By Bob Weeks
November 2025
Every Sunday morning, my inbox brings “Ron’s Reads.” It’s a newsletter from Congressman Ron Estes, a Republican who represents the Wichita metropolitan area and surrounding counties. The newsletter features recommended news articles. It’s a thoughtful gesture on the surface: a representative helping constituents stay informed. But the pattern in these newsletters raises an uncomfortable question: What responsibility do our elected officials have for the quality of information they promote?
Week after week, the articles Congressman Estes shares come from a small group of sources. This week the sources were The Federalist, Breitbart, Newsmax, New York Post, and The Daily Signal. These outlets don’t simply present conservative perspectives. Instead, they represent a shift toward right-wing media that often undermines the very foundations of informed democratic discourse.
There’s an important distinction here. Conservative journalism, represented by outlets like The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, or National Review, maintains rigorous editorial standards while advocating for conservative policies like limited government, free markets, and traditional institutions. These outlets fact-check, issue corrections, and work within democratic norms.
The sources in Congressman Estes’s newsletters operate differently. Breitbart and Newsmax, for example, represent far-right media characterized by conspiracy theories, ethnic nationalism, and rejection of established democratic institutions. These outlets don’t just advocate for conservative policies. Instead, they promote content that erodes trust in election systems, scientific consensus, and constitutional processes. Breitbart has published white nationalist content and consistently promotes conspiracy theories. Newsmax faced and settled two defamation lawsuits over false election claims, paying over $100 million. These patterns reflect far-right ideology that prioritizes ideological purity and cultural grievance over factual accuracy.
This distinction matters because it reveals what’s actually happening. Congressman Estes isn’t simply sharing conservative perspectives – he’s consistently directing constituents toward sources that promote anti-institutional narratives, conspiracy thinking, and content that undermines confidence in democratic systems. When elected officials legitimize sources that reject basic journalistic standards and democratic norms, they contribute to the erosion of shared reality necessary for democratic discourse.
Is this Rep. Estes simply sharing his political perspective? There’s a meaningful difference between advocating conservative policies and promoting far-right sources with documented records of publishing false information and conspiracy theories. He could, if he chose to, make strong conservative arguments using legitimate sources that maintain editorial integrity.
When information carries the implied endorsement of a U.S. Congressman, an official with access to intelligence briefings and legislative research, it carries weight. That platform comes with responsibility. Representatives who consistently promote far-right sources over legitimate conservative journalism make a choice about what information ecosystem they want their constituents to inhabit.
The solution is straightforward: share sources that maintain factual standards regardless of ideological perspective. Use sources that correct errors and separate news from opinion.
The weekly pattern I observe represents more than poor judgment about media quality — it reflects a troubling willingness to direct constituents toward sources that corrode the foundations of democratic discourse. We deserve representatives who understand the difference between conservative advocacy and far-right propaganda, and who take seriously their role in contributing to an informed citizenry.