Why the Legacy Media—Including Fox News—Has Failed (U.S)

Note: I have been actually writing on this for a long time- maybe I need to update the entire series from 2016 : Gospel Confrontation

Recent book releases and hard-hitting reports on the Biden administration have been a very shallow attempt to convince the American electorate that real journalism still exists—meanwhile most of the jaded public sees it as political stunt and money machine. Public trust in media is polling at an all-time low. While much of the outrage is justified, I’m wrestling with a deeper concern.

It’s the illusion of balance—and how it distorts rather than clarifies the truth.

We’ve been trained to applaud news that presents “both sides.” And in principle, that’s a good instinct. Who doesn’t want fair coverage or a diversity of thought?

But here’s the problem: not every issue is a 50/50 split. Some are 80/20 or even 90/10 in terms of expert consensus, data, or common sense. And yet, we continue to see point/counterpoint segments that give a 10% fringe position equal weight—presenting it as if we’re in the middle of a societal toss-up.

Maybe that 10% is right. Maybe it’s the prophetic minority with a truth the majority misses. But here’s the hard part: how do we make that case in 30-second sound bites, one flashy talking point, and four minutes of pharmaceutical commercials? This isn’t discourse. It’s distraction.

And the results are sobering: news is no longer about honest assessment of the issues. It becomes an echo chamber, feeding the assumptions of the audience. The left has its networks. The right has its networks. And the harder we cling to the illusion of neutrality, the more we quietly accept networks of propaganda masquerading as journalism.

As I have watched news over decades this problem has created a real polarized and charged divide. The pursuit of 'balance' has devolved into a distortion of truth by elevating fringe positions to equal footing with consensus views.

I think the distortion has 'taught' people how to talk (not think) and create slogans to support the whims of the heart- not discipline minds to 'common sense', wisdom, facts, and truth. It also has no mechanism to dissuade outright lies.

We need to ask: has the media become a servant of its audience’s bias rather than a seeker of public truth?

When ratings and ad revenue are on the line, it’s easier to affirm your base than challenge their thinking. Is it any wonder we now have news silos that function more like comfort food than a balanced diet?

Enter the Podcasters…

Long-form podcasts have offered a welcome shift—more time, more nuance, and often more honesty. But they’re not immune either. Without journalistic rigor or editorial review, many podcasters simply google a headline to support a pre-existing thesis. Throw a graphic on the screen and voilà—"research."

Is this better or just longer-form confirmation bias?

Free Speech ≠ Free Platform

As Americans, we rightly champion free speech. That includes ideas we find distasteful—even offensive. Civil disobedience has a place in the tradition of protest, and there are consequences for breaking laws, as there should be.

But here’s the line we often blur: freedom of speech is NOT the same as the promotion of bad ideas—especially by news platforms. When journalists elevate unsubstantiated claims, conspiracy theories, or pseudo-science in the name of “showing both sides,” they’re not informing the public. They’re legitimizing noise.

Is Neutrality a Myth?

This brings us to a more uncomfortable question: is unbiased neutrality even possible?

Maybe not in the absolute sense. But perhaps journalism isn’t about being void of bias. Maybe it’s about being transparent about perspective, committed to evidence, and courageous enough to challenge both the powerful and the popular.

There was a time when polls gave us insight into public trends. Today, they often feel like tools of manipulation or symbols of how out of step the media narrative is with the broader electorate. Who are we listening to? And who are we ignoring?

This isn't an easy topic- 

• How do we weigh expert consensus without silencing dissent?

• Can news escape the grip of audience-driven incentives?

• Is there still a place for real journalism in an age of algorithms and ideology?

We’re suffocating in echo chambers. We’re consuming opinion as fact and mistaking spin for substance. The cost is more than confusion—it’s erosion of trust, loss of shared reality, and ultimately, a democracy without honest dialogue.

Finally, what makes this worse is that we really don't know how to talk to one another any more.... we don't know how to have reasoned, civil debate, we never say "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong"- we don't know how to agreeably disagree- we are lacking in love and long on opinions that we treat as life and death.

This is a vicious cycle...... driving us into the ground of dispair.