When Journalism Fails: "Surface Level, Pre-disposed, Framed Outrage"

Note: It seems like national bash the press month... looks like I'm adding to the noise

Yesterday, I watched the Oval Office press conference between U.S. President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, streamed live on YouTube. I expected the usual topics—trade, crime, and bilateral relations.

Instead, Trump dimmed the lights—literally—and played a video of a 2020 South African protest, filled with disturbing images. It seemed designed to support recent claims of escalating tension, violence, and the early signs of genocide. Trump referenced asylum seekers, reports of farm attacks, and footage of crowds chanting hate slogans. When asked directly if what’s happening in South Africa is genocide, Trump replied, “I haven’t decided—but saving lives is cheap compared to the consequences.” It was a strategic hedge—keeping the controversy alive while avoiding commitment. It also bypassed a press he openly distrusts.

Ramaphosa remained composed. His diverse delegation included white South African golfers—raised under apartheid—who now embrace Nelson Mandela’s call for unity. Despite the dramatic opening, both leaders agreed by the end to focus on real issues like trade and crime. The event was chaotic, provocative, and unexpectedly hopeful.

Ramaphosa's staff also denounced the political party that is calling for racial violence against whites and said "these are the people who can never come to power". I didn't find any source that analyzed common ground between the two delegations.

Instead, I found a swamp of sensational headlines, shallow takes, and a complete failure to grapple with nuance. No one mentioned the golfers’ quiet but powerful rejection of racial division. No one connected the discussion to Elon Musk’s critique of race-based policy the day before. Few acknowledged the constructive outcomes. Instead, we got surface-level outrage. This is the information ecosystem we’re drowning in—a media landscape that buries complexity and amplifies bad ideas.

Not one major outlet reported that Trump also expressed concern for deaths in other conflict zones, noting he has sent representatives to assess how the U.S. might help stop the killing.

Trump’s Strategy: Provocative but Purposeful

This wasn’t just a press conference—it was a deliberate spotlight on South Africa’s land and crime issues. Trump knew the press wouldn’t cover these topics seriously, so he staged a moment they couldn’t ignore. Dimming the lights wasn’t theatrics for theatrics’ sake—it was calculated. His evidence—videos, hate chants, asylum seekers—painted a grim picture. Whether or not you agree with his framing, he forced attention on concerns that many feel are being ignored.

And the media took the bait. Outlets like CNN (“Trump’s Oval Office Smackdowns”) and Reuters (“political theater”) focused on optics, not intent. They didn’t ask why Trump distrusts them or consider the fears he’s amplifying. A few X posts—like @News24 noting the protest video was from a memorial service—provided context, but even they missed the deeper point: why Trump spotlighted this moment in the first place. Journalism should unpack both the fears and the political strategy—not just dunk on the spectacle.

Musk’s Critique and the Golfers’ Unity

A day earlier, at the Qatar Economic Forum, South African-born Elon Musk criticized his home country’s Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) laws. These laws require companies like Starlink to give 30% equity to Black South Africans—an effort Musk called “racist.” He asked: “Is it right to replace one set of race-based standards with another?”

Musk invoked Mandela’s vision of equality—a theme echoed, intentionally or not, by Ramaphosa’s diverse delegation. The white golfers present—who survived apartheid—now reject its legacy, living out Mandela’s principle that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” South African officials countered Musk by saying Starlink had never applied for a license, framing the dispute as regulatory, not racial.

Yet the media ignored this powerful convergence. Musk’s comments and the golfers’ quiet testimony both pushed back on racial division. Together, they challenged B-BBEE’s race-based framework in favor of reconciliation. But most outlets waved this off—CNN and The New Republic dismissed Musk as a provocateur, while others hyped a diplomatic feud. No one linked the critiques or explored the policy debate. That’s a journalistic failure.

The Globalist-Nationalist Flashpoint

This wasn’t just about South Africa. It was a clash of ideologies.

Trump and Musk expressed nationalist concerns—fears that identity-driven policies can fuel division or reverse discrimination. Ramaphosa leaned globalist, focusing on shared challenges like crime (35.7 homicides per 100,000 in 2023/24, per SAPS) and the $21 billion U.S.-South Africa trade partnership.

The media didn’t see this deeper fault line. Instead, they fixated on Trump’s video. X posts critiqued Ramaphosa’s diplomacy but rarely acknowledged the bigger stakes. In ignoring the ideological conflict, journalists let terms like “genocide” and “racist laws” float unchallenged. That’s not reporting—that’s malpractice.

A Constructive End, Missed by the Media

Despite the fireworks, the meeting ended productively: Trump and Ramaphosa agreed to collaborate on trade and crime. Ramaphosa’s delegation, especially the golfers, reflected a South Africa striving for unity—not division. Land reforms haven’t led to mass seizures but could they?. Crime impacts all South Africans, not just white farmers- yes, but is the environment ripe for genocide? The pivot from provocation to pragmatism in the Oval seemed to be a win. 

Yet outlets like The Daily Mail (“humiliation”) and NPR (“ambush”) focused on drama. Even Trump’s choice not to 'pull in' Musk to the debate in the Oval—(who was present)—seemed calculated, a wise moment of restraint to avoid triggering partisan backlash. But the media missed that too. Drama sells, solutions don’t.

This is why leaders like Trump bypass the press. And it’s why the public is left with half-baked narratives, instead of full, messy truths.

Can We Learn to Think for Ourselves?

This mess proves we can’t rely on the media to separate truth from noise. Want to know what really happened? 

Watch the YouTube stream. Don't see it piecemealed on cable news or distorted on social media. 

Ask better questions:

• Why does Trump stage moments like this? (Hint: it’s not because he’s Hitler, a racist, or a genius.)

• How do the golfers’ presence and Musk’s critique line up?

• What’s the real story behind South Africa’s challenges? (And why do we struggle with similar issues here?- hint- it isn't just race, it is also economic disparity)

The media won’t do this work. It’s on us —to think critically, demand better, debate opposing viewpoints with civility, and refuse to settle for narratives that are easy but incomplete.