this is the most restricted right in the entire Bill of Rights. Anyone standing up to authority and voicing their disdain is 'obstructing' the questionable, if not unlawful, activity of the government.
The sad part is, that the 'news' establishment in America thinks that their viewers have no access to less varnished truths. Example, NBC hiding the booing of Mini-Me Vance at the Olympics opening ceremony while the rest of the free world heard it clearly. Writers will write truth, whether it has audience in the here and now or not. It will surface at some point. Arresting (at best) writers and speakers who disagree with the government POV only gives more credence to their points.
There are few on today's news, print or video, that I choose to listen to, for various reasons. Absolutely nothing from the right. My heart does not need the anguish it brings. Network coverage? Not at all since your arguments sum up why it's a waste of my time. On the 'left', I stopped watching Rachel and Lawrence because of their predictability. Yes, I agree with them, but living in an eco chamber does not serve me. The exception is Nicolle Wallace, who is certainly not a liberal nor is she a conservative, regardless of her past credentials. Deadline: White House has far better panels than almost any other program out there.
OldnTired, there’s a lot in your comment and I appreciate the depth of it.
Your Angel Gabriel vs. Lucifer analogy is sharp because it captures the asymmetry problem. When one side is arguing in good faith and the other is appealing to instinct, grievance, or outright fabrication, a “balanced” debate becomes a performance, not an exchange of ideas. The audience doesn’t see symmetry — they see spectacle. And spectacle often wins.
You’re also right that there is right and wrong in the world. Not everything is a gray-area philosophical dispute. Some claims are empirically false. When someone responds to evidence by pivoting, deflecting, or doubling down, that’s not a healthy democratic exchange — that’s narrative warfare. And treating that as just another respectable viewpoint is part of the problem I’m writing about.
On the violence and intimidation point: what concerns me most is the normalization. When threats, strong-arm tactics, or rhetorical dehumanization get reframed as “politics as usual,” the guardrails weaken. Once that happens, media coverage often shifts from accountability to context-setting — explaining motives instead of evaluating actions.
Your comparison to Cronkite is important. Walter Cronkite didn’t treat truth as left or right. He treated it as truth. That’s the distinction. The job wasn’t to split the difference between facts and falsehoods. It was to inform the public as accurately as possible, even if that displeased someone in power. The Fourth Estate function wasn’t performative balance — it was verification.
On today’s corporate journalism: the profit center shift matters. When newsrooms become revenue engines, access and advertiser comfort start shaping tone. That doesn’t mean every journalist is compromised. But it does mean structural incentives have changed.
You also raised the “context” argument. Context is valuable when it clarifies facts. It becomes corrosive when it’s used to soften or obscure them. There’s a difference between explaining circumstances and laundering misconduct through euphemism.
As for your media consumption point: I understand the fatigue. Echo chambers don’t serve anyone, but neither does constant exposure to bad-faith content. It’s reasonable to be selective. On Nicole Wallace — I agree with you. Her having conservative leanings on some issues is completely fine. That’s not the issue. A range of ideological perspectives is healthy. What I object to are commentators who knowingly distort facts and then demand equal footing in debate. Ideological difference is not the same thing as dishonesty.
Your larger point — that writers committed to truth endure even when the immediate audience is small — is historically sound. Serious reporting often feels drowned out in the moment. But it accumulates. It documents. It becomes record.
Thank you for engaging at this level. Even where people may disagree on emphasis, the core issue you’re pointing to is the same one I’m trying to surface: truth is not partisan, and it shouldn’t be treated like it is.
Good take. I would add that it goes beyond this to the proliferation of discussion over reporting in the first place and the answer to why that happened is, like so many things, money, honey. It costs a lot less to put a half-dozen people in a room around a table than to send a reporter and photographer/videographer out covering a story. The result is most of us know less but feel more strongly about what we do know.
❤️❤️❤️ Postcards — yes. Exactly this.
You nailed the economics of it: discussion is cheaper than reporting. A panel is a studio expense. Real journalism is flights, time, FOIA requests, camera crews, producers, editors, and the risk of upsetting powerful people who control access. So they swap investigation for conversation and then pretend the conversation is the investigation.
And that “money, honey” line is dead on. It’s profit incentives all the way down: it costs less to put six people around a table than to send one reporter into the field to actually learn something new.
Your last sentence might be the most important part: we know less but feel more strongly about what we do know. That’s the toxic output of the whole system. The audience walks away emotionally charged, not better informed — because the format rewards certainty, not accuracy. It rewards the loudest take, not the best evidence.
That’s oxygen journalism in the wild: a cheaper product that still keeps the ratings machine fed. ❤️❤️
I love your metaphor and definition. It shows how corrosive and misguided “bothsides” journalism is. I just wish actual journalists, especially top editors who decide what gets covered and how, could see what they’re doing. The Piers Morgans know why they do it. But it’s the high minded NYT etc that seems to believe this IS journalism, the only way to do it “fairly.”
“But her emails” and “but he’s old” has become shorthand for me for the dilemma you describe so well:
“Attention sustains. Attention keeps things alive. Attention can make something small feel big, something unserious feel legitimate, and something evil feel like just another topic that deserves a calm, balanced, respectable debate.
That’s oxygen journalism.
Oxygen journalism is when corporate media breathes life into narratives that should’ve died on contact with reality. It’s the decision to treat attention like it’s harmless, like it’s just “coverage,” when in practice it becomes a ventilator for lies, bad faith, and manufactured controversy. It’s the constant platforming of “debates” over things we already know—like climate change and vaccine efficacy …”
Kelsey, this is such a sharp way to frame it.
You’re absolutely right that some actors — like Piers Morgan types — know exactly what they’re doing. Outrage is the product. But what troubles me more is what you’re pointing to: the high-minded institutional outlets that genuinely believe this is “fairness.” That if they just put two people in chairs across from each other, they’ve fulfilled their obligation to the public.
That’s how “but her emails” and “but he’s old” became shorthand for moral flattening. It’s how trivial things get inflated and serious things get diluted until everything feels like just another topic for polite discussion.
Your paragraph on attention sustaining things is the core of it. Attention is not neutral. It legitimizes. It scales. It normalizes.
And the COVID vaccine coverage is a perfect example of how detestable that dynamic became. The science was clear. The data was clear. The global research community was aligned in a way that is actually rare. But because one political faction decided to treat public health as a culture war, mainstream outlets treated settled science as if it were just another “perspective.”
While I absolutely blame the president at the time — he knew the pandemic was legitimate, but he resented how it inconvenienced him politically — the media’s role in turning vaccines into a both-sides spectacle made it worse. Once you frame epidemiology like it’s a partisan opinion, you’ve already surrendered the ground. You’ve taken something rooted in research and turned it into a personality debate.
That’s oxygen journalism at its most corrosive: when life-and-death science gets packaged like cable news theater.
What you wrote about climate change and vaccine efficacy being treated as “debates” really gets at the heart of it. When institutions confuse performance of balance with pursuit of truth, the public ends up less informed but more emotionally charged.
Thank you for articulating it the way you did. That comment alone could be its own piece.
Well said. I often envision a news channel hosting s debate between a flat earther and an astronomer, and treating both sides as legitimate viewpoints.
Jon — exactly. That flat-earther vs. astronomer example is the perfect snapshot of how “both sides” turns into credibility cosplay. One side is bringing vibes and a YouTube playlist, the other side is bringing physics — and the audience gets told the responsible position is to “hear them out.”
That’s oxygen journalism in a nutshell: treating settled reality like it’s just another opinion so the segment can stay “balanced,” the host can stay “civil,” and the network can keep the conflict going. Appreciate you putting it that cleanly.
Finally! As a Libra, I have often done the both sides argument in my head while trying to write my "Letters to editors" and your article was freeing. This admin--oops--regime is so clearly more corrupt, dangerous and disgustingly power hungry than ANY democratic admin in history. Thanks for giving that fact...oxygen!
❤️💙❤️💙🙏🏾🙏🏾 Thank you, Jan — I really appreciate you.
And I love how you put that: the “both sides argument” running in your head while you’re trying to write. That’s exactly how oxygen journalism sneaks in — it trains good-faith people to pre-compromise with bad faith before they even finish a sentence.
You’re also right about the “admin—oops—regime” point. When one side is openly corrupt, power-hungry, and willing to break norms to get what it wants, treating that as just another routine partisan disagreement isn’t “balance.” It’s mislabeling reality. Sometimes the most responsible thing you can do is stop performing neutrality and just tell the truth clearly.
And that last line you wrote — “thanks for giving that fact…oxygen!” — is exactly the point. Facts shouldn’t need oxygen. But here we are. ❤️💙🙏🏾
Thank you Kristoffer! This was an important piece that I hope many read. I've been studying our media industry since Trump came on the scene and I am convinced the media is anything but "liberal" as MAGA love to parrot. We've been conditioned to think FOX is rightwing and CNN is leftwing. That's not the case. I don't know why CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC report the way they do but it has very little to do with journalism.
Joe, I really appreciate you saying that — and thank you for being a paid subscriber. That support matters more than you know.
You’re absolutely right about the conditioning piece. A lot of Americans have been trained to think in a cartoon spectrum: FOX = right, CNN = left, and everything else just sort of floats in between. But what we actually have is one openly partisan network and several corporate networks that are primarily driven by access, ratings, shareholder pressure, and risk aversion — not ideology.
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC — they’re not “left-wing.” They’re institutional. They protect their access to power. They platform bad faith under the banner of balance. They normalize extremism by treating it as one side of a legitimate debate instead of identifying it as what it is. That’s not liberalism. That’s oxygen journalism.
And to your point about it having very little to do with journalism — I’d frame it this way: it has very little to do with accountability journalism. It has everything to do with conflict packaging. Debate is cheaper than investigation. Panels are cheaper than field reporting. False equivalence is safer than clarity.
The irony is that when people call the corporate press “liberal,” they’re often responding to cultural tone, not power analysis. But when it comes to structural power, corporate media has consistently shown it is far more comfortable protecting institutions than challenging them.
That’s why this conversation matters. If we misdiagnose the problem as “left bias,” we never fix the actual disease: profit-driven normalization of extremism.
Glad you’re thinking about it this deeply. That’s how we keep the oxygen where it belongs.