How to Fix Our Broken Media

Media is increasingly becoming tools of the government and corporations

Before talking about a fix, let us talk about the actual problem we have.

Fox News today (15 April 2025) is operating largely as a regime propaganda broadcaster that reminds me more of state media from North Korea or the dying days of Saddam Hussein’s regime than an independent news organization committed to quality journalism.

And they are just the top of the iceberg. The few times I revisit Twitter these days, I notice it is still flooded with whatever idea Elon Musk's teen edge-lord brain has suddenly decided would be "cool" to talk about—such as making jokes about taking away the jobs from tens of thousands of people, or food and medicines from millions of people in poor countries.

Nothing like a billionaire joking about ruining the lives of the poorest in the world.

Marie Antoinette is famously attributed with having said "Let them eat cake" when advisors told her the people did not have bread. Although there is no evidence she ever said that, it has become a cultural meme—an example of someone of privilege entirely out of touch with the common people.

But notice how even someone as caricatured as Marie Antoinette was never characterized, even by the worst propaganda, as laughing while taking away bread from the poor. Elon Musk isn't telling them to eat cake. That might have been nearly adorable. No, he is a highly intelligent man who knows what he is doing, yet is taking the bread from the poor and laughing like an evil villain while doing so.

Okay, so the last part was my dramatization of his behavior. But the fact remains that it is not his enemies who present Elon this way. He tweeted this himself:

We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.

Could gone to some great parties.

Did that instead.

That was 7:54 AM on Feb 3, 2025. And it just goes in line with many other tasteless remarks on his part, which even the caricature of Marie Antoinette would have objected to.

Elon Musk and Fox News are both using their media platforms as state propaganda apparatuses. Just look at almost any of the horrible things Trump has done since taking office and how Fox has covered it. Every egregious, horrible decision gets a spin. Rather than doing their duty as journalists—to speak truth to power and challenge the leaders of the country—they instead attack fellow journalists for actually trying to do their job.

What I find interesting about this is that it is privately owned media acting as a propaganda outlet for those in power. I find it ironic because whenever I discuss media reforms with American conservatives, they are extremely critical of government-owned broadcasters such as the BBC and CBC. In my native Norway, we have NRK (the Norwegian National Broadcaster).

Ironically, despite being government-owned, none of these broadcasters have ever failed as spectacularly at holding the government accountable. Quite the opposite. I would say the BBC has held a very high standard of journalism.

Public and Commercial Broadcasting

But since I am not British, I cannot really give a good analysis of the BBC. I do know, however, that NRK in Norway has held a very high standard of journalism all through its existence. They have never gone easy on politicians, regardless of whether they are the ones in government or in opposition.

I have gotten to see how both government-run and privately run TV channels in Norway have been managed over the years. There are pros and cons to both, but I would claim NRK has come out most favorably for the following reasons:

1. A clear willingness to do more of what is right rather than simply what sells

2. More willingness to experiment and try new things. Most new innovation in comedy talents in Norway has been on NRK, for instance. Also, a lot of TV series breaking new ground have been made there.

Still, I appreciated commercial channels because they were more willing to buy low-brow action and entertainment that I will have to admit I often just want to watch.

NRK as a channel was never about entertaining you to the max all the time. It was much more of a media organization with a societal mission. It could extensively cover Sámi culture or something far out like fetishes for sex education. Nature programs, book reviews, or simply crazy new humor. You see some of the same at the BBC. Keep in mind how important the BBC was for Monty Python, for instance.

We all know the potential for abuse of a government broadcaster, which is why one tends to build specific legal practices and traditions around them to make sure they stay independent. It becomes embedded in their culture.

That same kind of "sense of mission" does not exist for a private media channel. That is why I think FOX News could be so shamelessly partisan. There was no sense of obligation to the American people to be a neutral party. The owner, Rupert Murdoch, did not stand accountable to voters. He could do whatever he wanted.

You may ask where I am going with all of this. I am trying to make the point that simply having a free market where you can set up a media organization is not any kind of guarantee that we will get free and balanced media. When media is billionaire-controlled, it will tend to side with the interests of the billionaire class. Those are not the same interests as the people in general. The rich want other things than the common people.

Many places have tried to remedy this in different ways. In Norway, the government has given economic support to various newspapers to secure a plurality in the media landscape. Many newspapers have a history as mouthpieces for different political parties. In a way, that has been good, as it means newspapers reflect the diversity of political opinion rather than merely whatever suits the billionaire class. Over time, this grew into a belief in media needing to be independent of parties, even if they can share an ideological belief system.

Media and the Tech Bros of Silicon Valley

But the Silicon Valley billionaires that control the new media are not representing a diversity of political views and opinions. The tech bros are part of a disturbingly homogeneous political view. And they don't truly stand for anything. While liberals were in office, they promoted fairly liberal ideas. Then they all chased Trump and lined up to kiss Trump's ring. It is all about being cozy with power to get benefits, money, and influence.

That could not be further from the ideals of media as being something daring to speak truth to power. The old newspaper barons at least used to have some kind of journalism ideals they wanted to be true to. These tech bros have none of that. They are only true to power and profits.

Controlling Your Vote by Controlling Your Perception of Reality

I will go so far as to say that without a well-working media world, no country truly has democracy. Democracy is based on the idea that when leaders do a bad job, we voters find out, vote them out, and get in better guys. If they wrong us or abuse us, we vote them out.

But ultimately, what we vote for is not determined by what actually happens, but by what we think is happening. This is how dictatorships can keep people in ignorant bliss. Control the media, and you can control the narrative. Human rights and dignity do not need to actually be respected if you can convince people that they are. In fact, you can make people believe they live in a happy, free society even when they live in a dictatorship—if you control the media.

Your vote and the act of voting entirely cease to have meaning if your perception of how your country operates is completely off. A dictator doesn't need to reject your right to vote if he can entirely control your perception of reality—because if he does, you will simply vote as he wishes, even if your voting is detrimental to your own interests.

I am sorry I am taking my time actually describing my fix, but I realized as I try to rationalize my solution to the media problem that I really need to get across why such a fix is so important. I still think too many of you are far too cavalier about this. I see some people still equate free speech with being allowed to say the most offensive things possible without getting arrested.

If that is your idea of free speech, you so utterly missed the whole point. You should have listened to some Russian bloggers about media in Russia before Ukraine. Most ordinary nobodies could say whatever they wanted. The Kremlin didn’t care. They cared if you were a somebody—because once you are a somebody with a following that can influence the masses, your words matter. It is people with influence who got thrown in prison. Brave journalists known for their work.

Dictatorships don't need to imprison you for your words. It is enough to turn down the volume of your mic. I emphasize this point because de facto censorship in the modern media world is really about how the ones controlling the platforms—the billionaire class—crank up the volume on the people saying the things they like and dial down the volume of critics.

But it cannot be too obvious. That is why even dictators like to keep around token opposition. Russia has long had opposition parties present in the Duma. Why would a dictator like Putin allow that? Because it is in his interest to make you think you are not living in a dictatorship.

There is a similar logic at play when Elon brags about someone saying some shit about him on X (Twitter). They are the token opposition to retain the illusion of X being some kind of fair and balanced media platform and not a propaganda instrument for Elon to advance the populist right-wing MAGA agenda.

Try creating some X accounts and see how long it takes before tweets by Elon Musk start filling up your timeline, whether you asked for it or not—along with the people he likes and wants to promote. It is curated media to lead you down the alt-right path of thinking.

Jeff Bezos is believed to have weighed in against a satirical cartoon in The Washington Post criticizing how he and other tech bros knelt for Donald Trump (see New York Times story).

A draft of the cartoon that Ann Telnaes said had been rejected by The Washington Post. Credit: Ann Telnaes

The bottom line is that we really cannot rely on billionaire-controlled media to secure a media environment that can do the necessary job of keeping the public informed so that they hold their leaders accountable and make sensible choices during elections.

In the past, countries have had national media strategies, as I explained with my native Norway. But traditional local media is dying. Social media is taking over—and it is global. That means the whole thinking around media needs to change. It cannot simply come down to policies for how to keep local media sensible. We must think of how media with global reach stays sensible and informative.

How to Create an Alternative to Tech Bro Media

My proposal is that democratic countries committed to free speech come together and commit funds that are placed in trusts that are not government-controlled or controlled by some billionaire. Instead, they are overseen by steering committees that broadly represent independent media—people known for quality journalism rather than the size of their wallets. These funds should either buy important media platforms such as Substack, X, Medium, and YouTube, or build alternative non-profit versions of these. It could be a combination.

The goal would be that a sizable portion of the global media platforms that exist today are not at the mercy of the whims of either a specific government or billionaires. Instead, quality journalism and a pursuit of truth and pluralism of opinion should be the goal.

When I write about these things, there are always people second-guessing my motives and ideas in different ways, so let me take some steps back and talk about that.

Why Having Critics is Vital to Any Ideology

Many of you already know I am a Norwegian democratic socialist. I never try to hide that. In fact, I really hate it when writers try to pretend they are somehow the embodiment of political neutrality and try to pass themselves off as that while putting on the maximum amount of spin to sell the politics of their side—a side they do not even publicly acknowledge they support.

It is easy to think that because I am a socialist, I will not respect the views of anyone who is not a socialist and would only be interested in promoting far-left viewpoints. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I thought that hiding opposing viewpoints was the only way for me to win you over to my thinking, then I would have a rather weak belief in the appeal of democratic socialism as an idea.

Quite the contrary—I believe democratic socialism would fail as a project if it does not have critics. There is nothing more dangerous than being surrounded by yes-men. I remember giving a web project to a man in Bangladesh once. I knew I would have some challenges, because it is a culture that, unlike my native Norway, respects authority and customers a lot. I took a lot of pains to emphasize the following: "I don't really understand the limits of web technology, so I may ask for downright stupid and unreasonable things. It is upon you as a professional to tell me when I am wrong or asking something unreasonable. Guide me onto the right path."

The guy was a hard worker and did everything in his power to please me and give me what I asked for—except for challenging anything I ever suggested or did. It was probably unreasonable of me to expect someone to break with habits and expectations that had controlled his life for years in one engagement. But it highlights an important point: I was not really getting what I wanted because the person working for me was not comfortable challenging me.

One of the reasons socialism in an authoritarian system has such bad outcomes is because it would not get challenges. It allows you to embrace a dogmatic idea of what society should look like and pursue that. Hence, you need democracy—so there is an opposition that can call you out when you fucked up. This is how I believe Nordic countries ended up so well. Democratic socialists in power had to constantly revise and walk back ideas when they failed to work because they had voters holding them accountable.

This is how democratic socialism gradually evolved into modern-day social democracy. A hybrid approach. Socialists who reluctantly had to accept that, hey, some capitalist ideas actually work fairly well—maybe we shouldn't ditch those completely.

And we should realize that even in dictatorships this happens. Socialism in China evolved as well. Modern-day China is a far cry from Mao's China and the Cultural Revolution. Yet, it is the exact same party in power. In their case, it was not voters so much as reality that gave them a punch in the mouth and forced them to change.

The reason why democracy and a free press are so important is that you can catch that you are on the wrong path long before you end up in a violent Cultural Revolution–type of scenario. While even a dictatorship can change, time frame is important. I am reminded of a quote I love from the famous economist John Maynard Keynes:

“In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.”

― John Maynard Keynes

Keynes said this in criticism of laissez-faire type economists who argued no government intervention was ever needed because markets would adjust eventually anyway. Keynes’ point was that this adjustment could take such a long time that you might be dead before it happened.

I have the same view of people who make silly arguments such as “the truth will always win.” If you’ve got a broken media infrastructure, the truth won’t come out until you’re long dead—and that’s too late.

So my advocacy is not for media pushing my beliefs. I want all opinions represented, but they should reflect the people. The current system is more of a reflection of what the billionaire class thinks than of people in general, because money plays such an outsized role in creating, directing, and guiding our media platforms.

Also, I want genuine, honest debate and opinion exchanges—not propaganda, lies, and spin. We know from the lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems brought against Fox News—and won a crazy $787.5 million—that they lied through their teeth to viewers about everything. Let me emphasize this: Fox was not merely getting a story wrong. No, they told viewers things they knew were falsehoods.

I don’t care if you’re a conservative, libertarian, liberal, or whatever—as long as you don’t lie to my face to manipulate me or other viewers in ways that advance your agenda. Hey, we all have an agenda of some sort, and it is fair to advocate that. But do it with honesty. Do not seek to win over people by knowingly lying about your opponents.

Diversity is the Goal, Not Neutrality

A magazine I’ve read for many years is The Economist. They are relentless capitalism fanboys to the point of making me, as a socialist, rather annoyed at times. Yet, their commitment to quality journalism cannot be disputed. They are an honest magazine. It says right in the magazine intro that they exist to advocate free market capitalism, since their founding in the 1800s.

But The Economist does this without telling deliberate lies or otherwise acting in deceptive or manipulative ways. My ideal media world is not some kind of fairy-tale, completely politically neutral media—because I don’t think that exists. It’s more about being like the British Economist: state where you stand politically to your readers in an honest fashion and stick to honest and serious journalism. No spin, manipulation, or lies.

In my view, the best way for you as a reader to make up your mind is to read a diverse diet of such serious media with different political leanings. I aspire to the same in my writing. Just as The Economist is a great magazine for challenging some of my ideas as a socialist, I hope that my writing can challenge your ideas as a liberal, conservative, or libertarian. It doesn’t mean you need to switch sides completely, but perhaps moderate some points.

The Economist doesn’t make me change my politics completely, but it makes me tweak them. Sometimes they make a strong case for the need to abandon some pet socialist idea that simply turns out to not work very well in the real world. But there are, in similar fashion, many pet capitalism ideas that simply don’t work well and which should be abandoned.

To pick one example: the Norwegian Conservative Party long pushed to copy Sweden’s policy on private schools. However, as media reporting on the outcomes of years of private school usage in Sweden demonstrated, it simply wasn’t a very successful project. Thus, Norwegian conservatives did the sensible thing and ditched that idea.

Likewise, socialists have had to ditch the idea of using planned economics for everything. Actual practical experience with it repeatedly showed it was not a great idea. And we had critics on the right who even gave the theory for why it was a bad idea.

This was the so-called economic calculation problem as laid out by Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek:

The economic calculation problem (ECP) is a criticism of using central economic planning as a substitute for market-based allocation of the factors of production. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in his 1920 article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" and later expanded upon by Friedrich Hayek.

Whatever social or economic system you believe in, you need to have critics. If you don’t think criticism is needed, then you are already far down the road of dogmatic thinking. You then believe in utopian perfection. Every social and political system devised by man will hit upon problems and need adaptation. Constant refinement and adaptation is the key to a good society, in my humble opinion.

The Philosophy of Iteration and Continuous Improvement

Interestingly, this is very much in line with my belief in product development. It is the ethos of the Toyota Production System: continuous improvement through feedback. I am a software developer by trade, and what all software developers know is that you never manage to build a system that works exactly as customers wanted, or works as well as you envisioned. Constant revision and refinement is a necessity.

Successful software development builds its whole model around this idea of iteration and gradual improvement. Build a system. Put it in the real world. Learn from that experience and refine to tackle observed problems. Rinse and repeat.

But for us to refine a product to better suit the user, we need accurate information about user experience. Here we have a good analogy to our media system. A broken media system is analogous to a feedback system from users that simply doesn’t tell the truth about what users experienced.

Imagine if the feedback system from users worked like Fox News. It would be incredibly hard for a software developer to build a better system, because he is being lied to all the time. It is totally fine that different users have different experiences with your system—but those experiences should be relayed back truthfully.

This is why I believe it is essential to get more media platforms controlled by non-profit organizations, so that the incentive to lie, spin, and manipulate is minimized. Such a media reality will not happen by itself through the magic of the market. To believe in that is to believe in fairy tales. It has to be made into a goal, with money on the table, to make it happen.

A Reminder to American Readers

Since American media is so central in this article it is easy to think the topic is American media, but really the article is meant as a commentary on media in a global context. Facebook, YouTube, X and Substack may have American origins but these are global platforms that people all over the world use.

And the central actors discussed here, while Americans, seek global influence. For instance Elon Musk has been engaged in influencing UK politics as well as German politics. Hence the behavior of American tech bros affects media reality all over the world.

I write about this in large part because I am very concerned with how the media reality is developing in my native Norway today. Global actors, primarily operating from the US, is getting an ever stronger influence on people. It is getting very noticeable on young Norwegians.