I’m starting to wonder if this consolidated news format—where people rely on a single digital commentator or social media influencer for all their updates—is a return to the old captive audience model of news acquisition. You know, the one we had before social media, when everyone watched the same anchors at the same time, and that was the news.
We transitioned from the traditional age to the algorithmic age: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok—platforms that feed us content based on our data, behavior, and likes. Even traditional sources like The New York Times now have real-time tickers and headlines, pushing them out with great urgency.
But now? We’re entering a new loop: news consolidation via personality.
A trusted “independent journalist.” The person who tells you what’s worth knowing.
Case in point: Aaron Parnas.
He is just 26 years old, lives in D.C., and has over 3 million followers on TikTok. He delivers “breaking news” updates multiple times a day—often at least 7. If you subscribe to his Substack, he provides you with bullet-point summaries for free, as well as more in-depth content for paying subscribers. He considers himself an independent journalist.
But here’s the thing: What does “independent journalism” mean in this context?
Is he actually breaking news, or compiling it?
A recent class reading highlighted what many overlook: investigative journalism, or real watchdog work, requires resources—editors, legal teams, FOIA requests, and travel budgets. Those are some of the advantages of corporate and legacy media: the money. So what exactly do these people bring to the table besides a savvy engagement strategy?
Because if your entire model depends on absorbing mainstream media content, curating it, and packaging it for your audience, can you really survive without traditional media?
This isn’t a knock on Parnas. He’s clearly intelligent, informed, and knows how to work a digital audience. He was the second person to interview Cory Booker just after Booker’s symbolic filibuster. That’s no small feat. But is that watchdog journalism? Or is that influencer journalism?
Here's my concern:
When millions of people rely on one person to interpret the world, we lose the muscle memory of curiosity. We hand over our agency. We become passive. Even when the content is solid, the experience becomes less about being informed and more about being fed.
We often discuss media literacy—knowing how to verify, contextualize, and analyze information. But I think there’s something else that’s just as important and far less discussed: Media intuition. The instinct to question. The inner pull to cross-reference. The gut feeling that something’s being framed a certain way, and you need to check another source. It's not just about facts—it’s about sense-making.
And I’m not sure we’re building that skill anymore. We’re too busy watching someone else do it for us.
We are in an era where people need to be more resourceful and skilled in monitoring and tracking the news. Yes, it’s essential to filter news based on what directly affects you or what interests you. But in terms of democracy, we all need a certain level of media training—and I don’t mean formal classes. I mean the instinctual kind. The kind that teaches you how to sort the noise from the signal.
I recently subscribed to Aaron Parnas and even became a paying member of his Substack. I found the bullet points convenient.
Then I came across a TikTok that made me pause...
It said something like: Just because you present the news doesn’t mean you’re a journalist. You’re distilling it. You’re a messenger of a messenger. You’re a third-party voice repackaging what’s already been filtered by mainstream media.
As helpful as people like Parnas may be to some, I realized that I want to track my own news. I want to form my own instincts. I want to regain that media intuition.
Then someone mentioned something else. I’m not even sure if it’s entirely accurate, but I’ve seen multiple mentions that Parnas is a Zionist. Now, I’m not going to unpack that whole conversation here, but it did force me to notice his lack of coverage on Israel and Palestine in an ecosystem of ongoing coverage and debate.
That moment forced me to reconsider not just my subscription, but the entire influencer news model. I’m not saying Parnas is malicious. However, I am saying that I don’t want to rely on any one person to curate my reality, primarily when that person is still operating within the same filtering logic as the media they claim to be independent from.
Because at the end of the day, these personalities are just an extension of the system.
Comments
Post a Comment