Dan J. Harkey

Master Educator | Business & Finance Consultant | Mentor

Why We Should Accept Nothing at Face Value from the Mainstream Media

Because of its persistent—and often subtle—use of propaganda techniques to sway public opinion

by Dan J. Harkey

Share This Article

Summary

Trust has collapsed Public confidence in the press hasn’t just slipped; it has cratered. Recent national surveys indicate that trust in “mass media” is at or near record lows—roughly 28–31% of Americans report having a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust, down from approximately 68–70% in the early 1970s. Pew’s tracking further shows that while many Americans distrust “the media” in general, they still cherry-pick a few favored outlets—an asymmetry that fuels polarization rather than shared reality.

When trust is this fragile, taking any single outlet’s story at face value stops being prudent and starts being reckless.

Propaganda isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s a playbook

A brief, documented History

During the Cold War, the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee unearthed the CIA’s covert relationships with journalists and media organizations.  This revelation confirmed aspects of what is now known as “Operation Mockingbird.” While the specific term “Mockingbird” is debated, the 1963 CIA wiretap of two columnists, known as Project Mockingbird, is documented in declassified files.  This historical context sheds light on the long, documented pedigree of shaping narratives via media channels.  

The key point isn’t to relitigate naming conventions; it’s to recognize that shaping narratives via media channels has a long, documented pedigree.  Even critics who caution against overextending the “Mockingbird” label concede that influence operations evolve with the times rather than disappear.

How the influence works—three durable mechanisms

·       Agenda‑setting: The media powerfully influence what we think about by emphasizing some issues and downplaying others (the classic McCombs & Shaw “Chapel Hill” study and decades of replications).

·       Framing: Outlets shape how we think about an issue by selectively highlighting causes, moral judgments, and remedies—Entman calls this “selection and salience.”  

·       Indexing: Routine reliance on official sources “indexes” news to elite debate.  When elites agree, critical perspectives tend to vanish from mainstream coverage—until elite conflict reopens the window.

These effects aren’t speculation; they’re among the most replicated findings in communication research.

New engines of persuasion: platforms and profit through advertising

The engagement business model

Modern newsrooms live and die by clicks, time‑on‑page, and social reach.  Research on clickbait and headline design reveals how emotional triggers and curiosity gaps are leveraged to drive consumption—often at the expense of nuance and accuracy.  Studies have found a durable negativity bias in online news reading and sharing, where negative frames and outrage tend to travel farther and faster.

On social platforms, engagement-optimized ranking can amplify divisive, out-group‑hostile content—even when users say they don’t prefer it.  Randomized audits and peer-reviewed work on Twitter/X /X/X / show that the ranking system favors emotionally charged political content over a reverse-chronological feed.  Internal reporting about Facebook (now Meta) revealed that angry reactions were weighted more heavily than “likes,” a design choice that disproportionately surfaced misinformation and toxicity before being dialed back. 

The platform story is complex and multifaceted.  Recent research on YouTube, for instance, has found little evidence of algorithmic “rabbit holes” for general users, suggesting that problematic content is more likely to be sought by those who are predisposed.  However, other studies and policy reports identify scenarios in which recommendation systems can steer users toward extreme material under certain conditions.  This complexity should pique your interest and encourage you to explore the world of algorithmic amplification in greater depth.

Case studies: when mainstream narratives failed—and why skepticism matters

1) Iraq’s “WMDs,” embedded reporting, and post-war reality

In 2004, The New York Times published a rare editor’s note acknowledging coverage flaws in its reporting on Iraqi WMD claims, including overreliance on dubious sources and insufficient skepticism—failings later dissected by PBS and other outlets.  The U.K.’s official Chilcot Inquiry (2016) concluded that the invasion proceeded on “flawed intelligence,” presented with unwarranted certainty, without exhausting peaceful options, and with wholly inadequate post-war planning.

Scholarly analyses of embedded journalism during the 2003 invasion found that embedded coverage was more favorable in tone toward the military and more episodic, conditions that can legitimize policy narratives while sidelining context and dissent. 

These case studies highlight the importance of skepticism in the face of mainstream narrative failures.  Agenda-setting, framing, indexing, and access constraints (embedding) combined with commercial and patriotic pressures can produce consensus narratives that are difficult to challenge until official reviews (like Chilcot) emerge years later.  This should empower you to question and critically evaluate the information presented to you.

2) “Rathergate” (2004): speed over verification

CBS’s 60 Minutes on Wednesday used documents about President George W. Bush’s National Guard service that the network later could not authenticate; an independent panel blasted the “myopic zeal” to break the story and the “rigid and blind” defense afterward.  Staff were ousted, and CBS issued a public mea culpa.

Takeaway: Competitive pressure and confirmation bias can overwhelm verification—exactly why readers should resist snap judgments based on a single explosive segment or scoop.

3) Covington Catholic (2019): a viral clip, a national pile-on

Initial coverage of the Lincoln Memorial confrontation portrayed the students as aggressors, fueling a social‑media firestorm.  Longer videos and later reporting complicate that narrative.  The student at the center, Nicholas Sandmann, settled defamation suits with major outlets (terms undisclosed).  

Takeaway: Out-of-context video is the perfect raw material for agenda-setting and framing in a compressed, outrage-driven news cycle.  Wait for fuller evidence.

The propaganda playbook (in 10 tells)

·         Selective salience: What’s emphasized?  What’s missing?  (Agenda‑setting.)

·         Loaded framing: Which causes, morals, and remedies are implicitly endorsed?  (Framing.)

·         Indexing to elites: Are most sources officials or aligned experts?  Where are independent, dissenting voices?  (Indexing.)

·         Emotional priming: Rage, fear, disgust—are headlines engineered to provoke?  (Clickbait/negativity bias.)

·         Appeals to urgency: “Breaking,” “bombshell,” “shocking”—with thin evidence?  (Rathergate’s lesson.)

·         Authority laundering: “Experts say…”—but who are they, and what’s their track record and funding?  (General verification norms.)

·         Algorithmic tailwinds: Is this going viral because it’s true—or because the system rewards conflict?

·         Access bargains: Embedded or exclusive access that might nudge coverage toward the host’s frame.

·         Over‑certainty: Strong claims with hedged sourcing (“people familiar with…”) and no primary documents.  (NYT’s WMD self-critique.)

·         Delayed accountability: Do outlets issue prompt, visible corrections, or years‑later reports after the damage is done?  (Chilcot.)

A reader’s operating system: how to resist persuasion by narrative

·       Triangulate across outlets—especially across biases.  Read two ideologically distinct outlets on the same story, then add a wire service or public broadcaster.  This counters agenda-setting and framing effects.

·       Go to primary sources.  Whenever possible, read the report, watch the full hearing, pull the dataset, or find the declassified memo.  Rely less on summaries.  (E.g., read the Chilcot volumes rather than just headlines.)

·       Separate breaking news from facts.  Speed degrades accuracy; treat early reports as hypotheses.  (CBS 2004 is the cautionary tale.)

·       Watch the verbs and visuals.  Framing lives in word choice, photo selection, and B-roll.  Ask: if I swapped the adjectives or images, would the story feel different?

·        Inspect source diversity.  If nearly all quotes are official, you’re reading indexed coverage.  Look for non-aligned scholars, NGOs, and on-the-ground witnesses.

·       Understand platform incentives.  Algorithms often boost the emotional and divisive—your feed is not a neutral window.  Consider chronological feeds or lists for political content.

·       Reward corrections.  Favor outlets with transparent corrections pages and ombudsman-style accountability; punish stealth edits with your attention.  (NYT’s Iraq note is a model, if belated.)

·       Learn “structured skepticism.” Before accepting any single narrative, ask: What would I need to see to change my mind?  Then look for it.

The bottom line

Mainstream media is not monolithic, and many journalists do excellent, brave work every day.  But incentives (profit + engagement), routines (agenda‑setting, framing, indexing), and historical precedents (intelligence and government influence) mean we should accept nothing at face value—especially in the first 24–72 hours of any “bombshell.”

Healthy skepticism isn’t cynicism; it’s civic hygiene.

Notes & Sources (selected)