Could Candace Owens’ Response Change How Public Figures Handle Media ‘Hit Pieces’?

Public figures have long had limited options when faced with unfavourable press: ignore it, issue a carefully worded statement, attempt legal action, or hire someone like me to help get it edited or removed. But Candace Owens’ response to The Cut’s recent article about her suggests a new approach, turning the scrutiny back onto the journalist.

In an article titled "Don’t Fall for Candace Owens’s Rebrand," The Cut’s senior writer E.J. Dickson examines Owens’ growing mainstream influence, particularly following her viral takes on the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni case. The piece argues that Owens is leveraging celebrity culture to soften her brand and make her right-wing commentary more palatable to broader audiences. It is a fairly standard media analysis, critical but not unprecedented.

But Owens did not respond by defending herself or addressing the article’s claims. Instead, she went after the journalist, publicly highlighting Dickson’s past work and accusing her of having disturbing views.

"The journalist who wrote a hit piece on me also believes we need to ‘stop getting caught up in our knee-jerk reaction to adults having sex with children’ and we need to instead support the creation of child robots that paedophiles can have sex with." (Source)

Owens also accused Dickson of framing paedophilia as a sexual orientation, suggesting that this revealed the journalist’s real motivation for writing about her.

"According to the senior writer of @TheCut and @NYMag, paedophilia is merely a sexual orientation and those of you who disagree need to get over yourselves. I now understand the true motivation of her hit piece about me."

Whether or not Owens’ characterisation of Dickson’s past work is accurate, one thing is undeniable. Owens’ research skills, love her or hate her, are incredible. She is no doubt a brilliant journalist and, in my humble opinion, incredibly entertaining. I certainly wouldn't want to be on her bad side ha ha.

What makes this even more interesting is The Cut’s response. They have not removed the article but have turned off comments on their Instagram post about it. While not unusual, it does give the impression that they would rather shut down discussion than engage with the backlash. At the same time, by keeping the article live, The Cut signals that they are standing by their journalist and refusing to bow to Owens’ large and vocal audience.

This raises a bigger question. Could this be the future of how public figures respond to critical press?

Cancel culture has largely been one-sided, with public figures facing scrutiny while journalists and commentators drive the narrative. The media has traditionally been in a position of power, deciding whose mistakes deserve front-page treatment and whose can be quietly ignored. Journalists have rarely been held to the same level of accountability as the public figures they write about, despite often shaping the way the public perceives those individuals. A critical article can spark career-damaging backlash for a celebrity or public figure, but if the reporting itself is misleading, exaggerated, or even outright false, there are rarely consequences for the journalist.

What Owens has done is flip the script. Instead of simply reacting to what was written about her, she has made the journalist the story. She is not just defending herself but actively putting the writer under the same level of scrutiny she faces. This is not the usual PR response, and it introduces a dynamic that journalists are not used to, having their own credibility questioned in real time, on a large scale, by a subject with an equally powerful platform.

In reality, nothing is stopping other public figures from seeing this situation and thinking it is not the worst idea. They might not engage in a direct public callout like Owens, but that does not mean they will not use similar tactics in a more subtle way. I have no doubt that some celebrities and their teams are already looking at this case and considering how they could do the same without attaching their names to it.

In my job, I deal with so-called "controversial" clients and have had some pretty outrageous conversations with journalists who openly admit they do not care that their articles are inaccurate because the clicks have been great. I have seen first-hand how some will flat-out refuse to remove a piece, even when it is completely false and life-destroying for my client. The reality is, for some journalists, it is not about fairness, accuracy, or responsibility. It is about what will generate the most outrage and engagement.

At the very least, Owens’ response forces a recalibration. If journalists know their professional history could be put under the microscope every time they write a hit piece, will they start thinking twice before publishing?

For years, public figures have been at the mercy of the press, their reputations shaped by a few key narratives that gain traction. But if Owens’ response is any indication, we might be entering a new era where scrutiny flows both ways. Whether that leads to more accountability in media or simply a more combative press environment remains to be seen.