Are we the media now?
Elon Musk’s pronouncement, “We are the media now,” has gained traction among those who champion citizen journalism as the successor to legacy media. This sentiment resonates with many who feel that traditional outlets have failed them—succumbing to ideological biases while claiming to deliver universal truths.
It’s not hard to see why this zeal for reclaiming power appeals to so many. Legacy media has indeed faltered on multiple fronts, losing credibility as it struggles to balance impartiality with deeply ingrained biases. Right-wing media, for instance, while unapologetically partisan, does not claim neutrality, unlike many mainstream outlets—which have the pretense of representing some universal ‘truth’ for all. Independent left-leaning media has its own ideological slant, which it also wears clearly on its sleeve.
That’s why so many take an issue with the more mainstream outlets—they are seen as breaking their promise to their readers, whereas no such promises have been made in the first place by partisan outlets.
Compounding these issues is the broken financial model underpinning modern journalism, which has led to the deterioration in the quality of journalism. If it costs a lot less to produce content that lacks substance and makes up for it through clickbait than an investigative piece that takes months of work meticulously conducted by an experienced team…yet the former gets the same or more eyeballs, what will the publication be motivated to produce more of? The sensationalist, clickbait-driven content at a fraction of the cost. This economic imbalance incentivizes superficial reporting. It also further drives polarization as outlets seek out subscribers and audiences gravitate toward outlets that validate their ideologies. Journalism, instead of pursuing truth, increasingly morphs into a vehicle for ideological missions or just cheap fodder.
The erosion of accountability has also exacerbated public distrust in media. As confidence in traditional outlets plummets to historic lows, those who feel deceived or ignored by the press turn elsewhere for information.
But have we truly become “the media”?
Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) flood users with a constant stream of news. Musk often touts X as the top news app, but where does this news originate? Much of it is repurposed content from legacy media—the very institutions many X users disdain. While some “citizen journalists” on the platform contribute original reporting, these efforts pale in comparison to the volume of regurgitated mainstream stories.
So when powers users claim that “mainstream media is dying” — where do they plan to go for the stories they repost for clicks on the platform?
Accuracy remains paramount in journalism. However, social media operates in a space where accountability is often fleeting. Falsehoods and mistakes, whether intentional or not, are quickly forgotten amidst the deluge of new content and false news/informations travels at six times the speed of true ones according to a study published in Science (2018). False stories are also 70 percent more likely to be shared than true ones. In contrast, when a major outlet errs, it’s far more likely to face intense scrutiny—and rightly so. Traditional media, claiming a mantle of authority, must uphold rigorous standards. Yet, does it fail more frequently than a prominent X account with a million followers? A glance at the platform’s top accounts reveals the answer (clue: they largely belong to accounts most frequently Community Notes for spreading false information).
That’s not to dismiss the value of independent reporting on X. Former mainstream journalists and a small group of dedicated accounts produce valuable content. There are also subject-matter experts that provide deep insight, unfiltered. As far as I’m concerned, more quality independent media is a good thing and the barrier to entry is far smaller than it once was. Still, good reporting takes resources; time being the most important one. And time costs money. Without audience capture or ideological alignment, few independent efforts endure. Even so, some lone voices do manage to rise above the noise.
Likewise, not all legacy media is created equal. Outstanding investigative work persists, even if it is too often overshadowed by click-driven sensationalism. There are some great, honest, skilled, and accurate reporters out there. Reporters that took years to hone their skills and develop contacts that help them break stories. Treating all outlets, journalists, or stories as homogeneous risks dismissing important work. The “you don’t hate the media enough” narrative is reductive and fails to account for the nuances within the industry. It risks alienating those who strive to uphold journalistic integrity and contribute meaningfully to public discourse—undermining the essential role of quality journalism.
X, in reality, excels as a global commentary hub—a digital town square where users dissect and debate the news. Many contributors adeptly identify gaps in existing stories, unearth statistics, or provide critical context. These contributions also enhance our understanding of public sentiment but do not supplant the rigorous processes required for journalism.
Good journalism demands skilled, trained professionals. While raw talent can occasionally shine, most writers benefit immensely from mentorship and editorial oversight. My own growth as a writer owes much to diligent editors who refined my work and guided my development—even as I learned much on my own as well.
Just because there are bad journalists, institutions, and editors, doesn’t mean that the process has no value. Just like although there are unprofessional and dishonest plumbers, it doesn’t mean that there’s no good, reliable ones or that the professional as a whole isn’t needed. Someone still has to fix your sink. We just need to be more discerning about who we trust and hire.
Time is another critical factor. The relentless demand for speed compromises accuracy, leaving little room for thorough verification, proper editing or deep analysis. Social media amplifies these pressures, prioritizing immediacy over reliability. In my interview with him, Musk himself has expressed a preference for speed and not having intermediaries, further highlighting this tension. But speed can be the enemy of good.
This reminds me of the Project Management Triangle "Fast, Good, Cheap: Pick Two."
If you want it fast and good, it won’t be cheap.
If you want it good and cheap, it won’t be fast.
If you want it fast and cheap, it won’t be good.
Ultimately, while platforms like X enrich public discourse, they cannot replace traditional journalism. For all its flaws, professional journalism remains indispensable in seeking truth and holding power accountable. Striking a balance between new and old paradigms may be the key to rebuilding trust and ensuring a more informed society.
But we need to rethink how we fund media, invest in smaller but professional news organizations that aren’t ideologically captured, and come up with better systems for accountability. Most importantly, we as consumers, need to value good journalism over that which merely conforms to our existing beliefs and biases. We need to reward those who are dedicated to factual accuracy and depth, over sensationalism. And we need to rebuilt the faltering institutions that still have the drive to improve.
None of this is easy. It won’t be fast. It won’t be cheap. But it’s critical for a functioning society.
PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING…
Writing takes time and effort. Good writing takes even more. And independent writing, unfortunately, is impossible without fiscal support (because: life isn’t free). If you enjoy reading my essays, get some value out of them, want to read even more, and can afford to support my work, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
I will continue to provide both free and paid posts for readers for as long as I can, but your support will help keep this Substack going, and hopefully, see it grow—eventually even pursuing investigative pieces (which take even more time and effort).
☕️ By popular request, you can also support my work by making a one-off donation via Buy Me a Coffee.
Order my book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage―Lessons for the Silenced Majority —speaking up today is more important than ever.
Excellent article. The problem, as always, is sm. Yes the legacy media (I hate the term mainstream” has its faults and needs improvement but it’s still by far and away the best chance we have at accurate reportage with as little bias as possible. Citizen journalism inherently lacks the resources needed for thorough investigative journalism, is just as susceptible to bias and lacks the self-monitoring accountability factor.
Furthermore as more people realise they can make money as “journalists”, the standards will drop as they fall prey to all the ills that befall legacy media. Social media is truly toxic sludge, as Maria Ressa so appositely described it in 2021, and I fear it has killed quality journalism permanently. You get what you vote for.
Thank you. Some observations: Elon Musk's "we" isn't my "we". And what I mean by that is his "we" provides journalism fodder all on its own and the gap between being content and providing content is easy for his "we" to step over.
I am reminded of the article, "Is there a Santa Claus" wherein Virginia O'Hanlon writes "Papa says, 'If you see it in The Sun, it's so.'" Oh for the days of that kind of confidence in journalism.
I am reminded of the days The New York Times was referred to as "The Old Gray Lady" but has become "The Old Gray Mare" (she ain't what she used to be).
Strong, competent, and well compensated journalism matters and our society suffers for lack of it.
The fix?
Ted Gioia, in an article about the turn around at Barnes & Noble, writes “There is no substitute for good decisions at the top—and no remedy for stupid ones.”
He also adds, "This is James Daunt’s super power: He loves books."
So, we need good decision makers at the top who love their craft. I think that is a start.