Scroll Top

Karoline Leavitt is Exposing Fake Media

The brilliant Karoline Leavitt has spent more time staring down a White House briefing room than most people spend arguing with relatives at Thanksgiving. That experience showed on Sean Hannity’s podcast, where the former White House press secretary walked through something she has watched up close: not just mistakes in the news, but the machinery that turns a sliver of reality into a full-blown story.
Her point was not that journalism is fake by definition. It was more specific, and more interesting. Some outlets, she argued, do not need a complete fiction. They need one unflattering detail. From there, a narrative can be assembled around it, repeated, framed, and treated as the whole picture. The original fact may even be true. The story built on top of it can still be false in the way that matters most: it leaves the audience with a conclusion the evidence does not actually support.
That is a different charge than “they made it up.” It is a charge about selection, emphasis, and architecture. A single late meeting becomes chaos. A single awkward clip becomes incompetence. A single personnel dispute becomes a collapsing administration. The fragment is real enough to defend. The structure around it does the work.
Leavitt also described a quieter method: lying by omission. This is harder to screenshot and easier to miss. A story can be fact-checked line by line and still mislead because the missing context is the load-bearing wall. Motives get dropped. Timing gets dropped. Comparable conduct by the other side gets dropped. Caveats land in paragraph 19, if they land at all. Readers’ walk away thinking they have been informed, when they have mostly been steered.

People who have never dealt with the press corps tend to imagine news as a sequence of events that get written down. People who have dealt with it every day tend to talk about incentives. A dramatic frame travels. A complicated one does not. Outrage is distributable. Process is not. If a newsroom is rewarded for speed, conflict, and moral clarity, it will find a way to produce those things. One negative detail is often enough raw material.
That is why her comments land beyond partisan scorekeeping. The same techniques appear across the spectrum, even if audiences only notice them when they dislike the target. Isolate the worst moment. Strip away scale. Ignore the competing explanation. Repeat the frame until it feels like consensus. Then treat dissent as denial rather than disagreement.
Leavitt’s credibility on this subject is not that she is above politics. It is that she had to live inside the feedback loop. A press secretary sees the question before the article, the article before the follow-up, and the follow-up before the television panel that treats the original premise as settled fact. By the time the public hears the story, the first distortion has already been sanded into a talking point.
There is a reason this discussion feels informative rather than merely angry. It names a method. “Fake news” as a slogan is blunt. “One negative thing, then an entire story” is a diagnosis. “Lie by omission” is a diagnosis. Both describe how a media environment can be literally full of facts and still chronically untrustworthy.
The practical lesson is not “believe no one.” It is more demanding than that. Ask what else would have to be true for this story to be complete. Ask what was left out because it complicated the frame. Ask whether the headline is a summary of the evidence or a verdict looking for exhibits. And notice when a news organization is not discovering a scandal so much as assembling one from available parts.
Leavitt’s appearance with Hannity will be received, predictably, along tribal lines. Supporters will hear confirmation. Critics will hear spin. The more useful response is to treat her description as a test. The next time a story arrives fully formed from a single ugly detail, check whether you are reading reporting or watching a narrative get built in real time. 
By Sara Colin

Related Posts