Photo via Yahoo
***
Five years, $100 million for a former college basketball player who reportedly averaged 1.5 points a game. While it seems that the agent is a miracle worker or the player was handed a blank check, ESPN made the calculated decision to sign the face of their network, Stephen A. Smith, to a new deal that would enable him to talk more politics, internet trends, pop culture phenomena, viral moments, and whatever he wants, often venturing far beyond the boundaries of traditional sports commentary. Smith’s evolution from beat reporter to brand ambassador mirrors ESPN’s shift from pure sports coverage to a hybrid of sports, culture, and opinion. In many ways, he has become the archetype of the modern media personality: informed, loud, polarizing, and always trending. Amid extensive layoffs to some of its most experienced staff, ESPN is prioritizing star power over quality journalism, and the decision is paying dividends. The network’s flagship show, “First Take,” continues to grow in viewership and popularity thanks in part to its star-studded cast headlined by Smith, Kendrick Perkins, and Skip Bayless.
The popularity of the show doesn’t stem from its hard-hitting analysis, or lack thereof, but rather from the rage-baiting clips it puts out on social media. Its provocative commentary attracts millions of engagements across various social media platforms without the need for hard-hitting analysis typically associated with sports journalism. The hosts’ egregiousness frequently angers fans, yet they continue to engage with the program, making it one of the most popular sports talk shows in America.
Smith’s recent feud with NBA superstar LeBron James showcases the dramatic shift that sports journalism has undergone in the past decade. James had personally expressed his displeasure with Smith’s commentary on his son, Bronny James, at a Knicks vs. Lakers game in early March. Smith addressed the incident the next morning by bashing James and asserting that he, a 57-year-old sports pundit, would have “immediately swung on [James] if he put hands on me.” Smith has become the story, taking up 20 minutes of a two-hour show to discuss a personal feud of his—an incident that quickly became a trending topic online and overshadowed the actual sports news.
To say sports discourse has worsened would be an understatement. Yet, this content continues to keep viewers hooked. The public’s consumption of “First Take” has created an environment in which polarizing sports reporting is booming, but basic, matter-of-fact reporting has been cut and slashed. But this issue does not exist in a sports journalism vacuum: trends seen in the sports sector are evident in the news space as well.
News is no longer a public service; it’s a product optimized for engagement. Platforms reward outrage, and journalists, desperate to remain relevant, have adapted accordingly. With over half of U.S. adults getting their news from social media, traditional news organizations like the Associated Press (AP) and Washington Post have been struggling to keep up with the shifting news landscape. News outlets have seen subscriber numbers plummet in recent years, as news is now more accessible than ever. Typing in “#news” into TikTok’s search engine yields a wide variety of videos. Some videos, put out by traditional news organizations, are high-quality videos, while others are simply individuals reporting on news stories from their bedrooms. The goal, however, is identical: increase engagement. Polarizing headlines, contrasting colors, and exciting audio all aim to drive viewers to like, share, and follow the account. They often work. These videos get millions of views and likes, and the accounts can gain hundreds of thousands of followers overnight.
The individual accounts are winning in the race for the hearts and minds of the millions of TikTok viewers. Dave Jorgenson, informally known as “The Washington Post’s Tiktok Guy,” has become a revolutionary for TikTok news. His videos garner millions of views and do a reasonably good job of educating in a short, one-minute time frame. The key to his success is not his connection to the Washington Post; it’s his personable nature that attracts viewers to his channel. Viewers frequently point out his likeness to Vice President JD Vance, suggesting that Jorgenson is more than just a commentator—he’s a persona with whom audiences are actively engaged. Through his content, Jorgenson has distinguished himself from the Washington Post, creating a personality and an audience that will follow him to his new personal social media accounts.
Jorgenson may have been able to develop a personal brand, but the recipe for success is still unclear. Journalists take to Twitter and engage in Twitter spats, drawing the ire of the publications they represent. The goal, however misguided, is to drive engagement, good or bad, in an attempt to develop a loyal audience that will follow regardless of the platform. With extensive layoffs in the news industry, there is a sense of desperation for these journalists. While Jorgenson has been able to build an audience with a reputation of trustworthiness, many journalists have struggled to build audiences with traditional analysis and facts. American trust in mass media has never been lower, with only “31% expressing a ‘great deal’ or ‘fair amount’ of confidence in the media to report the news ‘fully, accurately and fairly.’” Opinion pieces and shows, on the other hand, have only grown in popularity as readers seek out validation for their beliefs. Journalists, as a result, have been forced to create increasingly polarizing content in order to gain an audience. Facts, it seems, are being pushed to the wayside as argumentative pieces become the new norm in news journalism.
The result is a news industry that serves no one. In an interview with Hasan Minhaj, Jelani Cobb, the Dean of the Columbia’s School of Journalism, stressed the importance of journalism in an increasingly toxic political landscape. Newspapers are meant to hold the government accountable, so in a world where the AP, one of the world’s largest and most trusted news sources, can be restricted from the White House, the need for high-quality journalism couldn’t be higher.
So, who’s to blame? Is it the public who has made the choice to make TikTok their primary news destination? Is it the traditional news organizations who have accelerated polarization in the news sector? The answer is unclear. What is clear is that the relationship between media producers and consumers has fundamentally changed. At the same time, audiences have become complicit in this transformation, gravitating toward content that confirms beliefs rather than challenging them.
Ultimately, the media landscape we now inhabit is not just a reflection of shifting consumer habits or platform algorithms—it’s a mirror held up to our broader democratic crisis. When rage clicks matter more than truth, and when influencers’ content is viewed with more legitimacy than trained reporters, we risk eroding the very foundation of a free press. The collapse of trust in traditional journalism is not just a media problem; it’s a civic one. If we continue down this path, where personality trumps facts and engagement replaces accuracy, the public will not just be misinformed: it will be disempowered. Journalism’s future cannot rely solely on the charisma of a few digital stars. It must be rebuilt on a collective commitment to truth, accountability, and the difficult work of reporting facts in a world that increasingly prefers exaggerated fiction.
***
This article was edited by Mia Kirch and Irene Hao.
David Tomanelli 
Sinhawe Haji 
Nadia Garriga