okay but FIRST. let’s set the scene.
welcome to biased journalism in 2025, a thriving ecosystem where headlines are written by engagement metrics, nuance is considered a fire hazard, and “some guy answering a question normally” is framed like an attack on an entire demographic.
this isn’t your 2009-era bias where a newspaper quietly leaned left or right. no. this is algorithm-fed, fandom-powered, outrage-optimized journalism, and it is deeply unserious.
what biased journalism looks like in 2025
in 2025, bias isn’t usually loud or ideological. it’s structural.
• emotionally loaded headlines
• selective quotes that strip context
• “fans react” sections built from three tweets and a dream
• framing that implies conflict where none exists
• urgency where there is none (“adds to doubt”, “sparks backlash”, “breaks hearts”)
the goal is no longer to inform.
• turns articles into discourse hubs
truth is optional. engagement is not.
okay. so. let’s talk about this article.
the one that reads like it was written by a sentient push notification whose sole mission is to start fandom discourse few days before christmas.
because besties. this post has “manufactured outrage” written all over it in size 72 comic sans.
the VIBES are off immediately
“Stranger Things star adds to doubt over ‘Byler’”
as if doubt is some sort of community soup that the cast members are taking turns seasoning.
gaten mataratzo did not walk into an interview twirling his mustache going, “ah yes. today i shall crush the gays.” he answered a question about fan theories. FAN. THEORIES. plural. casually. like a human person.
but the headline frames it like he personally unplugged the rainbow.
selective quoting: journalism’s favorite party trick 🎩✨
stir until engagement spikes
“I see them as just very good friends”
and then immediately skips over the part where he talks about:
• queer youth experiences
• the pain of loving a friend who can’t love you back
• how that story can be powerful without romance
but nope. that doesn’t fit the “CAST DISMISSES QUEER LOVE” narrative, so into the journalistic void it goes.
if you have to ignore half the quote to make your argument work, you don’t have an argument.
“I find the Byler stuff very funny” okay but like… why is it funny 😭
because last time I checked, people hoping for queer rep that has been actively set up in the show isn’t a joke?
and listen. I know he probably didn’t mean it like that. I truly do. but the way it comes off is very much “lol fandom is silly” when in reality this ship:
• didn’t come out of nowhere
• is based on actual canon moments
• and means a LOT to a lot of queer people
like sorry we watched the show with our eyes?? god forbid we saw subtext and emotional storytelling and went “huh. that feels gay.”
it just feels kinda bad when something that’s genuinely important to queer fans gets brushed off as “funny” or “just a crush” or “just a silly little ship.” because to me will isn’t casually crushing — that boy is IN LOVE. capital letters. italics. underline.
even if byler never becomes canon, cool, fine, whatever. but treating it like we’re stupid or delusional for seeing it as a real possibility is just… :// not great!
I hate when the cast members downplay Will's love and call it a crush.
okay no because let’s actually laugh about it for a second or we’ll scream.
people hoping for queer rep on one of the biggest shows ever = comedy gold apparently 😐
like yes king, hilarious. side-splitting. absolutely peak humor.
meanwhile—AND THIS IS WHERE I START SQUINTING—
a crackship. a fully unserious, never-happening, vibes-only ship like Eddie/Steve gets a cute little “aww Dustin would be supportive 🥺” moment.
the MOST popular ship in the fandom.
built on YEARS of canon moments, subtext, dialogue, framing, literal confirmed feelings on one side?
that’s “very funny” and “just friends” and “not canon” 😬
oh that’s not suspicious at ALL. totally normal. nothing to see here folks.
and like… you’re telling me:
• crackships = fun, harmless, encouraged
• queer ship with narrative weight = joke, dismissed, downplayed
hmm. interesting. fascinating even. 🧐
especially when this is said before volume 2, while fans are literally waiting to see how things resolve. like idk man, maybe don’t casually go “yeah that’s not happening lol” when:
1. the show isn’t finished
2. the writers haven’t said that
3. fans are deeply invested
4. you’re potentially spoiling or at least discouraging half the audience
because let’s be real: some people WILL stop watching if they feel mocked or written off. that’s just how fandom works.
emotional manipulation disguised as reporting
biased journalism in 2025 loves feelings.
not understanding. not clarity.
anger. betrayal. disappointment. rage.
these aren’t observations. they’re instructions.
the reader is being told how to feel before they’ve even finished the paragraph.
bias by omission (the quietest kind)
the most dangerous bias in 2025 isn’t what’s said — it’s what’s left out.
a full quote becomes a sentence.
a thoughtful explanation becomes a soundbite.
context becomes inconvenient.
journalists know most readers:
• won’t watch the original interview
• won’t look for the full transcript
• will react to the headline alone
so the article becomes the story, not the source.
• intent is misrepresented
• people are pitted against each other for clicks
is the article technically reporting something that was said?
is it framing that something in the most dramatic, fandom-baiting, emotionally manipulative way possible?
this isn’t journalism. this is:
• “let’s quote three angry tweets and call it cultural analysis”
and honestly? gaten mataratzo did not deserve to be turned into the villain of a story he wasn’t telling.
remember that tumblr taught us better media literacy than half of entertainment journalism.
jbbartram-illu
jacobvanloon
prguitarman
blakekathryn
izzy806
gummygunk
