Bill Natbony is the Deputy CEO and General Counsel of Edgestream Partners, L.P., a registered investment adviser. He previously was Professor of Law at New York Law School and a Senior Partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP. Bill specializes in business law, investment management and taxation and is the author of The Lonely Realist, a blog directed at bridging the partisan gap by raising questions and making pointed observations about law, politics, economics, international relations and markets.
The late 20th Century was The Golden Age of News. Larger-than-life newscasters earned the public’s trust and were proven worthy. They successfully policed the activities of governments, businesses, and industries. Walter Cronkite, the anchor for the CBS Evening News, was “the most trusted man in America.” He informed the world and, in doing so, affirmed a common understanding of reality. He distinguished truth from rumor, propaganda and fantasy. His agenda was to report facts. He wasn’t in the entertainment business. He wasn’t seeking elective office. His personal beliefs didn’t intrude on his reporting. His integrity – and the public’s trust in that integrity – established “fact.”
But the Walter Cronkite era is over… as in trust in the media. Mass and social media today provide opiated fodder for the masses, the 21st Century’s substitute for news. With truth no longer attracting the eyeballs necessary to pay reporters’ wages, America’s newsrooms have been eviscerated. The media now are in a race for ratings, providing a platform for influencers to play roles that entertain preferences and prejudices. There no longer are Walter Cronkites that the public trusts to distinguish truth from “truthiness.”
Truthiness is the term coined by Stephen Colbert that means “the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination or facts.” Colbert said: “It used to be [that] everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that’s not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all.” Truthiness is an expression of ingrained beliefs. Fact-checking takes effort. It can be expensive. And it all-too-often leads to audience rejection. Truthiness is safer. It drives emotions and reaffirms entrenched beliefs…, whether real or fantasized.
The dictionary defines a “fact” as “a thing that is known or proven to be true,” something that is verifiable. However, the sources used for verification are often partisan organs… or imaginary. How are audiences able to distinguish reality from opinion when what they see and hear is presented as “fact”? For those prone to believe what their media champions say, objectivity is a myth, “reality” is a fluid concept, the scientific method is an elite fiction, and fact-finding depends on media choice.
“Reality,” in the words of Philip K. Dick, nevertheless “is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” It may be labor-intensive to fact-find, but doing so is not an exercise in relativity. Historically, those who chose not to sign onto reality were committed to an asylum. No longer. Today they vote. They find common cause through social media connections.
This sad state of affairs was summed up by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: “Truth is threatened by disinformation and hate speech seeking to blur the lines between fact and fiction, between science and conspiracy” with a colleague adding that social media is “proving fertile ground for those who sow disinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories…. Our current path is leading us away from informed public debate… towards even more polarization.”
Media exercises enormous influence over the public. They are the purveyors of “perceived realities” and accordingly are the focus of those who seek to manipulate the public’s understanding of reality. The result in America has been an explosion in shared belief validation shorn of fact-finding, a sundering of a shared reality. The purpose of news has changed from reporting to reinforcing audience views…, an intentional slide down the slope of partisanship and truthiness.
Examples abound. Republican-leaning media skewer Bidenomics: “Big spending ‘Bidenomics’ kicked off the highest inflation in four decades, leaving American families paying more for everything”; “In Joe Biden’s economy, Americans are worse off financially”; “Joe Biden’s energy policies continue to make it more expensive for Americans to fill up their cars and to heat and cool their homes.” The headlines are grabbers and speak truth… at a level. Democratic-leaning media espouse an opposing view: “Under Bidenomics, unemployment is down to 3.6 percent, and the economy is still adding jobs.” “Inflation is cooling, now down to 3 percent.” “Home prices have held steady, despite high interest rates.” “And the stock market is up more than 15 percent already this year.” The pro-Biden statistics also are accurate, but tell only a partial story. Neither side of the partisan circus is speaking “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” which, after all, is what “the news” ought to be doing.
“News” reporting is “the dissemination of facts that create a common reality and reconcile truth from falsity.” If truth were the media’s currency, an accurate headline might read something like this: : “Big spending and lower tax collection by the Federal government over the last 20+ years coupled with lax Federal Reserve policies produced the highest inflation in four decades, leaving Americans paying more for everything. Biden Administration subsidies for COVID relief and incentives for semiconductor and green energy production were the sparks that ignited America’s recent bout of inflation.”
What should Americans believe? Those who prefer Republican media outlets believe Republican headlines: things are bad and getting worse. Those who favor Democratic media rely on statistics showing that the economy will continue to improve. It’s therefore not surprising that a recent University of Michigan survey found that Democrats expect 2.4 percent inflation in 2024 while Republicans believe that inflation in 2024 will be 4.9 percent – quite a difference! When it comes to energy policy, a Pew Research survey found that 90 percent of Democrat-leaning voters support carbon-neutrality by 2050, while 53 percent of Republican-leaning voters oppose taking the steps necessary to do so. Is climate change a major threat to America? 78 percent of Democrats think so, with only 23 percent of Republicans agreeing – another huge gap!
Politicians are in the business of partisanship. Their versions of reality are intended to divide the public and attract votes. That is not the same as reality. Popular media outlets today are organs of partisan politics, irrevocably infected by truthiness. Today, unfortunately, truth is a commodity in all-too-short supply. Where, then, are Americans to find the purveyors of truth? Where do you find the truth?




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.