Power, Truth & Silence: What I Learned from the 2025 Elections

I've covered seven national elections in my career. Each has left its mark—moments of inspiration, disappointment, and occasionally, genuine surprise. But none has prompted such deep reflection on the nature of power, truth, and the meaning of silence as the election we've just witnessed.

The Loudest Silence

What struck me most wasn't what was said during this election cycle, but what wasn't. The strategic silences, the deliberate omissions, the careful avoidance of certain topics—these shaped our national conversation more powerfully than any speech or debate.

"The most profound statements of power are often made without words." — A campaign strategist who requested anonymity

I watched as candidates masterfully navigated around uncomfortable truths, as media outlets (including, at times, our own) hesitated to push beyond established narratives, and as voters themselves seemed to participate in a collective agreement not to discuss certain realities.

The Psychology of Leadership

This election revealed something fundamental about what we seek in leaders. Despite all claims to value honesty and transparency, the evidence suggests a more complex reality:

• Candidates who offered nuanced positions consistently polled worse than those providing simple, emotionally resonant narratives
• Acknowledgments of uncertainty or complexity were punished in polls, while confident assertions (even when factually questionable) were rewarded
• Voters claimed to want unity while responding most strongly to divisive messaging

This isn't a criticism of voters, but rather an observation about human psychology. We are drawn to certainty in uncertain times, to simplicity in a complex world, and to narratives that confirm our existing worldviews.

Media's Mirror

As journalists, we often position ourselves as neutral observers, but this election forced me to confront our role as participants. Every editorial decision—which stories to cover, which angles to pursue, which voices to amplify—shaped the information landscape within which democracy operated.

I found myself asking uncomfortable questions:

• Did our focus on conflict and controversy crowd out substantive policy discussion?
• Did our pursuit of "balance" sometimes create false equivalencies?
• Did our dependence on access make us hesitant to challenge powerful figures?
• Did our metrics-driven incentives push us toward engagement rather than understanding?

The answers aren't simple, and they vary across outlets and individual journalists. But the questions themselves are essential if we hope to serve democracy rather than merely profit from its conflicts.

Trust in Fracture

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this election was the further fracturing of our information ecosystem. We've moved beyond mere disagreement about policies to fundamental divergence about reality itself.

I spoke with families divided not by different values, but by different facts. I interviewed voters who genuinely believed completely different narratives about basic events. I watched as trust in institutions—including media—continued its precipitous decline.

This fragmentation isn't sustainable for a functioning democracy, which requires some shared understanding of reality as the basis for debate and compromise.

A Path Forward

I don't offer easy solutions, but I do see potential paths forward:

1. **Radical transparency**: Not just about what we know, but about how we know it, what we're uncertain about, and the processes behind our reporting

1. **Depth over drama**: Resisting the temptation to amplify conflict for engagement

1. **Listening across divides**: Not just to report, but to understand the underlying concerns and values

1. **Rebuilding local journalism**: Strengthening the shared information ecosystem at the community level

1. **Media literacy**: Helping citizens navigate an increasingly complex information landscape

As we move beyond this election cycle, my hope is that we can begin to rebuild not just political consensus, but a shared commitment to truth—even uncomfortable truth—as the foundation of our democracy.

\\\`