The One Question That Makes a Difference in the Reporting of the News

Source: Pixabay

What happens when you ask the questions no one else is asking?

You discover stories that reveal exactly how the media manipulation machine works—stories so explosive they force other outlets to follow your lead or expose their own bias through silence.

Over the past three posts, I've shown you the problem with modern media, shared my unique inside perspective, and explained the performance formula that built The Center Square into America's second-largest newswire, and closely on the heels of the Associated Press. Now I want to reveal the secret ingredient that makes it all possible: strategic curiosity.

This isn't journalism school curiosity. This is curiosity as a surgical tool that cuts through coordinated narratives to expose the truth others are hiding.

How Curiosity Reveals Media Coordination

While other outlets ask predictable questions that generate predictable answers, our newsroom asks the questions that make powerful people uncomfortable. The difference in responses tells you everything about who's controlling the narrative.

When government officials give identical quotes to multiple outlets using nearly identical language, most reporters just publish them. We ask: Who wrote those quotes? When did they distribute them? Why are officials in different states using the same phrases?

When major stories break simultaneously across dozens of outlets, most journalists accept it as news. We ask: What coordination happened behind the scenes? Who decided this story needed to "break" today? What other stories got buried as a result?

This curiosity-driven approach has led The Center Square to consistently break exclusive stories that set the news cycle. While others follow the conversation, we lead it by asking the questions that reveal what's really happening.

The Questions That Change Everything

Here's what strategic curiosity looks like in practice at The Center Square, where the questions focus on what government is doing for the people they serve:

Instead of asking “What happened?” in the aftermath of a legislative vote or executive order, we encourage our journalists to ask “Who authorized this decision, who benefits financially, and what alternatives were considered—or ignored?”

Why? It adds focus on responsibility, fiscal impact, and potential opportunity cost.

And there are plenty of other ways that journalists can peel back the truth in the decisions that are made around the spending of tax dollars.

• Journalists should be asking questions such as, “What line item in the budget pays for this, and how has that changed over the past 5 years?”
  Why? It gets specifically at cost growth and sustainability. That is incredibly important at all levels of government, because once an initiative is legislatively approved, it doesn’t go away. There are very few units of government where zero-based budgeting exists.

• Journalists should be asking, specifically around large-scale projects, in which there are initial infrastructure expenses and then ongoing management, such as in the construction of low-cost or no-cost housing projects, where contracts are awarded to a private-sector operation and then handed over to a non-governmental agency (NGO) to run in perpetuity, something like this: “What private contractors or nonprofits are involved, and how were they selected?”
  Why? Well, primarily because it ensures procurement transparency and identifies any potential cronyism. And it leads to a clear picture of what an ongoing project will cost over the long run.

• Journalists should focus on outcomes and actual goals of public spending. This can be done by asking a question such as this: “What metrics are being used to claim this is a success, and who decided those metrics?”
  Why? It presses for definitional clarity and accountability standards. Among the biggest concerns over the spending that was uncovered during the early stages of DOGE’s work at the United States Agency for International Development were the projects that had a beginning but no projected end.

• Journalists should ask, in particular within state legislatures and in Congress, questions that prompt an honest articulation of the logic of spending ideas, by asking simply, “What watchdogs, inspectors general, or auditors have raised red flags—and what happened after that?”
  Why? Well, not every idea is a good idea. Not every idea is a bad idea. Most ideas, especially those that make their way to legislatures and into Congress, are a mix of good and bad. But if an idea is good enough to be voted for (or against), shouldn’t the onus of explanation be on those who are charged with representing their constituents. And a very important part of this journalistic practice is explaining to constituents in local markets – through the very words of those who represent them – what their person in Springfield, Harrisburg, or on Capitol Hill is considering as part of their vote. This also taps into buried oversight reports and missed warnings.

These aren't just better questions—they're diagnostic questions that expose the lockstep coordination and manipulation patterns that pervade journalism today. The 538 people who ultimately decide what Americans are paying – and certainly everyone who represents the interests of a local state district – for should be held to a basic standard of explanation, and that is only possible through the questions they are asked by journalists.

The problem is that, a significant amount of the time, only journalists from The Center Square are asking these kinds of questions, often serving as one of the few voices among the news media who have the courage or interest in asking these kinds of questions.

The Investigation That Proves the Point

This curiosity-driven approach has led us to uncover something extraordinary: a coordinated network that spans government agencies, think tanks, and media outlets—all working together to shape public opinion on critical issues while hiding their connections from the American people.

This form of journalism is often manipulated to “trick” readers. We see this all the time, and it’s sad. Take Elon Musk, for example, when mass media reveal how he hid from the world that he was a closeted Nazi until he was “caught” making a gesture on stage in November 2024 after the election. It has been covered ad nauseum. Months later, Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) made the SAME gesture at a fundraiser in California on the last day of May 2025. It received virtually no coverage at all.

In all seriousness, this selective reporting must stop if newsrooms truly care about facts and accuracy.

What we've discovered goes far beyond the typical "media bias" conversation. We've documented specific coordination mechanisms, funding flows, and communication strategies that reveal how narratives get manufactured and distributed across hundreds of outlets simultaneously.

The investigation exposes not just what stories get coordinated coverage, but which stories get coordinated silence—and why.

Coming Next Week: The Analysis Begins

Next, I'll begin to share the trends I see, write about the stories that are getting far more attention than they deserve and, as balance, the stories that aren't getting enough attention from our news media. There are plenty of opportunities. This should not be difficult.

Don't expect speculation or opinion. I'll bring evidence of how modern news media manipulation works, revealed through the kind of strategic curiosity that other outlets either can't or won't apply.

My goal is straightforward: I want you, the reader, to understand how to spot these patterns yourself—because once you know what coordinated media manipulation looks like, you can never unsee it.

And remember, part of manipulation – a big part of manipulation – is what I call the Sin of Omission. It is where some stories are simply ignored. If the big players in media did any kind of soul searching as to why their readerships and respective viewership have plummeted, it’s in an earned lack of trust. Americans do not trust the U.S. news media because it makes incredibly bad, conscious decisions of what is and what isn’t newsworthy and focuses on telling you what to think rather than what you may want to think about with context.

Why This Matters for Every American

This work represents everything I've been building toward in these posts. The media problem I identified, the inside perspective I've developed, and the performance-driven formula I've proven all culminate in journalism that serves citizens rather than powerful interests.

I said that this won’t be difficult to spot. And while that is true, it may be – at times – difficult for me to run in real time. I have responsibilities as publisher of The Center Square and Chief Executive Officer of the Franklin News Foundation, plus commitments to training and coaching emerging talent across my newsroom and elsewhere. But I want to do this. I feel on a deep personal level that I must do this.

And I promise to do my best. Call me out – send me an email. I read my own email, even when the inbox is miles deep. Tell me what you’re seeing that I cannot or have not. Let’s have a dialog. Your perspective matters. True government accountability requires curiosity that cuts through coordinated narratives to reveal what taxpayers need to know. That's what we've built at The Center Square, and it's what the analysis you'll find here will attempt to illustrate.

The questions others won't ask are exactly the questions that need answering.

Next week: Real-time analysis of current media manipulation—stories getting too much attention, stories getting too little, and the coordination patterns that explain why.