Noam Chomsky, one of the most influential critics of media and propaganda, once wrote, “A propaganda model has a certain initial plausibility on guided free-market assumptions that are not particularly controversial. In essence, the private media are major corporations selling a product (readers and audiences) to other businesses (advertisers).” His critique of corporate-controlled media is often championed by the left as an indictment of capitalist influence over journalism.
Yet, in a twist of ideological irony, Jeff Bezos, owner and creator of Amazon, and a billionaire who embodies the very forces Chomsky has spent a lifetime critiquing—is now proving this theory correct through his ownership of The Washington Post. In reshaping The Post's editorial stance to favor “personal liberties” and “free markets,” Bezos aligned himself with a framework that, whether intentionally or not, validates Chomsky’s warnings about media serving corporate interests over independent journalism.
In doing so, onlookers are witnessing a curious convergence where radical critiques of media hegemony and unfettered capitalism are no longer confined to ideological extremes, but rather meet in the center—bound by the reality that powerful interests, regardless of their political affiliations, ultimately seek to control the narrative. How can the PR industry navigate this new reality while defending the integrity of the free press?
Trust Is at Stake
The Post's abrupt editorial change sparked one of the most consequential debates in modern journalism and, correspondingly, to public relations professionals. Once a beacon of unquestioned credibility, the “Watchdog of Washington" now finds itself at a crossroads, grappling with a profound upheaval that threatens its legacy, the credibility of brands, and our reputations as public relations representatives.
At stake is more than just The Posts's reputation; it is the publication's role in informing the public and strengthening democratic institutions through accountability, most notably through its historic investigations into Watergate, The Pentagon Papers, and Edward Snowden’s revelations on NSA Surveillance. Audiences who have long relied on its journalistic integrity are now uncertain about the objectivity of its coverage. This erosion of trust has major consequences for the larger ecosystem of informed decision-making that media institutions facilitate.
Learning from History
To grasp these media shifts and PR's role within them, we must revisit a pivotal decision that fueled modern polarization: the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, it required broadcasters to present opposing views on controversial issues, fostering editorial balance and a relatively non-partisan press.
In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, citing free speech concerns and a growing media landscape. The fallout had profound consequences: without the mandate for balanced coverage, outlets tailored content to ideological audiences, fueling a boom of partisan news networks. This shift continues to shape today’s media, where mostly “left-leaning” outlets face pressure from ownership to realign editorial stances.
This is not the first time a major American publication has faced upheaval due to ownership interference.
Without looking too far, we're reminded of how CNN underwent a rather messy strategic realignment towards more centrist political coverage. Under new leadership, the network aimed to restore its reputation as a news-based, centrist outlet appealing to a broader political spectrum. This transition involved significant changes, including the departure of high-profile correspondents and a reevaluation of programming to reduce perceived partisan bias.
Another notable example was The Wall Street Journal undergoing a notable editorial shift following its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch in 2007. The outlet gradually realigned under Murdoch’s ownership to adopt a more conservative stance, particularly on its opinion pages. While the Journal maintained its reputation for high-quality financial journalism, the acquisition blurred the lines between news and opinion.
Both cases highlight the damage that can occur when a media institution compromises its core principles. The Washington Post's crisis and the erosion of trust it faces represents a perilous moment for media relations professionals and the general public who rely on the press for competent and independent reporting.
How PR Needs to Respond
To navigate these shifting sands, the PR counsel (as Edward Bernays coined) must become a more discerning consumer of news, vetting sources meticulously and cross-referencing information to ensure accuracy before amplification. Developing strong relationships with trusted journalists and diversifying media sources will help enhance credibility and ensure messaging is grounded in fact, not editorial whims.
Furthermore, in a time where disinformation becomes fact when not properly refuted, PR practitioners must lean into their historic stewardship of information integrity and advocate for transparency in media dealings, pushing for ethical journalism and responsible storytelling.
By fostering an ecosystem of accountability, we can help clients and colleagues remain adaptable and impactful, and preserve media professionals’ reputability as storytellers.
As Ivy Lee emphasized in his book "Declaration of Principles," a book written to establish public relations as a profession rooted in transparency and honesty rather than manipulation, “We aim to supply the press and the public with prompt and accurate information, not as propaganda but as a contribution to public knowledge.” We must recognize that PR's responsibility extends beyond serving corporate interests—practitioners are the gatekeepers of information; those responsible for ensuring accuracy and truth are always part of the story.
Julio E. Ligorría is Senior Director of Public Relations, Roar Media.