Something odd happens to the human brain when we watch a smooth presenter on television. Fluency reads as intelligence. Comfort reads as authority. Tone communicates confidence, sympathy, or righteous anger before a single claim is evaluated. A person at ease on camera appears to possess a wisdom beyond that of ordinary people.
But turn the set around.
Behind that presenter is an army: writers, editors, producers, lighting specialists, camera operators, and teleprompter technicians, all working to deliver not just information but mood. The authority we perceive is produced, not discovered.
Print journalism is no different, only quieter. Editors, publishers, advertisers, political actors, and persistent complainants all exert pressure on what gets covered and how. This does not mean journalists are dishonest. It means authority is structural.
The modern tendency to treat journalism as a secular oracle did not arise naturally. It was built, reinforced by technology, culture, and myth. To understand why that authority now feels unstable, it helps to look backward, back to when the press was a critical element in the birth of the United States.
Pamphlets, Papers, and the Birth of the Republic
American journalism began as argument.
Before the United States existed, pamphlets and newspapers circulated openly partisan claims. The most consequential example is The Federalist Papers, published in newspapers as a public argument for ratifying the Constitution. These essays did not pretend to neutrality. They explained power, acknowledged tradeoffs, and trusted readers to reason.
Without them, ratification would almost certainly have failed. Instead of one united nation, we would have remained a collection of squabbling states subject to absorption by the next strong power that came along.
Journalism earned early prestige not by being impartial, but by being useful. It treated citizens as adults capable of judging competing claims. Benjamin Franklin understood this instinctively. As printer, editor, and satirist, he grasped both persuasion and commerce. A press that could not survive could not matter.
Early newspapers were openly partisan. Bias was visible. Authority was contestable. Trust arose not from neutrality, but from pluralism, from rivalry that constrained exaggeration and error.
That origin story still shapes how journalists see themselves. The press helped build the nation, and unlike many institutions, it has never fully disowned that legacy. But embedded in that self-image was an irony: journalism learned to criticize everything except itself.
Victorian Journalism and the Power of Storytelling
In the nineteenth century, journalism discovered that story moves people more reliably than argument alone.
Industrialization expanded readership. Newspapers became mass products. Charles Dickens pioneered the use of serialized reporting and fiction to expose poverty and institutional cruelty, and American papers followed his lucrative model. Dickens's techniques made readers feel conditions, not just understand them. Advocacy and readership reinforced one another.
Mark Twain reached similar conclusions through satire. Humor, timing, and voice mattered. Journalism did not need to be neutral to be effective. It needed to land.
The abolitionist press took this further. Its journalism was unapologetically partisan and morally urgent, relying on vivid personal narratives. Much of it was true. Some of it was exaggerated. The cause was just, and the methods worked. The lesson endured: once a cause is framed as morally existential, emotional narrative outranks verification. Truth without force can be ignored. Truth delivered through story cannot.
Yellow Journalism and the Attention Arms Race
Yellow journalism, the unfortunate natural successor to this kind of reporting, did not arise from individual corruption. It arose from competition.
By the late nineteenth century, newspapers had learned that emotional clarity and moral urgency sold. As urban populations grew and printing costs fell, competition intensified, and sensationalism became a rational adaptation.
William Randolph Hearst is the emblematic figure, but he was not alone. His rivals, including Joseph Pulitzer, engaged in similar practices because restraint lost readers. Headlines grew dramatic while attribution weakened and verification lagged or became nonexistent.
Hurst's techniques paid off during coverage of the Spanish–American War, when his newspapers rushed to blame Spain for the explosion of the USS Maine before evidence existed. Story after story followed, creating a media narrative shape we would recognize in our own time. Ambiguity was treated as certainty. Outrage replaced restraint.
At the same time, journalists like Nellie Bly used sensational methods to expose real abuses; other similar crusading reporters were less bold and often less honest than Miss Bly. Yellow journalism was not uniformly false, but it certainly stretched the truth on a regular basis. What changed was the governing constraint. Accuracy became one value among many.
Journalism had learned how to manufacture attention. That knowledge would not disappear.
Professionalization, War, and Temporary Restraint
The excesses of sensationalism were checked not by virtue, but by circumstance.
The Spanish–American War was short and winnable. Its ease may even have dulled appetite for deeper entanglement. World War I was different. Even before formal U.S. entry, it reshaped trade, alliances, and movement. Distant events became consequential.
Journalism responded by professionalizing. Schools emphasized verification and restraint. Wire services rewarded neutral language that could travel. Objectivity emerged less as a philosophy than as a logistical solution.
Newsreels shown before films trained audiences to consume news as serialized narrative. Events unfolded over time. Story became structure.
World War II imposed real sobriety. The scale and stakes crushed easy sensationalism. Soldiers returned with firsthand experience of bureaucracy, alliances, and rhetoric’s limits. For a time, journalism absorbed that seriousness.
Constraint returned. It would not last.
Professionalization, War, and the Return of Constraint
By the early twentieth century, journalism had become too volatile to trust and too influential to leave entirely unbounded. Publishers, editors, and civic leaders began pushing toward professionalization. Journalism schools emerged. Standards around sourcing, verification, and restraint were formalized. The goal was not neutrality in any deep philosophical sense, but discipline, a way to prevent the excesses that had discredited the press in the previous era.
Global conflict reinforced this shift. The Spanish-American War had been brief and clearly winnable, allowing sensationalism to flourish without long-term consequence. World War I was different. Even before the United States entered the fighting, the war reshaped trade, alliances, travel, and finance. Distant events now had direct effects at home. False reports could move markets or strain diplomacy. Accuracy became materially important.
Journalism adapted. Wire services rewarded language that could travel across regions without inflaming local sensibilities. Overt partisanship limited reuse. Careful phrasing expanded distribution. What came to be called “objectivity” functioned less as an ethical breakthrough than as a logistical solution.
Visual media reinforced these norms. Newsreels shown before films accustomed audiences to consuming news in short, authoritative segments. Events unfolded over time within the graphic medium of moving pictures. The public learned to follow stories serially and visually, to expect continuity rather than constant escalation. Significantly, at this time it was considerably more difficult to lie through video than it was to simply tell the truth.
World War II deepened this sobriety. The scale of the conflict, the clarity of stakes, and the sheer cost of error crushed easy sensationalism. Soldiers returned home with firsthand experience of bureaucracy, alliances, and the gap between rhetoric and reality. For a time, audiences were harder to manipulate, and journalism reflected that seriousness.
This period would later be remembered as a golden age. Unfortunately, it was just a temporary equilibrium, sustained by constraint: limited competition, slower cycles, reputational risk, and a public newly aware of how badly things could go wrong.
Television and the Performance of Authority
Television did not overthrow journalism’s norms. It repackaged them.
The medium changed how authority was perceived. Meaning traveled through posture, tone, and pacing as much as through words. The 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate made this unavoidable. Radio listeners thought Nixon sounded more substantive. Television viewers saw a completely different story. They found Kennedy to be confident, while Nixon came across as tired, sweaty, and unattractive. The difference was presence, not policy.
Anchors like Walter Cronkite came to embody this new television authority. Cronkite appeared calm, grounded, and reliable, and that presentation mattered enormously. His steady cadence and restrained affect conveyed seriousness in an era still shaped by war and sacrifice. For many viewers, that tone became synonymous with truth itself.
But the reality behind the image was more complex. Cronkite was not a passive conduit for facts. He was among the first true media personalities, a trusted figure whose judgments carried weight precisely because they were delivered sparingly. When he broke from strict presentation and offered interpretation, audiences noticed. His 1968 commentary on the Vietnam War, concluding that the conflict was unwinnable, did not merely reflect public opinion. It helped shape it. The authority television conferred on the anchor allowed interpretation to masquerade as inevitability. Viewers were not being argued with; they were being settled. The distinction between reporting and judgment blurred, not through sensationalism, but through trust.
The lesson journalism absorbed was subtle and lasting. Calm presentation could carry immense persuasive force. Authority no longer required overt advocacy. It could be exercised quietly, through tone, timing, and selective emphasis, all while appearing neutral.
The new medium, television, had changed the message.
Watergate and the Locking-In of the Myth
Watergate did not invent investigative journalism. It completed journalism’s self-conception.
By the 1970s, Hollywood had already established the myth of the courageous reporter who stands up to power and follows the story at all costs. Watergate allowed real journalists to step directly into that role.
The reporting by Woodward and Bernstein involved real work. But its cultural impact mattered more. All the President’s Men transformed a contingent event into a moral template. Journalists became protagonists.
The role of Deep Throat, later revealed as FBI official Mark Felt, complicates the picture. He was not a neutral whistleblower, but a participant in an institutional power struggle. Today he has been exposed as complicit, a person who shaped the narrative he was giving the two young reporters. This is not to say Woodward and Bernstein didn't do the work; they definitely researched their story. But they were also led astray easily by a narrative that appealed to them, a narrative that ultimately brought down a presidency, fairly or not. It clarifies how easily journalists can be aligned with sources who share their instincts.
Watergate sanctified journalism’s self-image. The press became society’s critic — and exempted itself from the same scrutiny it applied elsewhere.
Consolidation and the End of Pluralism
As journalism was canonized culturally, it was consolidated economically.
Media companies bought dominant local papers, achieving efficiencies smaller competitors could not match. In my hometown of Louisville, the Courier-Journal once competed with the Louisville Times. After consolidation, the smaller paper vanished. This was before the Internet. There was no alternative path.
Local rivalry had once constrained error. Consolidation replaced external correction with internal process. This reversed journalism’s origins. The Federalist Papers succeeded because they entered a crowded argumentative field. Authority emerged from rivalry. By the late twentieth century, that rivalry was gone.
When pluralism ended, journalism did not immediately become dishonest. But it did become unchecked.
At about the same time, something else was happening in this new streamlined news office. American journalism had become highly skilled at telling stories that felt true. Narrative coherence, moral clarity, and emotional resonance were no longer just techniques; they were filters. Stories that aligned with a newsroom’s assumptions moved smoothly. Stories that challenged them slowed or stalled.
This created a predictable vulnerability. Writers learned that editors did not scrutinize all stories equally, and frankly, the decreased manpower meant they could not scrutinize every story. The most aggressive checking was reserved for claims that cut against prevailing narratives. Stories that reinforced those narratives, especially those built around vivid representative anecdotes, often passed with lighter resistance. They felt right. They rewarded belief.
So some reporters started to simply make things up.
The most famous case is Stephen Glass, who fabricated large portions of his work at The New Republic. But Glass was not unique. Jayson Blair at The New York Times and Jack Kelley at USA Today exploited the same weakness. All three understood what editors wanted: stories with clean moral arcs, vivid villains, and emotionally satisfying conclusions. They created them wholecloth or based loosely on real people and events. They wrote fiction, not news. Not only was it published, some of these stories won awards.
The common failure was narrative capture on top of a lack of fact-checking. Verification had become an obstacle rather than a safeguard, a drag on the bottom line.
These scandals were treated as aberrations, failures of individual ethics rather than symptoms of institutional preference. Newsrooms tightened procedures but largely avoided confronting the deeper issue: a profession trained to distrust power had become unusually trusting of stories that affirmed its own worldview.
The Internet and the Collapse of Inherited Authority
If television rewarded authority through presentation, the Internet dismantled authority through exposure. The press that entered the digital age was shaped by scarcity. Limited distribution, slow cycles, and institutional gatekeeping had once protected journalism from constant challenge. The Internet erased those conditions almost overnight.
At first, news organizations treated the Internet as a faster printing press, a way to distribute the same product more cheaply, efficiently, and quickly. This was a profound misreading. The Internet did not merely change speed or reach. It changed structure. Time, distance, and monopoly collapsed. Errors metastasized and stayed live on the internet forever. Citizen journalists were able to broadcast stories more quickly and efficiently than the big papers.
Most destabilizing of all, epistemic hierarchy collapsed. Authority could no longer be inherited from credentials, tone, or institutional prestige. It had to survive repeated scrutiny.
Legacy media attempted to adapt by importing familiar tools into the new medium: emotional framing, symbolic anecdotes, narrative certainty, moral urgency. These techniques had worked on television. Online, they backfired. The Internet remembers too well and talks back too fast.
The result was not the death of journalism, but the death of unearned authority.
The myth that journalism occupied a special moral position above ordinary power struggles and exempt from ordinary scrutiny could not survive in an environment built on linkage, comparison, and exposure. The conditions that had once supported that myth were gone.
What remained was a profession forced to confront a reality it had long avoided: credibility is not a possession. It is a transaction. And if the public loses trust in you, that transaction becomes entirely valueless.
Journalism was never pure — nothing is — but it was once constrained by rivalry, by scarcity, and by audiences willing to push back. Those constraints eroded slowly and then collapsed around the beginning of this century. What replaced them was not simply bias, but a set of incentives that reward speed over care, narrative over verification, and performance over truth. Part II will look at how those incentives now shape modern news: how entertainment tools replaced argument, how access and outrage warped coverage, and why financial and legal pressure may be the only forces left that can pull journalism back toward honesty.
Editor’s Note: PJ Media is here to give you the news straight, but also to look at facts in a way most of the media won't today. Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member