The Myth of the Public’s “Right to Know” Is Falling Apart

We’ve all heard it: “The public has a right to know.”

It’s a rallying cry for transparency, truth, and freedom of information. But lately, I’ve been questioning what that “right” even means — and more importantly, what people actually do with the information once they get it.

Because from what I’ve seen, the demand to “know” is often followed by something much less noble: misinterpretation, denial, manipulation, and in some cases — outright chaos.

We don’t just have a transparency problem. We have a comprehension problem.

When People Ask for Truth, Then Reject It

Let’s be honest — recent history is full of moments where people claimed they wanted the truth, only to turn on it once it arrived:

• COVID-19 guidance: Scientists updated public health recommendations as more data came in. That’s how science works. But people took evolving information as proof of lies. Entire groups decided to rewrite the facts on their own terms.

• Vaccines: After demanding data and transparency, many rejected it when it didn’t align with personal beliefs. “Do your own research” became a slogan — even when that “research” meant Facebook comments over peer-reviewed studies.

• Elections: Endless calls for audits and evidence. And when that evidence didn’t confirm conspiracy theories? It was dismissed as fake, rigged, or part of the cover-up.

• The Epstein Files: People demanded “the list,” convinced it would expose powerful abusers in one big reveal. And when over 900 court documents were unsealed in early 2024, many ignored the complexity. Names were cherry-picked. Context was lost. The outrage became another performance — not an effort to understand what really surfaced.

• Classified briefings on foreign policy and national security: When governments hold back sensitive intelligence, critics scream “cover-up.” But releasing certain data prematurely can jeopardize investigations or compromise sources. Yet again, the truth is rarely accepted unless it aligns with the outrage people are already invested in.

These weren’t just moments of confusion. They were moments where people weaponized information — or outright ignored it — because it didn’t say what they wanted it to say.

And Then There’s the Media

I used to hold international media in high regard. Where I come from — both in my community and as a freelance journalist — global news outlets were once seen as the gold standard.

But that illusion cracked wide open during the Trump era and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many of these platforms didn’t just report — they performed. They fed panic, turned nuance into outrage, and often reduced complex issues into simplified, click-driven narratives. In doing so, they became part of the problem: polarizing, partisan, and increasingly driven by engagement over clarity.

How can the public “know” anything when the messengers themselves are unreliable?

Transparency Is Nothing Without Comprehension

We live in a time where:

• Most people skim headlines and call it “research”

• Nuance dies in comment sections

• Experts are drowned out by influencers

• Truth is judged by how well it performs online

So when people scream about their “right to know,” I can’t help but think — would they even accept the truth if they had it? Or would they just twist it, reject it, or ignore it completely?

Some information is withheld from the public for good reason. That may sound undemocratic, but when people consistently misuse the truth or cherry-pick it to fit an agenda, full transparency becomes a risk — not a solution. We've already seen how classified files, leaked reports, and court documents get hijacked by narratives instead of analyzed with care. In certain cases, disclosure can derail legal proceedings, endanger lives, or inflame mass paranoia.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about gatekeeping or elitism. It’s about realism. The public isn’t always equipped to handle the truth, and transparency is useless without the ability to process what’s being revealed. People treat information like a right — but ignore the responsibility that should come with it.

And I’m not blaming “the public” in a vacuum. This failure is shared across the board:

– Media institutions distort facts and fuel tribalism.

– Influencers and self-declared experts flood timelines with oversimplified or false claims.

– Political operatives turn truth into a weapon when it fits their agenda, and cry censorship when it doesn’t.

In that kind of landscape, even the most honest disclosures don’t stand a chance.

A Different Kind of Transparency

If we really care about truth, we need more than access. We need responsibility — from the media, from institutions, and from the public.

A “right to know” should come with a willingness to listen, learn, and interpret carefully. Otherwise, what we call transparency is just a new form of noise.