It is especially problematic lately that the only successful journalists pamper one group or another. The "mainstream" media makes Democrats feel better about themselves while talk radio and Fox television make Republicans feel better about themselves.
There is a widespread attitude that some "balance" might be obtained, if not in one outlet then perhaps in some combination of outlets. There is a belief that there is a "self correcting" system in place.
The truth I have found in many years of careful study and analysis is that it is by no means self correcting. Both parties use excessive government borrowing to "buy" votes. That is not directly of course, but to create economic conditions that favor one group or another, or create some illusion of general prosperity. While there can be an "automatic" leveling of prices as described by Adam Smith, if the government interference is excessive it can destroy the benefits of that.
For many decades now each party boasts of the wonderful conditions while ignoring that those were only obtained through dangerously high increases in the national debt. Both Trump and Biden boasted of very low unemployment data.
An important thing to understand about "inflation" is that there are several forces driving it. Price increases are only one force. Another force can be rising wages. It can happen that one "chases" the other in a "spiral" of rising prices and wages. That can create the illusion that everything is fine because "buying power" can appear steady. The amount of things you can buy is about the same. Where that fails is that unless other countries have similar spirals, employers will prefer to hire them because their wage levels are then lower in comparison to ours. There are other reasons jobs go overseas, but that is the main one. Yet another force can be those investors who expect to make their living by lending alone. Their "profit" in investing can depend in large part on the economy "expanding," and they might tend to see expansion where it is not real. It is far more complicated than that, but there is the general idea.
My "journalism" is driven by facts, not how people might feel about them. I do not "pamper" either party. Thus in these times I have no large audience. There can be much confusion about what is fact and what is opinion.
The national debt is a fact. It is not an opinion. Where things might go in the future can be opinion. However some opinions can be closer to facts than others. If an entity has an annual income smaller than the annual interest on its debt, most intelligent people would warn of impending collapse. Something must change and must change big. "Fake" growth (inflation) will probably not prevent the collapse, not long anyway. How can "real" growth be identified? Real growth can bring the debt down.
Not enough doom for you? There is more. One type of especially helpful citizens are those people who just do what they are told without questioning it. It can be highly efficient, saving society the time and resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over again.
Where that has gone far off track lately is that it requires good leaders to follow. It requires that a good selection of leaders is made. As already noted though people prefer journalists and politicians who make them feel good about themselves. When the politicians who tell them what to do are not qualified, they are not competent to correct matters. It is their nature to follow without question, including the bad leaders raising the debt. When you accept authorities and leaders without question you should not be surprised to have a few bad ones eventually. When you cannot do the science yourself you should not be surprised to have a few leaders who cannot. In order to feel good about themselves they will reject journalists who challenge their politicians. Here I am unheeded.
They feel cheated. They just keep their noses to the plowshare or grindstone or whatever and make no trouble. How can they be the problem? Doesn't the world owe them good leaders? If the world does owe them good leaders, they need a backup plan when the world fails to pay up. Hoping the bad leaders "balance" each other out is not a good plan as explained here in dramatic detail.
Do you want to vote? Do you want some sort of democracy? I think you do. However that requires you to understand public policies, which of them are likely harmful, and which of them are likely beneficial. When bad leaders start telling you what to do, you need to be able to challenge them, correct them, or replace them. In a democracy that is your duty. You do not have a "right" to good leaders, instead you do have a right to choose them. You need to quit "selling" your vote. That is materialistic and not wise. It has become obvious that both Democrats and Republicans are terribly materialistic despite their claims.
Perhaps you've seen ads for upstart news organization that promise to give you the "facts" in a way some people remember from before the divide in journalism. Those organizations do not however challenge anyone much either. They too just make some group feel good about themselves. They do not inform anyone where problems need addressing. You have me for that. I am certainly not some "panicky" guy "loose in the cabin." Good luck with that guy, it's someone else.
I have been a critic well over ten years on this website and proved right year after year.