The argument put forward by Nick Cohen and Justin Hempson-Jones about the ways in which social media is being manipulated by authoritarian actors is one that needs to be taken seriously. The idea that digital platforms are used to shape public behaviour, often against democratic interests, is undeniably concerning. However, in responding to this challenge, there is a risk that we fall into an equally problematic way of thinking—one that assumes audiences are passive victims, easily duped and powerless to resist the influence of bad actors.
Cohen’s analogy comparing the media landscape to the food industry is an instructive one. Just as industrial food production exploits biological and psychological drives to maximise profit, so too does media production exploit emotional and cognitive patterns to generate engagement and influence.
Robert Kennedy’s reform agenda in the United States has rightly drawn attention to how the food industry manipulates consumers through artificial and exploitative practices, producing highly processed, nutritionally empty products designed to hook people into unhealthy habits. Media functions in much the same way: as a mass-produced, industrial system, structured around manipulation, instant gratification, and control rather than open dialogue and independent thought.
What is missing from Cohen’s argument, and indeed from much mainstream analysis of digital authoritarianism, is an engagement with those who have been advocating for serious, pragmatic media reform for years. Journalists such as Cohen have often overlooked or dismissed those pushing for alternative models of public interest media, models that do not rely on mass surveillance, algorithmic exploitation, or the dominance of corporate platforms. The debate has largely remained within the confines of those who already have institutional power, rather than including those working outside these systems to build practical alternatives.
It would be interesting to see if Nick Cohen would be willing to explore these questions further in a more engaged setting. Would he come on the Decentered Media podcast to discuss solutions beyond the standard critiques? There are many people working towards practical media reform without corporate backing or the aim of reaching mass audiences, instead focusing on sustainable, community-driven alternatives that prioritise media literacy, civic engagement, and long-term democratic resilience.
Another missing dimension in these discussions is the role of mythology, symbolism, and deeper cultural narratives in shaping public discourse. The tendency to view media manipulation solely through a rational, instrumentalist lens—where the solution is simply to counter misinformation with ‘better’ facts—overlooks the reality that people are complex, contradictory, and often motivated by non-rational impulses. A purely rationalist response to misinformation assumes that if people just had access to the right facts, they would automatically reach the right conclusions.
However, storytelling, identity, and deeper cultural symbols play a far greater role in shaping people’s understanding of the world than many media analysts acknowledge. This is precisely why authoritarian figures and propagandists use myth and narrative so effectively: they speak to something deeper than just logic and reason.
Furthermore, progressive-minded individuals and institutions regularly hesitate to engage in open discussion about controversial topics, fearing that doing so might legitimise ‘harmful’ perspectives. The impulse to shut down debate rather than engage with it critically has led to a narrowing of acceptable discourse, leaving many people feeling alienated from mainstream institutions.
One example is the Covid Lab Origin Theory, which was widely dismissed in mainstream media as a conspiracy theory when it was first discussed on social media platforms. Now, intelligence briefings are reporting it as a legitimate hypothesis worthy of investigation. The knee-jerk dismissal of certain narratives without open debate has not only eroded trust in traditional media but has also reinforced the very dynamics that lead people towards alternative and often more extreme information sources.
If Nick Cohen is serious about tackling misinformation and authoritarianism, it would be valuable for him to participate in a wider range of discussions, particularly with those who are attempting to engage with these topics critically and constructively.
The landscape of media is not simply a battle between truth and falsehood, or between enlightened journalists and duped audiences. It is a contested space, shaped by power, ideology, and deeply ingrained cultural forces. Any attempt to reform this landscape must take these complexities into account, rather than assuming that the solution is merely better gatekeeping by the same institutions that have contributed to the problem in the first place.
The question, then, is whether those with a platform are willing to engage in these deeper conversations, beyond simply diagnosing the problem, and begin working towards real, participatory, and meaningful alternatives.