Media Manipulation in America: The Rise of “Pink Slime Journalism” and Its Historical Context

The Dark History of Media Manipulation in America

A wave of deceptive local news websites has swept across the United States over the past decade, with networks like Metric Media operating more than 1,200 sites designed to mimic traditional local newspapers. These operations, dubbed “pink slime journalism” by media watchdogs, represent a digital-age threat to public trust—but as a recent Columbia University Tow Center report reveals, they’re merely the latest chapter in a centuries-old American tradition.

These modern pseudo-news outlets masquerade as community journalism while actually serving political and corporate interests. They exploit public trust in local news by hiding their true funding sources and agendas, using automation and social media targeting to spread content that appears legitimate but lacks journalistic integrity.

Yet while the technology may be new, the tactic of disguising propaganda as news predates the United States itself. The nation’s founding fathers were intimately familiar with media manipulation—often because they practiced it themselves.

Benjamin Franklin, celebrated publisher and revolutionary, created a completely fabricated “Supplement to the Boston Independent Chronicle” in 1782. This counterfeit newspaper described fictitious atrocities allegedly committed by Native Americans allied with British forces. Franklin printed it himself with no connection to the actual Chronicle, designing it to spread anti-British sentiment in Europe.

Thomas Jefferson engaged in similar deception, posing as a “French officer” to publish propaganda in European newspapers. The author of the Declaration of Independence created this false persona to counter what he considered British misinformation about America.

The Civil War era saw journalism reach new depths of fabrication and manipulation. Reporters routinely claimed to witness battles they never attended. In 1864, two New York World reporters published a pamphlet falsely attributed to a northern abolitionist that promoted interracial relationships, attempting to damage Lincoln’s reelection chances by stoking racial fears.

America’s wealthiest citizens have long used media manipulation to advance their agendas. During the “Bank War” of 1828-1832, Nicholas Biddle’s Second Bank of the United States spent massive sums bribing newspaper publishers and reporters to support its rechartering. Henry Ford purchased the Dearborn Independent in 1918, transforming it into a platform for antisemitic conspiracy theories that were distributed through his nationwide dealership network.

Today’s media landscape bears striking similarities to these historical patterns. Conservative networks like Metric Media operate alongside progressive counterparts such as Courier Newsroom, which runs news sites in ten swing states and targets voters with content designed to both inform and persuade. The American Independent manages at least 51 locally-branded news sites in electorally significant locations.

The rise of these partisan news outlets coincides with an unprecedented crisis in local journalism. According to Northwestern University research, about 2.5 American newspapers close every week, creating “news deserts” that are perfect targets for politically and corporately funded pseudo-journalism.

Some proposed solutions to this crisis—government subsidies, billionaire ownership, or corporate funding—carry their own historical baggage of potential influence and control. President Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan proposed $1.67 billion in tax credits for local news outlets, while tech giants like Google and Meta have directed funds toward journalism initiatives.

As Americans navigate this complex media landscape, understanding the long history of manipulation provides crucial context. The digital-age problem of “pink slime journalism” isn’t new—it’s merely the latest iteration of a practice as old as the republic itself, raising fundamental questions about how to preserve independent journalism in a democracy increasingly defined by partisan division and diminishing trust.