By Savannah Hamilton
“Who do you work for?”
It’s one of the first questions the media gets asked at political events and press conferences. On paper, it sounds like a normal, harmless inquiry. In practice, especially when you’re an independent journalist, it usually means something else entirely.
What they’re really asking is, “Who can vouch for you?” and more importantly, “Whose interests do you represent?”
When you answer that you work for yourself, however, the reaction is rarely positive. It often triggers suspicion rather than respect.
My time working across the Western Balkans made this little peculiarity obvious, but it’s not restricted to the region by any means, and shows up anywhere someone tries to operate on their own.
What’s odd is that everyone claims to want independent media. Governments talk about the importance of a free press. Legacy outlets say they value diverse voices. Audiences insist they’re tired of being lied to. Yet when someone actually tries to operate independently — that is, without institutional backing, without picking a permanent side, and without a “safe” outlet behind them — the resistance becomes very real.
This resistance doesn’t come from one place. And that’s exactly why real independent journalism has become both harder to sustain and more necessary than ever.
The System Is the Problem
For years now, trust in traditional media has been in free fall. Politicians, left to right, have spent the last few decades publicly trashing outlets for bias, and audiences have been more than happy to pile on. (Trump became iconic for this by pretty much coining the term “fake news.”) And you can’t scroll through any socials without seeing some version of “you can’t hate the media enough.”
At the same (almost perfect) time, platforms like X, Substack, YouTube, and TikTok gave independents and creators the ability to build real audiences without needing institutional approval. Some now reach more people than traditional outlets ever did. On paper, this should be the golden age for independent journalism.
Unfortunately, governments often don’t trust independent media because they can’t control it. Legacy outlets tend to see it as competition, even when you’re still relatively small. And audiences increasingly just want confirmation of what they already believe rather than anything that challenges their assumptions.
One colleague in Macedonia (a very well-known name there) told me straight that without a major outlet behind you, you can go somewhere, but you’ll eventually hit closed doors and glass ceilings. The system, unfortunately, claims to want independent voices while making it structurally difficult for them to function.
Government: You’re Useful Until You’re Not
Governments don’t necessarily hate journalists. They just dislike the ones they cannot control.
You can spend months writing fair (even favorable) coverage. Show up to every briefing, quote the right people, and frame things carefully. None of that matters. The moment they realize you don’t belong to one of the approved outlets and there’s no leash on you, the temperature can drop quickly. Things escalate faster if you’re actually good at the job and progress fast, because then the questions start, like,
“Who is this person really working for?”
This shift from tolerated to targeted is very real. While covering events in Croatia, I went from being welcomed at government functions (and even jokingly called “Plenki’s girl”) to being detained for eight hours by police who questioned whether I was a “real journalist” — all while looking them dead in the eyes as they held my official accreditation in their hands. Ironic, as the same people who had once offered me “insider advice” suddenly needed to “check on something” the second it became clear I was no longer just writing nice things for them but truly working independently.
It gets worse when you cover multiple countries without picking a permanent side. Or, God forbid, write positively about both the government and the opposition. There’s no clean box to put you in, so the default move is to keep you at arm’s length. It’s rarely outright censorship. It’s more subtle than that — access dries up, emails go unanswered, and over time, you’re simply no longer in the room. And when things escalate, “national security” becomes the go-to basis. (Serbia has made this tactic especially obvious in recent years.)
But then, it’s been said by many that the governments less welcoming to independent media also tend to, unsurprisingly, have other transparency issues.
Some of this suspicion is understandable. Many outlets chase drama for clicks, and politicians have been burned for extra likes. But “we’ve been burned before” eventually stops being a legit reason and simply becomes a convenient excuse.
Because of this, some governments are becoming obsessed with social media restrictions. A modest independent can now shape a narrative faster than a press office can respond. So, if they can’t vet you, brief you, or nudge you in the right direction, you’re treated as a liability by default.
Legacy Media: Not One of Us
You would think legacy media would have some sort of “we’re all in this together” energy toward colleagues. In practice, the relationship often tends to be colder than advertised.
My experience in Macedonia was very much 50/50 in this aspect. Sure, plenty of individual journalists (and even officials) went out of their way to back me up. The other half, however, made it clear that I was not particularly welcome. For example, at one press event, a senior PR handler was initially warm and friendly — until she realized I was a freelancer, and I watched her demeanor change on the spot. Suddenly, I “needed people to vouch for me,” even though I held a valid accreditation. Perhaps the country’s ambitions to maintain its EU-friendly image kept things from escalating, but the message was obvious — independents are tolerated, not necessarily embraced.
The same pattern showed up with other officials. One high-level minister would visibly tense up when I was in the room — after he learned I wasn’t one of the main outlets. The second it was my turn to ask a question, he’d get nervous, cut the session short, and tell me to “just email my office for an appointment.” Those emails, of course, were never answered.
Although many media members remain supportive (and shout out to those that stick to their ethics), institutions often treat independents as competition rather than colleagues. PR teams suddenly become strict about credentials. Other reporters size you up when you don’t have a recognizable masthead. It’s rarely said directly to your face — it’s more of a vibe.
Ironically, this happens at a time when legacy outlets have been losing audiences for years, partly because people felt they weren’t getting the full picture. You’ve probably already seen plenty of posts about how people heard something on X first before the major headlines hit. Independents stepped into that gap, yet many are still viewed with suspicion the moment they start gaining real reach without institutional approval.
You may recall that even high-profile figures like Tucker Carlson faced significant backlash once he stepped fully outside the traditional system. Which confirms that this isn’t just about resources, credibility, or fame, but about control and predictability.
Audience: Validation Over Information
Readers love to say they want independent media and “the real story.” Their behavior, however, often tells a different one.
Most people don’t want their worldview challenged — they want it confirmed. The moment you step outside that comfort zone, the backlash comes fast. And if you’re reading this, chances are you’ve done it too — blocked or muted someone the second they posted something that didn’t fit the version of what you wanted to hear that day.
This pressure pushes even independent creators into survival mode. Many end up narrowing their focus to whatever keeps engagement high and backlash low. I’ve noticed this happen with several content creators, like Joey Contino on TikTok, who started covering broader world news, but over time, his coverage narrowed heavily toward the Ukraine-Russia conflict (and one side of it) because that’s what the algorithm and audience rewarded. It’s often not ideological — it’s practical. But it shows how audience expectations can slowly erode genuine independence over time.
Balanced or nuanced work tends to get less reach. Honest but non-sensational reporting often disappears from feeds, while content that confirms existing camps spreads like wildfire. This is the same dynamic legacy media faces, just without any institutional protection.
No Watchdogs, No Accountability
If governments, legacy outlets, and audiences are all pushing back against independent media, it’s worth asking why. Real “freedom of speech” threatens control, narrative dominance, and comfort. That resistance isn’t random. It proves that some people are still doing something right. If you weren’t hitting a nerve somewhere, nobody would care.
So, the people who keep going anyway — the ones who cover all sides of the story without picking a permanent team, who ask questions they’re not supposed to ask, and who don’t answer to any big man upstairs — are the ones still treating journalism like it’s supposed to mean something. Everyone else, at some level, is just managing narratives and keeping the right people happy.
Journalists at major outlets face pressure, too, of course. But when you’re independent, there is no institution to absorb the blow, no legal team on standby, and no safety net when access disappears. You’re on your own by design.
Yes, networks, accreditation, and union memberships (like IFJ) give you some legitimacy and occasional backup, but even then, most people aren’t exactly lining up to stick their neck out for a no-name who doesn’t have big backing. The system is built to protect those who are already part of the clique.
Which is exactly why independent media needs more than polite support. If we actually want the truth instead of managed narratives, we need people willing to show up anyway. Protecting that space isn’t charity. It’s how we stop real news from turning into curated propaganda.
