Skip to main content

Full coverage

REVIEW: ‘You Can See Everything’

10 sources|Diversity: 94%|

By Extra Extra Editorial

Cross-spectrum analysis, synthesized with AI from 10 sources · Updated

How we analyze coverage

A documentary about Elizabeth Holmes directed by Nathan Fielder achieved commercial success with 2,000 sold-out screenings during its limited theatrical release. The film, titled 'You Can See Everything,' presents an unconventional examination of the Theranos founder's story through Fielder's distinctive directorial approach. The documentary's strong box office performance has generated significant media attention and critical discussion across the political spectrum.

Left· 5 sources

Left-leaning outlets emphasize Fielder's artistic vision and the documentary's psychological dimensions, treating it as a serious examination of Holmes's character and the tragedy underlying her deception. These sources focus on how the film reveals Holmes's manipulation tactics and her relationship with media, positioning the work as a cultural commentary on broader themes of ambition and self-delusion.

Center· 3 sources

Center and independent sources lead with the straightforward commercial fact of the sold-out screenings and audience demand, presenting the story primarily as a box office phenomenon. These outlets treat the documentary as a newsworthy entertainment event without emphasizing particular thematic or critical angles.

Right· 2 sources

Right-leaning outlets validate the documentary's quality and entertainment value, offering positive reviews that affirm its worth as cultural product. These sources frame the film as a compelling watch without extensive analysis of its deeper implications or Holmes's broader significance.

Key Differences

  • Left outlets emphasize psychological and artistic analysis of Holmes's character and Fielder's directorial approach, while center sources focus primarily on commercial success metrics.
  • Left-leaning coverage treats the documentary as a vehicle for examining corporate fraud and media manipulation, whereas right-leaning sources concentrate on entertainment value and critical reception.
  • One left-leaning outlet attempts to connect the documentary's success to unrelated political figures, introducing framing absent from other coverage.

How this story is being covered

10 reports from 9 outlets94/100 cross-spectrum diversity5 high-reliability sources

Extra Extra has grouped 10 reports on this story from 9 news outlets across the political spectrum. By political lean, that breaks down as 5 left-leaning, 3 center, and 2 right-leaning sources.

With a coverage-diversity score of 94 out of 100, this is one of the more evenly reported stories in our index right now — left, center, and right outlets are all giving it attention.

On reliability, 5 of the 9 rated outlets carry a high or mostly-factual reliability rating (A or B) and 4 outlets fall into our mixed or lower-reliability tier (C or D). Ratings are drawn from independent assessments and are meant to help you weigh each report, not to tell you which to trust.

This story has been covered over the span of about 3 days, making it a longer-running thread rather than a single news flash.

Below, the same story is laid out side by side as left, center, and right outlets reported it. Read across the columns and watch what changes: the headline emphasis, which facts lead, the adjectives, and what each side leaves out. The story itself rarely changes — the framing almost always does.

Outlets covering this story: The Denver Post, Salon, WIRED, The Daily Beast, Spectrum News NY1, NewsNation, The Hill, Free Beacon, Fox News.


Left(5)

Center(3)

Right(2)

Get this analysis in your inbox

The Daily Spectrum: one email, three perspectives on the day's biggest stories.

Free forever. Unsubscribe anytime. No spam.

New to comparing coverage? Start with our guides to reading the news critically.

Back to Compare