Power to Truth: Journalism, Corporate Capture, and the Fight for Truth

What happens when truth becomes a ‘luxury good’ only a few can afford? In the latest Power to Truth episode, Jesse Eisinger, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and senior editor at ProPublica joined Stanford Graduate School of Business professor and Corporations and Society Initiative (CASI) director Anat Admati to discuss the critical importance of media given the shifting dynamics of power, truth, and accountability. Their conversation centered on the role of investigative journalism, the erosion of institutional integrity, and the increasing challenges of ensuring that facts still matter.

Eisinger described investigative journalism as the pursuit of facts that powerful entities actively seek to suppress. “We define investigative reporting as something that someone, somewhere, doesn’t want you to know,” he said. At ProPublica, his work focuses on uncovering systemic failures in government, finance, and corporate structures, not necessarily to propose solutions, but to ensure that those responsible face scrutiny.

However, journalists’ ability to expose misconduct is increasingly under threat. “Truth is losing its power, and the mechanisms of shame and accountability are working less and less,” Eisinger observed. He pointed to a disturbing shift: rather than just covering up inconvenient facts, those in power now actively dismiss them, making it easier for misinformation and outright falsehoods to spread unchecked.

Despite these challenges, Eisinger said he remains committed to journalism’s core mission, documenting wrongdoing, making vital facts public, and challenging those in power. He framed the modern struggle for truth in stark terms: “Truth has become a ‘luxury good’, something that requires effort, money, and a genuine desire to seek out.” Many people, Eisinger noted, actively seek narratives that reinforce their existing beliefs rather than confront uncomfortable facts.

“Whether it's Joe Rogan's podcast or Fox News, you don’t have to really ever confront anything that makes you uncomfortable.”

This unwillingness to engage with inconvenient truths, he argued, contributes to a media environment where falsehoods flourish, further complicating the role of journalists who seek to expose corruption and misconduct.

The conversation then turned to academia’s role in addressing these issues. Admati noted that journalists and scholars share a commitment to discovery and truth, prompting her to ask whether universities are doing enough to challenge power.

Eisinger’s assessment was mixed. While acknowledging that academia provides essential expertise, such as tax law specialists helping ProPublica decipher complex financial structures, he warned that universities are increasingly entangled with corporate interests.

“The dependence on the private sector is so much greater than it was even 20 years ago, for research data, for consulting, for academic success. It’s harder and harder now to sift through academic research to find things that are really true and unbiased.”

This corporate influence, he argued, has been particularly damaging in the field of economics because many economists are gainfully employed in the corporate sector, serving as consultants for the very corporations they study.

“They hung out their shingle at the University of Chicago or Berkeley or some prestigious institution, but they really were working at these consulting firms for corporations, and it really corrupted the entire field.”

Admati agreed that the issue exists in economics but she stressed that it extends across much of academia. She pointed to cases like the sugar industry’s manipulation of nutrition research and tech companies funding studies to sway public opinion. She also underscored the need to expose scholars with conflicts of interest and noted that she, along with University of Chicago finance professor Luigi Zingales, has been outspoken in challenging these ethical violations.

Eisinger argued that today’s journalism crisis, decades in the making, has been deepened by the collapse of traditional business models and rising political hostility. He highlighted the Trump administration’s direct assaults on the press, including branding journalists as “enemies of the state.”

Eisinger discussed the recent action to bar reputable organizations like the Associated Press from White House events over trivial reasons. While these moves may seem petty, he warned that they have serious implications for freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

Beyond government hostility, Eisinger highlighted the growing corporate pressure on media organizations, particularly how ownership interests influence editorial decisions. He specifically criticized Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post for retracting an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris just weeks before the election, describing the move as a cowardly act aimed at appeasing political and business interests.

Ultimately, Eisinger framed this moment as one where wealthy media owners prioritize their financial and corporate concerns over journalistic integrity. “We’ve got these oligarchs in American life,” he said, “and they’re cowards.”

Admati then steered the conversation toward the state of content moderation on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Eisinger responded bluntly, saying that moderation effectively no longer exists. Under the guise of defending free speech, platforms have abandoned oversight, allowing extremist voices to thrive.

“This is what we have now with our social media platforms,” he said. “True information is not promoted and doesn't have the kind of algorithmic backing that false information does.”

Admati reflected on the ongoing struggle between power and truth, stressing that for journalists and truth-seekers, persistence is the only path forward. She expressed hope that, eventually, reality would break through, whether by disillusionment or direct personal impact—forcing people to confront the truth.

Eisinger pointed to a rare moment when journalism led to real change, recalling how ProPublica’s reporting on child separation at the border, particularly an audio recording of a child crying for his mother, went viral and pressured the Trump administration to reverse its policy.

He noted that such breakthroughs often require deeply emotional moments, raising a larger question: Do political outcomes still follow “natural political gravity,” or has reality lost its power to influence public opinion?

As the conversation drew to a close, Eisinger and Admati acknowledged that we’re living in a moment of great uncertainty. The fight between power and truth is constantly shifting, and accountability remains fragile. Still, they agreed that staying the course is the only option.