Even before CBS trotted out its new, Bari Weiss-approved anchor, Tony Dokoupil, to his new chair as host of the “Evening News,” he had already apologized for past transgressions of listening to experts and advocates: “On too many stories the press has missed the story because we’ve taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American. Or we’ve put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites and not enough on you.”
Yet, in trying to figure out why they’ve missed the story, CBS has once again managed to miss the story.
These legacy news outlets, like CBS News, want you to believe that when they present the news, they only have their viewers’ or readers’ interests at heart. I doubt many people really thought this was true five years ago, but I can safely say that no one believes it today — not the viewers, not the politicians, and not the owners who have paid billions to own these outlets.
Whether it is journalists at The Washington Post lecturing us on the divide between news and opinion, or the rapidly declining CNN insisting it remains a hard-news outlet while platforming Scott Jennings on a near-nightly basis, consumers of news aren’t naive. They know the truth.
No matter how many times we are told that news programs are independent of their Trump-loving corporate owners, our daily experience proves otherwise. As CBS News states in its third principle: “Americans are smart and discerning.”
A year ago, in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election, I wrote that we were on our own. ABC News’ parent company, Disney, had just paid Trump $16 million to settle a defamation lawsuit. I worried aloud that “institutions that assured us they would be in the fight for democracy are already backing down. People who claimed they saw Trump clearly for what he is now have voluntarily put blinders in front of their own eyes.”
Since then, it has gotten much worse.
Disney was soon joined by Paramount, the parent company of CBS News. In a cynical decision to curry favor with Trump, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit alleging that Trump was somehow injured when “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Kamala Harris.
This was not the last time either network would bow down to Trump. When Jimmy Kimmel ran afoul of the White House’s sensibilities, Disney suspended him — only reversing course when faced with public condemnation and consumer backlash. Paramount canceled Stephen Colbert’s late-night show entirely in order to remove a regular irritant from Trump’s orbit.
When Trump sat for an interview with “60 Minutes” in November 2025, it was a virtual lovefest. Trump lied with impunity — including about the outcome of the 2020 election on four separate occasions — without any pushback or correction. Ironically, the piece was edited to omit Trump’s reference to the previous settlement: “‘60 Minutes’ paid me a lotta money.”
Most recently, the new editor-in-chief of CBS News, Bari Weiss — a woman Trump called “a great new leader” — shelved a highly critical piece set to air about the Trump administration’s deportation of migrants to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT prison.
According to a recent Gallup poll, trust in media in the United States is at a new low of 28%. It is not only Republicans who have lost trust; independents and Democrats are not far behind. The insistence by news outlets that their corporate owners play no role in directly or indirectly shaping news coverage is making things worse, not better.
One piece of good news has come out of this equation: Corporate media’s capitulation has turbocharged the growth of independent media organizations that share several common traits.
First, they are not owned by large corporations or venture capitalists. Typically, these independent news outlets are either nonprofits or are owned by the people who are publicly and prominently associated with them.
Second, most rely entirely, or in large measure, on subscriptions or donations from their readers. This aligns the interests of the news outlet with those of its readers. While apologists for legacy media say that this leads to audience capture, it is far better than being beholden to corporate interests.
Finally, the best of them make no claims of objectivity or neutrality. They recognize that there is a difference between providing nuanced and complete coverage and surrendering the truth to the altar of both-sides coverage.
Last year, I warned that we are on our own. I also pointed out that a new pro-democracy movement was being built and that it would include independent media outlets.
I have spent the last year relentlessly building Democracy Docket to meet the criteria I laid out above so that it can genuinely serve its readers and influence the larger pro-democracy debate. Along with my job as a voting rights litigator, contributing on a regular basis to Democracy Docket is my way of finding community. I hope it has made you feel less alone as well.