After last week’s library debacle and debate triggered some serious questions that deserve serious attention, the hypocrisy of Chris Barnett, which began during his election campaign, has now carried over to his role as an elected public official. This is troublesome. In a surprising public Facebook post pictured below, County Commissioner Chris Barnett ignited controversy by criticizing news organizations and questioning the credibility of their reports. The post, riddled with implications of media bias and manipulation, urged constituents to distrust major news outlets and instead rely on “real people” and “real testimonies.” This move has raised concerns about the commissioner’s understanding of media ethics, his role as a public official, and the potential misuse of his platform.
Barnett’s statement claims that “artificial intelligence, social media regurgitation, and fake narratives” have distorted the truth. He specifically encouraged followers to research the ownership of news outlets, insinuating that mainstream coverage is skewed or agenda-driven. This rhetoric, while appealing to skepticism in today’s polarized climate, directly challenges the integrity of several local media outlets, including Channel 12, which aired Barnett’s own live statements.
The commissioner’s accusations of bias have left constituents scratching their heads. If multiple news outlets reported the same story with nearly identical details, including direct quotes and live footage, does that not validate the accuracy of the coverage? Barnett’s post appears to dismiss all journalistic efforts in favor of an ambiguous alternative: his personal version of events. This raises serious questions about accountability and transparency in public office—especially given that Barnett continues to own and operate Real Live News Southern Oregon. In this role, he portrays himself as an on-scene reporter covering local and even national events. This dual role prompts another pressing question: is Barnett truly serving as an elected commissioner, or is he more focused on competing with other local news sources by promoting his own narratives? By his logic, if Barnett says it’s true, then that must be the final word—end of discussion.
As an elected official, Barnett is expected to represent his constituents with integrity, not engage in unsubstantiated attacks on the press. His post not only undermines the trust in media but also places the burden of discerning truth entirely on the public. This shift in responsibility is a tall order for residents already grappling with information overload in the digital age.
The controversy doesn’t end with Barnett’s words. The commissioner has been accused of selectively moderating comments on his post, silencing dissenting voices while allowing supportive ones to remain. Critics argue that this tactic not only contradicts his call for open inquiry but may also violate ethical guidelines for public officials. By limiting public discourse, Barnett risks alienating constituents and diminishing the credibility of his office.
Moreover, his decision to engage in such a public dispute with the media raises questions about his priorities as a commissioner. Shouldn’t his focus be on serving the community rather than fueling debates on social media? For many, his actions signal a concerning lack of professionalism and understanding of his role.
Local journalism plays a critical role in holding officials accountable and informing the public. Dismissing credible news outlets as biased without evidence threatens this dynamic and risks eroding public trust. It’s worth noting that journalists operate under strict ethical guidelines, often corroborating information through multiple sources to ensure accuracy.
If Barnett disagrees with media coverage, the appropriate course of action would be to provide clear evidence or seek dialogue with reporters—not discredit them entirely. His post instead propagates a narrative of mistrust that could have long-term consequences for public discourse.
Commissioner Barnett’s post raises more questions than it answers. As an elected leader, he has a duty to promote transparency and foster trust—not sow division. If there’s any merit to his claims, it’s up to him to present evidence and engage in constructive dialogue. Until then, the onus remains on him to reconcile his words with the responsibilities of his office.
