It's really difficult to grasp how much of both legacy media and especially now, new media, is problematic due to grifting. Which is the act of gaining money, influence, or power through deceit, manipulation, or insincere persuasion. Often by posing as a true believer in a cause, when actually...not. In the political and media sphere, grifters sell outrage or ideological loyalty not because they believe in the message, but because it’s profitable. Remember that, they know what they are saying is bollox and untrue but why do they do it...? because it makes them MONEY.
A media grifter, by definition, is someone who pretends to inform but actually performs to monetize. They’re like the street magicians of the digital age, except instead of pulling coins from your ear, they pull outrage from thin air—and ask you to like, share, and subscribe for more. In the complex landscape of modern information ecosystems, the rise of grifters represents a profound and dangerous phenomenon. This issue cuts across both legacy media and new media, exacerbating social fragmentation and deepening distrust. In a just and rational world, media grifters would be museum exhibits, fossilized next to telegraphs, MySpace, and Stegosaurus. Instead, they are louder than ever, fueled by algorithms, self-righteousness, and a disturbing amount of energy drinks. Understanding the broader implications of this trend requires not just examining the actors involved, but also the structural conditions that allow them to thrive, both of which we'll get more into with multiple follow up episodes in this "problem with the media" insight series which will orbit exclusively around this issue.
Legacy media, meaning talking heads on traditional telivision, once seen as a relatively stable institution that upheld journalistic standards, has not escaped the temptation of grift. As traditional revenue models collapsed under the weight of internet disruption, many outlets pivoted towards sensationalism, partisanship, and outrage bait to capture dwindling attention spans. The pursuit of clicks and ratings turned some respected journalists and commentators into entertainers first and fact-finders second. In this environment, "grifting" often takes the form of selectively framed narratives, misleading headlines, and tribalistic pandering, all to sustain the illusion of authority and maintain economic viability.
New media, particularly in the realms of video platforms, podcasts, and independent newsletters, initially promised to be a corrective force — more decentralized, authentic, and free from corporate bias. However, it quickly became clear that decentralization alone could not inoculate against human frailty and greed. Many "independent" voices soon realized that sensationalism sells too, if not sadly even more. With lower barriers to entry and fewer formal checks, a new breed of grifter emerged: self-styled truth-tellers who weaponize conspiracy, paranoia, and faux expertise for clout, donations, or subscription fees. The irony is painful: in trying to escape institutional rot, many audiences ran headfirst into the arms of individual opportunists.
If you thought this was bad on legacy media with commercial breaks, whoa have we ever have gone through the looking glass with it in new media ecosystems. It's corrosive consequences erode the public’s ability to distinguish between credible information and manipulation. It deepens polarization, as each "tribe" becomes more entrenched in its preferred sources of outrage. Most tragically, it shifts collective attention away from systemic reforms and into endless battles over manufactured cultural grievances and worst of all faux culture wars. Because Who Needs Facts When You Have a Ring Light, bad tone of voice, and most of all a sugar daddy and crap to sell?