Journalists Aren’t Your Friends

On sensation, access, and the industry that eats people for a story.

An angry rant

by Tara Knight

I’m going to start where the mask slips. Journalism does not run on truth. It runs on stories. Stories need tension, protagonists, antagonists, arcs, and payoff. Stories need something to sell. Once you understand that, the rest of the behavior stops looking confusing and starts looking inevitable. A journalist from The Needle implying I fabricated an FBI document (federal crime btw) is not an anomaly.

It is a reflex. It is what happens when reality refuses to arrange itself into a neat narrative and the writer still needs a hook.

Journalists are trained to hunt for a “story,” not to sit with messy material conditions. Sensation is rewarded. Ambiguity is monetized. Complexity gets shaved down until it fits a headline and a deadline. When something does not immediately scan as legible power, the industry applies pressure until it does. If the facts resist, the subject absorbs the damage. Suspicion becomes texture. Doubt becomes drama. The journalist gets to look serious while smearing someone with insinuation and lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This is why journalists love skepticism that flows downward. Casting doubt on a marginalized subject reads as rigor. Casting doubt on institutions risks access. Access is the currency of the trade. Sources dry up when writers ask the wrong questions. Editors notice. Careers stall. So journalists learn where to aim their scrutiny. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky mapped this decades ago when they described sourcing and flak as filters. You do not need a conspiracy. You need incentives.

Trans journalism inherits this machinery intact and then adds community proximity to raise the stakes. Writers are desperate to look responsible, adult, credible. That desperation shows up as overcorrection. They scrutinize trans women who refuse deference. They hedge with insinuation. They imply fabrication without naming motives because naming motives would require proof. Ambiguity lets them wound without accountability. Pierre Bourdieu called this symbolic violence. It looks clean. It lands dirty.

The industry’s obsession with sensation explains the rest. Trauma becomes content. Surveillance becomes intrigue. State violence becomes a plot device. A trans woman’s life gets turned into a narrative arc that peaks at conflict and resolves with doubt. Survivors get cross-examined for tone. Whistleblowers get framed as unreliable characters. Poor and racialized subjects get treated as unreliable narrators by default. Kimberlé Crenshaw wrote about credibility gaps. Sara Ahmed wrote about complaint being treated as trouble. Journalism reproduces both while congratulating itself for neutrality.

Examples pile up because the pattern is consistent. A claim that threatens institutional comfort triggers a search for a twist. The twist does not need to be true. It needs to be printable. Editors prefer the whiff of scandal to the grind of verification. Sensationalism fills the space where labor would go. When proof is hard, implication is cheap. When accountability is risky, vagueness is safe.

This is why journalists perform distance instead of solidarity. Distance protects them. Solidarity costs them. bell hooks warned that representation without power changes nothing. Journalism loves representation because it photographs well. Power requires organization and patience. Those do not fit a news cycle. So journalists chase moments instead of movements and drama instead of structure.

I am not asking journalists to be brave saints. I am asking readers to stop confusing bylines with care. This is an industry. It extracts. It packages. It moves on. Your life becomes a consumable. The outlet keeps the clicks. You keep the consequences. Treating journalists as friends invites manipulation. Treating them as neutral invites harm.

The practical lesson is boring and brutal. Document everything. Expect insinuation. Anticipate framing. Build channels that do not depend on editorial goodwill. Organize with people who share risk instead of chasing validation from people who share incentives. When journalists get it right, cite the work. When they don’t, name the pattern and keep moving.

I’ll end where I began. Journalists want a story. They want a clean arc. They want a splash. They will create doubt to get one. If you understand that, you keep your footing. If you don’t, they will bury you for copy and call it professionalism.

—

If you want this work to stay independent and uncompromised, support it here:

https://ko-fi.com/bundleofstyyx