How the Fourth Estate Morphed Into a Fifth Column

Times and attitudes shifted, but in 2026 the mainstream, broadcast, print, and entertainment media still persist in making excuses for unhinged acts, particularly in major metropolitan areas. 

Mark E. Zimmerman | April 25, 2026

“Maybe it's the time of year, maybe it's the time of man.” Crosby Stills and Nash must have been peering over a distant horizon some 50 years ago when they penned those lyrics looking toward 2026. Indeed, the times do seem to have hit an inflection point and are reverting to the sanity side of the U.S. cultural spectrum, at least for a substantial segment of the American populace.

Looking back on that era, one of the most heralded historical dramas of the 1960s was Bonnie and Clyde. Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty depicted the protagonists as they rampaged across America, robbing banks, murdering, and kidnapping during the 1930s Great Depression. For most, venerating those who participated in heinous activities would be repulsive. However, to generate box office revenue and audience sympathies, producers went out of their way to portray the vicious criminals as just tragic castoffs from society rather than concentrating on the murderous thieves that they were. Besides, Bonnie and Clyde had their reasons.

Hardly noticed at that time was a general subtext that emerged from this film: morality was actually ambiguous; apparently there were no clear lines between right and wrong, so situational ethics became reasonable.

Coincidently, American news organizations took notice of how elevating those anti-heroes, who had turned their backs on societal norms and rejecting the status quo, titillated the public. Newsrooms that decided to adopt this approach suddenly generated higher profits. Lesser-known news organizations and publications went even further to include blatantly deceitful news reports in hopes of increasing readership.

Times and attitudes shifted, but in 2026 the mainstream, broadcast, print, and entertainment media still persist in making excuses for unhinged acts, particularly in major metropolitan areas. Why? It is a desperate bid to retain what remains of preserving their philosophies and advertising revenue. They hang on by normalizing these forms of conduct and making excuses for criminals. But those publications and outlets promoting these points of view have fallen short in convincing a plurality of the American population.

In this era of tech advancements, the dominant narratives of the past can no longer be controlled. More meticulous reporting came alive with the advent of the internet, smart phones, and podcasts. As the number of news outlets proliferated, alternative interpretations of issues and events were presented to the public. There were no more Walter Cronkite-like pronouncements from on high of “that’s the way it is,” and no further discussion was necessary.

Suddenly, those summary judgments were found to be more complex. With additional news sources available, consumers began to question the points of information on which they had always relied. When contrary perspectives were aired, many wondered what established media channels had gained by presenting limited and unbalanced explanations of events in the past. News junkies had been awakened to media ideologies and began to doubt if descriptions of events had been filtered through ideological prisms.

Consider the recent example of tariffs. The legacy media outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC) collectively clutched their pearls when President Trump introduced his new U.S. trading paradigm. His initial proposals sought massive import duties on goods coming into America from nations where foreign governments regularly added 30-50% in fees to U.S exports; those additional costs made U.S. goods largely non-competitive in many foreign markets. The President sought reciprocal tariff treatment.

Established news organizations immediately took to the airwaves declaring ruin: “These levies will touch off hyperinflation the U.S. has never seen!” These same outfits purposely looked the other way when the highest inflation in 40 years spiked after implementation of the Biden “economic” policies. The legacy broadcasters and formerly dominant U.S. news sources (NY Times and Washington Post) were in lockstep reciting identical, negative phrases to describe his offers while leaving out salient facts. Those outlets neglected the foreign exporters’ main concern: maintain access to U.S consumers and the $30 trillion American market at all costs.

In prior years, wedging a contrary view through a crack in the mainstream media newscasts was nearly impossible. Now, economists that had been previously denied access to traditional sources were admitted to new media and podcasts. Those who gained entree to the new channels explained the President’s initial offer as an opening gambit in the bargaining process. Their views in the end were vindicated.

Ultimately, exporters to U.S. markets reluctantly dialed back their fat profit margins to absorb the President’s tariff hits and retained access to the ravenous U.S consumers. Not surprisingly, hyperinflation did not make the predicted appearance because of tariffs.

The ideologues who characterized the President’s initial bargaining position as outrageous discovered that it actually fit snugly as one tactic inside a strategy to ensure a successful outcome. Nonetheless, rather than emphasizing the positive tariff results, the legacy media leapt at changes in negotiation tactics as an opportunity to denigrate the President, maliciously jeering him as a TACO (“Trump Always Chickens Out”) negotiator.

This one example illustrates how President Trump’s re-election really ginned up the ire of the legacy media outlets. They refused to focus on clear-cut results but attempted to gash a positive policy outcome as a defeat. In a sense, they were engaged in censorship, driven to serve up toxic interpretations for their own gain while poisoning the body politic.

And when the Iran conflict sprung up in April, NY Times reporting fueled the “President Trump as warmonger” narrative, implying that he was someone always in need of an enemy while casting aside the demonstrable peril of Iran’s suicidal leaders. When he then offered negotiations to end the conflict, the Times deftly reversed coverages to revitalize the TACO meme. Their duplicitous postings, vehemently against his actions to disarm the murderous Iranians’ nuclear programs initially but later casting him as chickening out of his original policy, perfectly illuminates their deceitful motivations.

By taking approaches such as these, whose interests are they protecting? Although they would never admit it, the legacy media operates hand-in-glove with leftist political acolytes. Indeed, the Times just recently promoted a podcast transcript where one participant submitted that laws are immoral, theft as a political protest was justified, and thought murder was possibly an effective act of consciousness raising.

The mainstream media’s ongoing emphasis on similar themes attempt (and fail) to present themselves as occupying the moral high-ground. They defend the benefits (not rights) of those who heedlessly ignore the concepts of rules-based policies for the greater good and the U.S. Constitution. In reality, the media and the leftists interest groups are solely focused on maintaining advertising revenues and membership dues.

The media does continue to fool some, but not all. A recent Gallup poll illuminated an accelerating mistrust of their daily presentations. In 1970, more than 70% trusted the news media; now that faith has plummeted to 22%. And outlets that trombone their virtue signaling slogans are now seen as laughable; the NY Times’ “All the News That's Fit to Print,” has become in the eyes of many “All the News That Fits, We Print”; The Washington Post’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” became “Democracy Dies in Darkness and We’re Here to Pull the Plug.”

The propaganda media, leftist associations, and entertainment types have clearly chosen sides and are still in league with 60s moralities of exalting criminal elements, domestic and foreign. So, to reverse their declining trust and falling revenues, here’s an idea: they should dangle their services as merger offers to Pravda or the Xinhua News Agency. That way, they can continue to promote their bankrupt theories emanating from faculty lounges, Marxist drum circles, and Maoist admiration societies, which for a time, put the American Experiment on life support.

Marc E. Zimmerman is a former legislative assistant to a Member of Congress

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.

© American Thinker