Stop Selling an Agenda as News: A Direct Challenge to MS NOW, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times: Earn the Public’s Trust or Lose Its Attention

Stop Selling an Agenda as News

A Direct Challenge to MS NOW, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times: Earn the Public’s Trust or Lose Its Attention

By Bill Conley

An opinion article

Your Audience Does Not Owe You Trust

To the executives, editors, anchors, and commentators at MS NOW, formerly MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times:

Your name is not evidence. Your history is not immunity. Your audience is not obligated to accept your version of events because you have a familiar logo, an expensive studio, or a reputation built by people who worked there decades ago.

Trust belongs to the public. You must earn it.

When you publish a serious accusation, show the evidence. When you characterize a statement, provide its context. When you make a mistake, correct it visibly. When you offer political opinion, identify it plainly.

And when your coverage deserves criticism, answer the criticism with facts. Do not expect viewers to confuse your institutional confidence with proof.

My objection is to journalism that asks the public to accept a political narrative before examining the evidence. When advocacy replaces verification, an outlet risks functioning as a propaganda platform rather than a reliable source of news.

That is a serious charge. It must be supported with specific conduct, not merely disagreement with a story’s conclusions.

A Democratic Talking Point Is Not a Substitute for Reporting

To the outlets named here, the standard should be straightforward: a Democratic official’s claim deserves scrutiny, just as a Republican official’s claim does.

Do not confuse access with independence. Do not let a familiar source become an unquestioned authority. Do not treat one party’s preferred vocabulary as an established description of reality.

If a proposal has costs, investigate them. If a politician contradicts a previous statement, show the contradiction. If an accusation lacks support, say so, regardless of whom it benefits.

And if your commentary supports Democratic policies, own that position. Argue for it openly. Do not expect the audience to mistake political advocacy for neutral reporting.

The public deserves to know when it is hearing a verified account and when it is hearing someone’s preferred interpretation.

Serious Failures Are Real. So Are the Limits of What They Prove.

Criticism of major news organizations does not have to rely on invented examples.

In 2017, CNN withdrew an article involving Anthony Scaramucci; three journalists subsequently left the network. calgary.citynews.ca

In 2004, CBS apologized after being unable to authenticate documents underlying its Bush National Guard coverage. CBS News

In 2024, ABC settled Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit, agreeing to a $15 million contribution toward his future presidential library and publishing a statement of regret. apnews.com

In 2003, The New York Times confronted Jayson Blair’s fabrication and plagiarism, a severe breach of readers’ trust. rcfp.org

These episodes differ substantially. They occurred in different years and involved different people, processes, and responses. They are not evidence that every present employee is dishonest or that every current report is false.

They also do not establish that these organizations operate under Democratic Party direction.

They do establish something important: prestigious institutions can fail badly. Their work should be examined, not accepted automatically.

Corrections and investigations matter. They are necessary forms of accountability. But acknowledging a failure does not erase it, and audiences are entitled to ask what changed afterward.

Call Deliberate Deception What It Is

An honest error is an error. A poorly verified accusation is a reporting failure. A knowingly false account presented to influence the public is disinformation.

When a media organization deliberately subordinates accuracy to political persuasion, propaganda is an appropriate description of that conduct.

But intent needs evidence. A story that angers us is not automatically a lie. A critical report about a politician we support is not automatically propaganda. An editorial endorsement is not, by itself, proof of secret coordination.

Those distinctions make the criticism stronger.

If we accuse an outlet of abandoning factual standards, we must not abandon those standards ourselves.

No Outlet Deserves a Lifetime Subscription to Your Belief

To the public: do not give MS NOW, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, or any other outlet automatic authority over your judgment.

You may stop watching. You may cancel a subscription. You may refuse to share an article that does not substantiate its accusations.

If a program repeatedly substitutes outrage for explanation, turn it off. If a publication will not distinguish allegation from fact, withhold your trust. If its corrections are difficult to find, demand better.

You do not owe continued attention to a source that has failed your standards.

But do not replace automatic belief in one brand with automatic belief in another. Independent judgment requires evaluating evidence even when a headline tells you exactly what you want to hear.

Here Is What Accountability Should Look Like

First, support consequential accusations with accessible evidence wherever possible. Explain what remains unverified.

Second, provide enough context for readers to judge a quotation, video, or document fairly.

Third, distinguish reporting, analysis, and opinion. An audience should not have to guess which it is receiving.

Fourth, give significant corrections meaningful visibility. Explain what was wrong and what the accurate account is.

Fifth, investigate political allies with the same seriousness applied to political opponents.

Sixth, explain major editorial failures and the steps taken to prevent repetition.

Seventh, respond to substantive criticism without treating the audience’s skepticism as an insult.

These are standards for every outlet. The organizations named here should meet them consistently.

Take Back Your Attention

Before believing a consequential claim, locate the original statement, document, or recording when available. Compare independent reporting. Check whether the headline is supported by the article.

Ask what is established, what is disputed, and what is opinion.

Do not repeat an accusation simply because it is politically satisfying. Do not let repetition masquerade as corroboration when several stories depend on the same unverified source.

And do not confuse staying angry with staying informed.

Your attention has value. Spend it on information that helps you understand events rather than material that merely trains you to react.

Earn the Trust You Want

To MS NOW, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times: the public does not exist to protect your reputation.

Your responsibility is to produce work that withstands examination.

If you want people to regard your coverage as independent, demonstrate independence. If you want them to believe your corrections, make those corrections clear. If you want them to distinguish journalism from propaganda, keep evidence ahead of political convenience.

The American public’s interests are not identical to the interests of any political party, media company, advertiser, or television personality.

Citizens deserve information that helps them judge those interests for themselves.

My message to readers is firm: never surrender your judgment to a media brand. Withhold trust where the evidence warrants it. Walk away from coverage that repeatedly fails you.

And my message to the outlets is equally direct:

Stop selling an agenda as news. Show your evidence. Own your failures. Earn the public’s trust.