I get what you’re saying about honesty, hard work, and making life better for others. Those qualities matter in business and in life. But that’s exactly why I’m cautious about elevating media figures or analysts to “trusted authority” status based on a few anecdotes or high-profile claims.
Social media criticism isn’t the issue. The issue is that public commentary needs to be evaluated on facts, consistency, and transparency, not on whether someone “sticks their neck out” or gets attention. A lot of people stick their necks out, some for truth, some for clicks, some because controversy is their business model.
Being asked for an opinion by RFK or the White House doesn’t automatically validate anyone’s worldview. Governments, campaigns, and politicians consult all kinds of voices, from brilliant experts to fringe theorists. Outreach isn’t endorsement.
And documentaries? Same thing, anyone can produce one. The question is whether the content holds up under scrutiny rather than whether it exists.
My only point is this:
Credibility doesn’t come from being outspoken or being consulted. It comes from a long record of accuracy, transparency, and willingness to admit when wrong.
That’s where Tucker, Candace, Nick, Armstrong, like most commentators, have mixed histories.
I’m not dismissing everything they say. I’m simply not prepared to hand over my judgment to personalities whose accuracy varies depending on the topic. Time will tell, as you said, but I’ll rely on the evidence, not the hype. |
