Trust Must Be Earned
We should resist the comforting nostalgia for a traditional media model that was not without significant problems.
In February 1968, veteran American broadcaster, Walter Cronkite, travelled to Vietnam to report on the ongoing war between the United States and the Viet Cong, a guerrilla insurgency aligned with North Vietnam. His visit followed the Tet Offensive of 30 January, a surprise attack which caught America’s mighty military machine off guard.
As host of CBS Evening News, Cronkite was considered an impartial and objective commentator, a voice of the nation. Although initially a supporter of America’s military involvement in Vietnam, Cronkite’s visit revealed to him the scale and intractability of the conflict.
In a widely watched special broadcast, Cronkite broke from his usual aloof reporting style, addressing his audience directly. ‘We are mired in stalemate,’ he concluded, calling for a negotiated end to the conflict.
Cronkite’s outspokenness ultimately contributed to changing public opinion on the Vietnam War and led US President Lyndon B Johnson to not seek re-election that same year. A dejected LBJ reportedly said, ‘If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.’
From the 1950s to the 1980s, CBS had only to compete with two rival broadcasters: NBC and ABC. It was later joined by Fox in the 1980s, making up the so-called ‘Big Four’ commercial broadcasters. This began to change in the 1990s, as cable news channels like CNN emerged, ushering in the 24-hour news cycle.
Together, these media giants controlled the national agenda.
Profound change
Today, the media landscape is decidedly different.
The commercial networks have been unable to meet the challenge posed by the explosion of online news platforms, resulting in dwindling audience numbers.
On the campaign trail last year, US President Donald Trump (apparently at the urging of his teenage son, Barron) spent hours chatting to podcasters like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman.
His Democratic Party opponent, Kamala Harris, opted for a more stage-managed campaign. Her sweetheart interviews on mainstream networks seemed inauthentic by comparison.
In the print media, the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Times in the United Kingdom, once considered newspapers of record, now vie for attention with a multitude of online-only publications. Their circulations have dropped, but so too has their authority. Nobody today believes that these papers are ‘writing the first drafts of history’ as they may have once done.
Social media has irrevocably altered the way we consume – and produce – the news. In January, Elon Musk, declared on X (the social media platform he owns) that ‘you are the media now’, questioning the old media establishment and its self-proclaimed role as guardians of the truth. Platforms like X have given ordinary people a voice but also provide heightened scrutiny and transparency through mechanisms like community notes, which enables real-time fact-checking by users.
Many commentators – usually journalists at established media houses – bemoan the dire state of the media. They regularly complain about fake news, dis- and misinformation, and blame financial pressures, shrinking newsrooms, and partisan politics for eroding the credibility of the media.
However, we should resist the comforting nostalgia for a traditional media model that was not without significant problems.
During apartheid South Africa, the press was highly politicised and actively censored. While rebel publications like the Rand Daily Mail and Vrye Weekblad punched above their weight (recall how a young Helen Zille broke the story of the killing of Steve Biko), the range of publications on offer was extremely limited compared to today, and state power was often used to silence these voices.
It was not uncommon to see large black columns of redacted text in news reports or a newsroom being bombed. Such levels of government censorship would be almost impossible to achieve in 2025 – although that doesn’t stop the Chinese Communist Party from trying.
Could we still consider the media to be the fourth estate, a critical component of civil society, holding the government to account?
This is hardly the case in South Africa, where many self-appointed gatekeepers of the truth have wilfully supported the prevailing political establishment and harshly criticised dissenting voices (just ask AfriForum, who have been consistently misrepresented in the mainstream press).
The old model of a few trusted sources curating the news and opinion on behalf of audiences is a thing of the past, and that is mostly a good thing.
Arguably, the media has never been as objective as it has made itself out to be. While impartiality may sound appealing, journalists are people too and are subject to their own biases and agendas, just like the rest of us. Better to have these out in the open, rather than hidden behind the mask of faux objectivity.
A brave new media world?
It seems unthinkable in the current media environment that one journalist opining on a news story could have such an outsized influence on the course of history, as Walter Cronkite did in 1968. But today opinion and personality seem more important than the story itself. Now that the barbarians have stormed the media gates, some downsides are becoming apparent.
In a recent podcast debate, author and journalist Douglas Murray called out Joe Rogan, the world’s most famous podcaster, for his curious choice of guests.
Murray chastised Rogan for hosting popular historian Darryl Cooper (who argues that it was in fact Winston Churchill and not Adolf Hitler who was the ‘chief villain’ of World War II). Murray argued that such revisionist interpretations of history – while they should be allowed to be freely expressed – have long since been debunked by historians and that providing a platform for such views without challenging them risks distorting the basic truths of history. (Disclaimer: like Murray, I haven’t listened to Cooper’s podcast yet). We need some foundational respect for expert opinion, and a way to establish authority, Murray says.
The above example reveals the paradox of abundance presented by the internet and its low barriers to entry. We now have access to the entirety of human knowledge in our pockets wherever we go, and everyone has a voice. At the same time, we are easily confused by the fog of low-quality information and algorithmic manipulation, where our quest for knowledge competes with our desire for entertainment. This makes us vulnerable to charismatic hucksters peddling falsehoods in exchange for our clicks.
Adding our voice
It is into this boiling cauldron that the Free Market Foundation (FMF) has thrown itself with the (re)launch of the Rational Standard, which we hope will ignite some serious debate about political, economic, and cultural affairs in South Africa and beyond.
Rational Standard will now function as a media arm of the FMF, which we will use to preach the gospels of liberty and responsibility to a wider audience. We won’t hide our ideological bias but hope to showcase a variety of views, nonetheless.
We were inspired by the likes of Bari Weiss, who was compelled to resign from the New York Times in 2020 after refusing to toe the line of political correctness. Cheekily, Weiss launched her own publication to challenge her former employer and other incumbents. Like The Free Press, the Rational Standard is now publishing on Substack (so please remember to subscribe).
Fortunately, the domestic media landscape has been enriched by a range of alternative media outlets such as the Daily Friend, Politicsweb, and BizNews, as well as a riotous horde of independent YouTubers and podcasters (including ourselves, every Friday at noon).
While there is indeed a lot of shallow reporting online, the fact that publications like The Free Press, Quilette, and Unherd have been so successful reveals that audiences still yearn for long form, substantive, and factual journalism. People want to better understand a rapidly changing world and are willing to seek out content that satisfies their curiosity.
Here at home, citizen journalists like Marie-Louise Antoni have applied common sense and rigorous research to tell in-depth stories that most mainstream journalists refuse to touch. This has enriched public discourse and is reason for optimism about the future of news in South Africa.
Trust must be earned; it is not an automatic privilege. We look forward to earning yours.
David Ansara is the Chief Executive Officer of the Free Market Foundation.
Well done FMF...all the best for a succesful endeavour.