It’s the media’s job to hold power to account. This year, too many got into bed with it instead

I'm finally ready to share a story about one of the most ill-considered decisions I've ever made. Nearly ten years ago, I left a secure, well-paying advertising job to pursue a risky career in freelance journalism. The wisdom of that choice is debatable, but the truly foolish part was how I resigned. I penned a rather embarrassing column for The Guardian, publicly declaring my departure from my "meaningless job in advertising." My boss read it and, unsurprisingly, wasn't pleased. (Sorry, Sean!)

I bring up this embarrassing anecdote because I've been reflecting on why I left advertising. It might sound sentimental, but I was tired of selling people things they didn't need. I wanted to do something meaningful. That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. selling underwear and vodka may be unfulfilling, but it's less damaging than selling wars and genocide. Promoting cleaning products in TV ads is more ethical than whitewashing authoritarian politicians with biased reporting, which, to quote George Orwell, relies on "euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."

Journalists should operate without fear or favor. Whether covering foreign policy or new technology, our priority should be the truth, not pleasing the powerful or promoting corporations. Yet, the lines between advertising, public relations, and journalism are dangerously blurred. Once-respected media organizations have been taken over by billionaires like Jeff Bezos, the Murdoch family, and Larry Ellison, transforming them into strategic megaphones. Politicians are marketed to the public using the same cynical tactics that ad agencies use to sell alcohol. If Guinness is good for you, then authoritarianism is even better!

Consider The Washington Post, where a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist resigned in January after the paper refused to publish a cartoon depicting Bezos kneeling before Donald Trump. In September, the Post also dismissed columnist Karen Attiah, reportedly after she posted about Charlie Kirk's racist comments on social media. While many dedicated journalists still produce excellent work at the Post, the newspaper is now inextricably linked to the Trump administration through Bezos and his business interests.

This issue extends beyond just appeasing Trump; it concerns who the media chooses to protect and who they choose to dehumanize. As a British Palestinian, working in the media has been challenging in recent years, especially with the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the increased ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. It has been difficult to grapple with the media's complicity in these events. Since October 7, Israel has killed over 200 Palestinian journalists in Gaza, and too many Western journalists have remained silent. The scale of the devastation in Gaza would not have been possible without the media dehumanizing Palestinians and manufacturing consent for the atrocities.

For instance, one of the most prominent and inflammatory claims after October 7 – which helped convince people that there wasn't a single innocent Palestinian civilian – was that Hamas beheaded 40 babies. While Hamas committed documented atrocities, this particular claim was false. Nevertheless, numerous journalists, including a CBS News correspondent and a CNN anchor, spread it without proper verification. The CNN anchor later apologized, but CBS did not.

Speaking of CBS, it's now owned by billionaires David and Larry Ellison (father and son). According to the Financial Times, David Ellison scouted Bari Weiss, who now runs the news division, for her pro-Israel views. The Ellisons are also vying to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (which owns CNN). The elder Ellison, a long-time Trump donor and ally, has reportedly discussed with the White House the possibility of firing CNN hosts that the former president dislikes.

I realize it's difficult to keep track of which media outlet is being acquired by which megacorp owned by which billionaire, and how much money they've all donated to Trump. But the core issue is this: instead of holding power accountable, the US media is increasingly aligning itself with it.

Before my current boss calls me into their office, I want to state that I wouldn't be writing this if I believed The Guardian was part of the problem. Of course, like any organization, The Guardian isn't perfect. That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. it is unique: independent, free from paywalls, and unapologetically progressive. I don't believe any other media organization can resist the growing global tide of authoritarianism as effectively as we can.

For one thing, we can't be bought by billionaires. We are independent, and we act like it. If you're looking for a balanced portrayal of Trump, The Guardian isn't for you. If you want a media outlet that caters to the sociopathic billionaires who increasingly control every aspect of modern society, The Guardian isn't for you.

But if you believe in free thinking, free speech, and a free press, please consider supporting us. Freedom of speech has never been free, and it's becoming increasingly expensive.