Weekend Extra: The Next Stage for Truth
The uncensorable frontier of independent media.
The late-night monologues are under attack. Colbert, Kimmel, cancelled. Perhaps Jimmy Fallon or Seth Meyers will be next.
In the past, I’ve been critical of these shows—not because they weren’t clever, but because they seemed determined to ridicule half the country every night. That’s not bridge-building, it’s trench-digging. That kind of humor doesn’t heal; it widens the divide.
As much as I think their brand of satire was part of the outrage machine, I would never suggest they should be silenced. Yet that’s what’s happening.
“Great News for America,” Trump wrote. “The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. . . . That leaves Jimmy [Fallon] and Seth [Meyers], two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”
Whether through cancellations or quiet cave-ins to pressure from the administration, the message is clear: traditional media is no longer a place where uncomfortable truths or even pointed jokes are safe.
For many on the right, this kind of censorship isn't new; it's a phenomenon they've been arguing against for years. They would point to instances where conservative voices were de-platformed, ostracized, or effectively silenced by major corporations and social media platforms long before the recent cancellations of figures like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert. From their perspective, the liberal-leaning mainstream media has long served as a gatekeeper that stifles conservative expression under the guise of preventing "hate speech" or "misinformation."
Yet regardless of political perspective, there’s a principle at stake that goes beyond left or right: the idea that entertainment, satire, or dissent should be removed from the public sphere simply because it makes someone uncomfortable or challenges power. This is an ideal that belongs to all Americans, not just Democrats or Republicans.
We are in a very, very dark place for free speech.
- Isaac Saul, Tangle Sep 19 2025
Free societies don’t silence satire. When political pressure shapes what can or cannot be said, we lose a foundational element of the open exchange of ideas. Our traditional media has become fragile, too vulnerable to both corporate interests and government influence. This erosion of open expression runs contrary to the very heritage of free speech, a hard-won liberty upon which our intellectual and civic progress depends. The right to speak our minds is not a modern convenience but a core principle, serving as a vital check on power and a means for the public to pursue truth. When media institutions yield to external pressures, they surrender their role as guardians of this tradition. The result is a chilling effect on public discourse, where genuine debate is replaced by cautious silence, and the capacity for a vibrant, self-governing society is compromised.
That’s why the future lies elsewhere.
It’s podcasts like Outrage Overload, distributed on the humble, decentralized backbone of the RSS feed. If YouTube pulls a video, it’s gone. If Facebook throttles your page, your reach disappears overnight. If late-night producers decide the risk is too high, whole shows vanish. But an RSS feed is different: no central gatekeeper can shut it down. Unless the U.S. one day erects its own “Great Firewall,” the podcast ecosystem is the last great frontier where independent voices can’t simply be unplugged.
And that independence leads us to the next challenge: in a world where traditional sources of authority are collapsing, how do we build credibility in this freer, messier media landscape?
The Wild West of Truth
Decentralization is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it means no corporate boardroom or government office can pull the plug on your voice. On the other, it raises a thorny question: if anyone can publish, who should you trust?
For decades, traditional media played the role of gatekeeper. Newspapers, networks, and newsrooms had their flaws—biases, blind spots, profit motives—but they carried the weight of institutional authority. People knew where to look, even if they didn’t always like what they found.
That foundation is crumbling—some say it’s already crumbled. Corporate news outlets are increasingly compromised by political pressures, shareholder demands, and the never-ending chase for clicks. Many people no longer believe what they hear from those sources; and, especially with recent developments, they’re often right not to.
Podcasts and independent media fill that void with something traditional outlets can’t replicate: authenticity. But authenticity alone doesn’t guarantee accuracy. A passionate host isn’t necessarily a reliable one. And in an era where “do your own research” can mean anything from reading peer-reviewed science to falling down a YouTube rabbit hole, the challenge of establishing credibility is real.
So the question becomes: how do we, as independent creators, assert credibility without recreating the same brittle hierarchies that failed?
Avoiding the Trap of “There Is No Truth”
This is where the stakes rise. The erosion of trust in mainstream media doesn’t just shape domestic debates—it directly serves the interests of U.S. adversaries. Russian disinformation campaigns, for example, have long pursued a strategy not simply of pushing pro-Kremlin narratives, but of undermining the very idea that objective truth exists. Their “firehose of falsehood” model floods the information space with so much contradiction, distortion, and nonsense that citizens begin to doubt whether any source can be trusted.
That’s the real danger: sliding into a toxic cynicism where truth itself seems out of reach. When every voice is suspect, when every outlet looks compromised, people retreat into echo chambers or simply stop believing altogether. A society that believes “there is no truth” is fragile, polarized, and easily manipulated—precisely the outcome adversaries are hoping for.
So yes, decentralization keeps the conversation alive. But without trust, that conversation risks dissolving into noise.
Building Credibility Without Gatekeepers
I don’t pretend to have all the answers here. In fact, one of the risks of this new landscape is anyone who claims to. But I do think there are some principles we can lean on. Here are a few guidelines that help rebuild trust:
Transparency over perfection. I’m not always going to get everything right. No one will. But being open about where information comes from, admitting uncertainty, and correcting mistakes in public builds more trust than pretending to have all the facts nailed down.
Diverse voices, not echo chambers. If every guest on a show sees the world the same way, it’s not journalism—it’s propaganda. I’ve tried to make space for perspectives that challenge my own assumptions, even when (especially when) it’s uncomfortable.
Community accountability. In the old media model, “trust” was supposed to flow down from institutions. In the new model, it flows outward, in conversation with the people listening, reading, and engaging. Credibility is earned, not conferred. This is where you come in: reach out to add context or tell me when you think I (or a guest) got it wrong.
None of this creates a perfect system. But maybe that’s the point. We aren't trying to build a perfect system; we need a more honest one. The days of outsourcing our trust to distant institutions are over. We can no longer simply inherit trust from a single source. We have to earn it ourselves, through hard-won credibility and transparent conversation.
Podcasts: The New Frontier
If traditional media is fading into irrelevance and social platforms are tightening their grip, then podcasts—our podcasts—may be the last, best place for messy, honest, unsanitized conversation.
Podcasts aren’t perfect—they never will be—but they are resilient. The RSS feed doesn’t answer to advertisers or politicians. It’s one of the last truly open channels we’ve got, and for now, it’s still in our hands.
That doesn’t mean the work is easy. With freedom comes responsibility. If we want podcasts and other independent media to carry the conversation forward, we have to meet the credibility challenge head-on. We can’t simply replace one failing institution with another echo chamber.
I don’t know if we’ll get it exactly right. In fact, I’m sure we won’t. But I do know this: the future of real conversation, honest disagreement, and unsanitized truth won’t be dictated from a network studio or a social media boardroom. It’ll live in earbuds, on commutes, during walks, in late-night listening sessions.
The future won’t be televised. It won’t be live-streamed on YouTube. It will be downloaded, queued up in your app, and carried with you—uncensorable, unfiltered, and still alive in the RSS feed.