In an era defined by lightning-fast information and deep political polarization, the relationship between the American public and the press has deteriorated into outright hostility. Gone are the days when a newspaper headline was taken as gospel truth; today, skepticism is the default setting. This seismic shift—where distrust is now the consensus—was recently brought into sharp focus by a controversial new initiative from the White House: a website dedicated to naming and shaming the media outlets that allegedly spin, fabricate, or otherwise distort the news.

As commentator Greg Gutfeld pointed out in a recent, hard-hitting monologue, the media’s reaction to this public accountability has been less about introspection and more about indignation, confirming for many critics that the problem is not political, but structural. The core message is clear: everyone, from seasoned political observers to cynical teenagers, has developed a “hoax instinct,” and the press has only itself to blame.

The White House Fires Back: An ‘Offender Hall of Shame’

The impetus for this latest media battle is the White House’s new website, which serves as a central clearinghouse for what it deems to be egregious examples of media bias and outright falsehood. Dubbed the “media offender of the week,” the initiative aims to hold news outlets publicly accountable for stories that maliciously misrepresent the administration or fabricate facts altogether.

It’s a contest, Gutfeld joked, that must be tough competition, drawing a humorous comparison to certain television personalities competing in a “don’t break your chair contest.” Yet, the examples listed on the new “Offender Hall of Shame” are anything but funny. The site specifically calls out hoaxes that have garnered significant—and harmful—national attention, including:

The Faked Hate Symbol Story: A fabricated report suggesting the U.S. Coast Guard would no longer classify swastikas and nooses as hate symbols.

The ICE Kidnapping Hoax: A manufactured story about an LA woman who was supposedly kidnapped by ICE agents.

The Maryland Dad Coverage: The media’s allegedly “constant fawning coverage” of a particular figure.

These examples, critics argue, are not merely cases of honest reporting mistakes, but systematic attempts to push a predetermined narrative, regardless of the facts.

The Irony of Indignation: The Press’s Meltdown

The media’s response to being called out on its perceived inaccuracies was predictable: outrage. Figures like Jim Acosta claimed the new website “cracked the code on how to hurt the press,” a sentiment Gutfeld immediately dismissed by suggesting the media cracked that code the moment they began prioritizing agenda over truth. The Washington Post labeled the site as simply “Trump ramping up reporter attacks,” while the Guardian dismissed it as a “desperate gimmick.”

The irony, as Gutfeld and his guests repeatedly highlighted, is sickening. The media—an industry whose entire mission is to hold power accountable—is now offended that someone besides them is holding them accountable.

Panelist Emily Compagno articulated the hypocrisy bluntly, noting that the White House is essentially forced to do the press corps’ job for it. “The reality is that the White House has to put out there exactly what is true and what isn’t because the press corps refuses to,” she stated. She pointed out that media figures were less concerned with the hoaxes themselves, or the “damage that this has caused on Americans,” than they were with the White House website putting them on blast. The concern is not the effect of the hoax, but the embarrassment of getting caught.

The media, according to its critics, would prefer a return to the “old days” when their “manufactured narratives went unquestioned.” But that era, Gutfeld insists, is “dead.”

The Generational Loss of Trust: Gen Z’s Cynicism

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the press’s lost standing comes not from the White House, but from the youngest generation of news consumers: teenagers. A new survey revealed a profound and widespread distrust among young people, with 84% describing the media using terms like “crazy,” “boring,” “fake,” and “depressing.”

The statistics are a catastrophe for the industry:

Approximately half of all teens believe the media makes up quotes.

Six out of ten believe reporters take photos and videos out of context.

Only a third believe that reporters reliably correct their errors.

While the Associated Press (AP) attempted to pin this generational cynicism on the political rhetoric they are “exposed to,” Gutfeld flipped the argument: the attitudes they are exposed to are overwhelmingly those of the liberal establishment, which he argues has a “strangle hold on the media, academia and Hollywood.”

Panelist Kat Timpf extended this analysis, suggesting that the problem goes beyond simple political affiliation. She noted that a third of Gen Z identifies as politically independent, suggesting they are “done with all the establishment stuff.” The shared experience of being in school during the COVID-19 pandemic, where directives and information from trusted authorities often shifted, played a critical role in fostering a fundamental lack of trust. “I don’t know how you could go through that experience and not be like, ‘I don’t really trust you guys,’” Timpf mused. The takeaway for the younger generation is simple: trust no single source entirely.

The Trump Effect and the ‘Facts vs. Feelings’ Fight

While the roots of media distrust are deep, the catalyst for the current crisis is undeniably President Donald Trump. Gutfeld credited Trump with acting “like a good construction boss,” tearing down the “rotten structure that is the lying media” with two simple words: “fake news.” By repeating this phrase daily, he smashed the illusion that a corrupt industry had cultivated for decades, leaving behind a new environment where the news is “under construction.”

This destruction of the old guard has forced the public to adopt the “hoax instinct,” where any “so-called bombshell story” is now treated with the skepticism once reserved for a Bigfoot sighting. The stakes of this public skepticism are not trivial; past media fabrications have led to cars of ICE agents being rammed and, tragically, people being “shot and killed.”

Panelist Tyrus brought the entire discussion into sharp, philosophical focus by characterizing the conflict as a classic “feelings versus facts” debate. He humorously noted that the White House’s approach—listing offenses with factual data—is a traditionally masculine approach to conflict, which often fails when faced with an argument based purely on emotion.

“The media is all about feelings,” Tyrus explained. “They have to understand the way I was feeling at the time when Trump was talking… so it’s the art of feelings versus facts.” When the White House comes to the table with facts, the media interweaves feelings, ensuring the factual basis is lost. Tyrus coined a perfect summary for the current landscape: “Don’t bring facts to a feelings fight.”

This phrase encapsulates the current dynamic. The traditional press operates in a world where narrative and emotional impact are often prioritized over empirical data, especially when covering polarizing figures. But in a post-hoax environment, where citizens have learned to double-check every claim and where an entire generation has declared the media fundamentally “fake,” the old model is collapsing. The White House’s new website, regardless of its political motivation, is merely a reflection of a public reality: the press is no longer trusted, and it is now being forced to answer for its choices, whether it likes the new scrutiny or not. The gloves, as Gutfeld concluded, are finally off.