Media: The Truth Is Always in the Middle

Honestly, forming opinions is hard work.

It is hard even for ordinary people, unless someone does not mind looking like a trophy-shipping genius with a loud statement and no homework.

Let’s forget about publicly “performing” people for now.

Ordinary people, like me, often have opinions. In my case, sometimes I do not make any opinion at all, because I know I simply do not have enough details. Yes, sometimes I might appear as the stupid guy in the room. I just try to reduce the number of such moments.

But out there are people who always have an opinion. They simply must have one. Any opinion. Immediately.

And this is the moment when a COVID vaccine apparently turns you into a bat, or in the deluxe version, implants a secret chip that reprograms your body. As a tech guy, let me pretend I know nothing about chip architecture, lithography, wireless power, antennas, firmware, or the tiny technical problem of how this magical invisible chip is supposed to work inside a human body.

But sure.

Do not get vaccinated because someone’s cousin knows someone who met someone who had a terrible experience with something. Very scientific.

Opinions Built From Fog

People build opinions from rumors, emotional stories, half-information, edited clips, headlines, comments, and facts delivered by someone who knows someone who heard something from someone. Beautiful chain of evidence.

But people also build opinions from media. And that is where the problem gets more interesting, because modern media is not a holy temple of truth. Media is a business.

A business with deadlines, pressure, competition, audience targets, politics, donors, advertisers, owners, clicks, subscriptions, traffic goals, and journalists who are still human beings. Not divine truth machines with press cards.

When I worked in media, I followed a few basic rules:

• Never push your own opinion onto the reader or listener.
• Always give space to both sides of a conflict. Verify before publishing.
• Do not treat drama as fact just because it sounds good.

These days? Good luck.

Some journalists still do proper work. Some editors still care. Some outlets still try. Fine. I am not saying every journalist is useless.

But too much of modern media has become opinion delivery with a logo.

• One side is enough.
• One emotional angle is enough.
• One expert with the correct opinion is enough.
• One anonymous source is enough.
• One dramatic headline is enough.

And if it later turns out to be wrong, well, the internet already swallowed it.

The Tiny Apology Problem

People make mistakes. Journalists make mistakes. Editors make mistakes. Media companies make mistakes. That part is normal.

The disgusting part is how mistakes are often handled.

The original drama gets the huge headline. It gets the front page. It gets the social media fire. It gets the TV debate. It gets the outrage. It gets the emotional comments from people who definitely did not read past the headline.

Then the correction arrives later.

Small. Cold. Hidden. Carefully worded. Placed somewhere nobody will read it.

Sometimes there is no real apology at all unless a court, public pressure, or financial damage forces the issue.

That is the trick. The mistake gets the spotlight. The apology gets the basement. And then media people wonder why trust is falling. Really? What a mystery.

Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely and the UVA Disaster

One of the ugliest examples is Rolling Stone’s 2014 article “A Rape on Campus,” written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

The article alleged a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. It relied heavily on one source and failed basic verification. The accused were not properly interviewed. Key details were not properly checked. The story spread fast because it was dramatic, emotional, and politically convenient for a wider conversation.

Then it collapsed.

Rolling Stone retracted the article in 2015. Columbia Journalism Review called the failure avoidable and identified serious failures in reporting, editing, supervision, and fact-checking. Police found no evidence supporting the described fraternity-house gang rape, and former UVA dean Nicole Eramo later won a $3 million defamation verdict against Rolling Stone and Erdely.

That is not a small mistake. That is a professional disaster wearing magazine perfume.

And it hurt everyone. It hurt wrongly accused people. It damaged trust in journalism. It also damaged serious conversations about real sexual assault, because every false or badly verified story becomes ammunition for people who want to dismiss real victims.

Excellent work.

CBS, Dan Rather, and the Killian Documents

Then we have CBS and Dan Rather with the Killian documents in 2004.

CBS aired a 60 Minutes report about George W. Bush’s National Guard service, using documents supposedly from the 1970s. The documents suggested favoritism and problems in Bush’s service record.

Then questions started.

Fast.

The documents were challenged over authenticity, including formatting and typography that looked suspiciously modern. CBS later admitted the report was flawed and said it could not authenticate the documents. Mary Mapes, the producer, was terminated, and three senior CBS employees were asked to resign. CBS itself said it deeply regretted the disservice caused by the flawed report.

That is the kind of media moment where the public looks at the screen and thinks:

So you wanted us to believe this before you properly verified it? Wonderful. Very reassuring.

CNN and the Retracted Trump-Russia Story

CNN had its own little masterpiece in 2017.

The network published a story claiming that Trump associate Anthony Scaramucci was linked to a Senate investigation involving a Russian investment fund. Then CNN pulled the story, apologized to Scaramucci, and three journalists resigned, including Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris.

The story did not meet editorial standards. That phrase is always beautiful, is it not?

“Did not meet editorial standards.”

A very polite way of saying: something went badly wrong, and now everyone is pretending the building is not on fire.

When the topic is politically explosive, verification should be stronger, not weaker.

But sometimes it seems the bigger the political temptation, the faster the brakes disappear.

The Jewish Chronicle and Elon Perry

The Jewish Chronicle had its own nightmare with Elon Perry in 2024.

Several Gaza-war stories under Perry’s name were removed after serious questions were raised about the reporting and his background. The paper cut ties with him and apologized to readers. Reports said the controversy involved fabricated or unsupported claims, including dramatic claims linked to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and the war in Gaza.

That is not harmless gossip.

That is war reporting.

War reporting affects public opinion, families of hostages, political pressure, international reactions, hatred, fear, and real decisions made by real people.

If you publish nonsense in that environment, you are not just making a typo.

You are throwing gasoline into a burning room and calling it journalism.

BBC Panorama, Karen Wightman Trump Speech Edit

Then there is the BBC Panorama Trump edit.

In the documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” the BBC spliced together parts of Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech in a way that made it appear more direct and continuous than it was. The BBC later apologized and accepted that the edit gave a misleading impression. The controversy contributed to the resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness.

Now, people can argue forever about Trump, January 6, his rhetoric, his responsibility, his ego, his statements, his supporters, and the entire political circus. Fine. Argue.

But editing known footage in a misleading way is not a tiny mistake. It is exactly the kind of thing that makes people say: See? They manipulate everything. And then media trust sinks another few meters into the swamp.

The Truth Is Always in the Middle

People like to pretend the truth is simple. This side is right. That side is wrong.

This person is a victim. That person is a monster.

This party is honest. That party is corrupt.

This media outlet tells the truth. That media outlet spreads propaganda.

Nice and easy. Also usually bullshit.

When I say the truth is always in the middle, I do not mean it like some laboratory measurement. I am not saying every topic is exactly 50/50, measured with a ruler by a scientist in protective glasses. It is a metaphor.

It means the truth is usually not exactly where loud media, activists, politicians, celebrities, or emotional headlines place it.

Once a topic becomes even slightly complex, the first version served by media is usually incomplete.

Something is missing. Context is missing. Timing is missing. One side is missing. A correction is missing. A boring detail is missing.

That is what I mean by the truth is always in the middle. Not weak. Not neutral. Not “everyone is equally right.” Just aware that media often sells a version of reality, not reality itself.

Can We Believe the Media?

So, can we believe the media? I do not. Not blindly. I keep my own approach, which sadly often results in the silly sentence: “I just don’t knooow.”

Very powerful. Very dramatic. Very useless at parties. But sometimes it is the only honest answer.

Because if the source is messy, the reporting is rushed, one side is ignored, the correction is hidden, the clip is edited, or the topic is politically radioactive, pretending to be 100% sure is not intelligence. It is performance. And there is already enough performance out there.

What Is Worse?

There is also an extra question. What is worse?

A 100% fake story? Or a story that is half-correct, emotionally loaded, badly framed, and then quietly “corrected” later?

A completely fake story is poison. But a corrected story can be worse in practice, because people remember the first dramatic version. They remember the headline. They remember the scandal. They remember the outrage.

Nobody remembers the tiny correction two weeks later. The mistake gets the spotlight. The apology gets the basement. The damage stays alive.

And then media people wonder why ordinary people do not trust them anymore. Honestly? Media sucks.