The Watchdog Turned Lapdog

From guardian of liberty to gatekeeper of ideology

In theory, a free press serves as a sentinel of liberty—a watchdog over government and a check on those in power. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution enshrined freedom of the press as a pre-existing right, one that stood as a bulwark against tyranny. Its purpose was to ensure that citizens could obtain unfiltered facts, challenge authority, and participate in self-government, not promote political stances or elevate fashionable causes. Yet today, the politicization of the press has not only threatened its own credibility but also the very liberty it was designed to protect.

The framers of the Constitution understood the dangers of concentrated power. That is why the separation of powers was woven into the very structure of government. And the free press, though not a formal branch of government, was viewed as an unofficial fourth estate—a vital actor in holding elected officials accountable. But what happens when the watchdog joins the wolfpack?

To understand the modern corruption of the press, one must begin with its original intent. During the founding era, newspapers were raucous, combative, and often partisan—but the partisanship was transparent. The reader knew which paper leaned Jeffersonian and which favored Adams. There was no illusion of neutrality. But these newspapers were not beholden to the government. They were beholden to their readers and their own convictions.

Contrast that with the media of today, where major networks and legacy outlets profess impartiality while advancing particular political narratives with almost religious fervor. It is not the presence of bias that is new—it is the pretense of objectivity coupled with mainstream dominance and ideological uniformity that makes it dangerous.

Today, news items harmful to favored political figures are buried or dismissed as “conspiracy theories,” while false narratives damaging to opponents are trumpeted.

The Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 is a prime example. When the New York Post published materials from a laptop allegedly belonging to the son of a presidential candidate, much of the mainstream media dismissed the story as “Russian disinformation”—without evidence, aided only by self-serving government officials and partisan members of the intelligence community. Social media companies, in collaboration with newsrooms, censored the story. Only after the election had passed did legacy outlets admit the laptop was authentic.

In a truly free society, the press must function as a counterweight to power, not as its megaphone. During COVID-19, dissenting voices—whether they be epidemiologists, economists, or concerned parents—were smeared, censored, or ignored. “The science is settled,” the press declared, even as policies changed by the month. This was not journalism. It was compliance propaganda.

The consequences are profound. When trust in media collapses, people tend to descend into ideological echo chambers. Truth becomes tribal. Debate becomes war. And citizens no longer share a common set of facts upon which to disagree. A press that abuses its power does not simply damage its own reputation; it damages the very fabric of democratic society.

Recently, mainstream media has been caught red-handed, being a courier for Obama administration lies. The press, once tasked with holding power accountable, instead became the megaphone of those entrenched in the intelligence and political establishment. For two years, they fanned the flames of the Russian collusion hoax, breathlessly reporting leaks, often from anonymous sources with political motives—while dismissing contrary facts as “disinformation.” They tried relentlessly to damage a president but instead inflicted a near-fatal injury on their own credibility. 

Throughout history, totalitarian regimes have understood the power of the press. Lenin controlled the flow of information to mold the minds of the Soviet citizenry. Hitler’s propaganda machine turned lies into dogma. George Orwell, in his novel 1984, warned of a society where history is rewritten, language is manipulated, and the press serves the state. Today’s media is not directly run by the state, but when it voluntarily aligns with the ruling orthodoxy and suppresses dissenting thought, the end result is disturbingly similar.

Freedom of the press is not just the absence of government censorship. It also requires the presence of journalistic courage, skepticism, and integrity. It is the willingness to question all power, not just the power of the opposing party. And it is the recognition that liberty is best preserved when no one is beyond scrutiny. Once the press devolves into an instrument of ideology rather than inquiry, the people are no longer informed; they are indoctrinated. 

Thomas Jefferson once said he would prefer newspapers without government to government without newspapers. But he also warned that a press without virtue could be just as dangerous as a government without limits. The future of liberty may depend on whether the press decides to be a prudent watchdog or remains a partisan lapdog.