Opinion by Kip Hansen — 19 October 2024 — 1200 words/5 mins
If your answer is: “Of course not!” then you are in the majority.
The latest Gallup Poll shows that less than 1 out of 3 people in the United States have even a fair amount of trust and confidence in the mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio – particularly when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly.
Interestingly, Gallup chooses to combine “trust a great deal” and “trust a fair amount” into one category. This is not true, by the way, in the actual numerical results, just on the graph. I dug into the data and found that just 8% trust the media a Great Deal. As a journalist, I find that simply embarrassing. [I don’t, however, write for the mass media, even so….]
It doesn’t get better when broken down by age:
The fact that only 8%, less than 1-of-10, of the general public only trusts the news media a Great Deal means that the news media is known to have abrogated its very purpose which is to act as a source of objective, unbiased and fair information about what is happening in the world, or, as stated in the Wiki:
“Objectivity in journalism aims to help the audience make up their own mind about a story, providing the facts alone and then letting audiences interpret those on their own. To maintain objectivity in journalism, journalists should present the facts whether or not they like or agree with those facts.”
Newspapers of record are national newspapers that are known for their trustworthiness and quality reporting. In the United States, the list is: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. In the UK: The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph.
Readers are invited to give their opinions on those six newspapers. Biased? In which direction? On which topics?
But, my experience is this: The New York Times generally acts as a propaganda arm of the United States’ Democratic National Committee [ DNC ], as does The Washington Post. I don’t follow politics in the UK, but The Guardian is a founding partner of the journalist’s climate crisis propaganda cabal Covering Climate Now, thus on that topic publishes nothing but stories meant to frighten which are filled with blatantly false and intentionally alarming information.
According to a survey conducted every few years by Indiana University:
“According to a new survey titled “The American Journalist Under Attack,” released by Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Republicans in the industry fell from 18% in 2002 and 7.1% in 2013 to 3.4% in 2022.
That’s significantly lower than the number of American adults who say they’re Republicans (26%), according to a 2022 ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Democrats in the news industry saw their ranks swell by eight percentage points in 2022 to 36%.” [ source ]
National Public Radio [ NPR ] in the 1970s was the go-to news source for well-balanced mostly unbiased news reporting, leaning only a tiny bit to the liberal side of things. By 2023, according to a tell-all by Uri Berliner, “the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think” [ source ] a change brought about by “…the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview. And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity. “
As I let this essay sit dormant for a few days, a terrific story broke that paints this problem in broad strokes with no uncertainty. The NY Times’ take on it is here:
L.A. Times Editorial Chief Quits After Owner Blocks Harris Endorsement
“The head of The Los Angeles Times’s editorial board resigned on Wednesday after the paper’s owner quashed a presidential endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris.”
This example comes from what the mouths of those involved:
“Mariel Garza, who held the title editorials editor, [ this is the editor who resigned] said she had quit because “I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”
“Ms. Garza said that the editorial board had planned to endorse Ms. Harris, but that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times, decided this month that the newspaper would not make any endorsement for president.”
“It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist,” she [ Garza ] wrote. “How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country, and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger — who we previously endorsed for the U.S. Senate?”
And the other side of the story? What did the owner of the newspaper have to say?
In a social media post on Wednesday, Dr. Pat Soon-Shiong, the owner of the LA Times, [@DrPatSoonShiong] said:
“So many comments about the @latimes Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about.
The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation. In addition, the Board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years. In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years.
Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote. “
The owner of the paper expected the Editorial Board to do their jobs and do journalism…giving the readers the information would they need to make a rational intelligent choice.
The Editorials Editor, Mariel Garza, who freely admits that they, the editors of the LA Times, had spent “eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country” [simultaneously demoting Kamala Harris to be a merely “decent Democrat challenger”] quits her job in protest when the paper’s owner asked her to do her job as a journalist ….
How dare he?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
This OpEd is about the demise of journalism in the news media.
On politics: I abhor the political situation in the United States, in which the long-standing two-party system has short-circuited our carefully designed democratic federal republic form of government as laid out in the Constitution of the United States and left us with warring political parties which have little concern for the welfare of the citizens. The American people have not been offered the best candidates that our country has to offer – but only one each from the two parties which the party leaders think represent their best chance to hold and/or gain power.
This OpEd is not intended to promote any political campaign or support any particular candidate.
On journalism: Newspapers, news magazines, broadcast news (radio and television and cable) journalists have, for the most part, abandoned journalism as an outmoded quaint occupation akin to the making of buggy whips. These modern junior-warrior-journalists all want to tell their audiences how to think, what to think, and what to believe. Most of them have no clue.
Thanks for reading….and for goodness sake, turn up those Critical Thinking knobs to FULL BLAST!
# # # # #
The mainstream media has reached the point that I consider it useless. Worse than useless because it promotes dangerous ideology.
“On politics: I abhor the political situation in the United States, in which the long-standing two-party system has short-circuited our carefully designed democratic federal republic form of government as laid out in the Constitution of the United States and left us with warring political parties which have little concern for the welfare of the citizens.”
I also abhor the political situation however one side the democrats have come right out and said they intend to fundamentally change the US. Think Obama. I take them seriously when they say things like that. They mean it. Therefore I not only expect my side to stand up to them but beat them back with authority. We have been gentlemanly long enough. We do nothing and we lose, we have a lot to lose. All the other side has to do is quit trying to fundamentally change what the founders worked so hard to put together.
It’s because of Dem’s lack of respect for the Constitution (“we will blow up the Supreme Court, do away with the Electoral College, and nuke the filibuster”) that this independent will vote the strait Republican ticket for the first time (at 64 yoa). OK, filibuster is not in the constitution, but I hope you still get the point.
Its the Dems who are the bigger threat to our Democracy.
NotABot, you left out redefining the First Amendment.
Indeed! Thank you.
There’s a black helicopter circling…
I was only kidding!
In his book The Revolt of the Public Martin Gurri proposes five ages of communication:
I think that the decline in trust for media reflects the end of the Mass Media Age and the birth of something new.
CC ==> My question was and still is: Is the Fifth Wave gonna be better? or worse?
How can I, personally, do my part to make sure the answer is BETTER.
not sure about this
trafamadore ==> Far better to be “not sure” than “certain — but wrong”.
Kip, I honestly do not think the [Republican] party leaders think [Donald Trump] represents their best chance to hold and/or gain power.
The Republican party leadership did everything they could to prevent a Trump candidacy in 2016. And still today, they’d rather see him gone. The list in opposition is a regular Who’s Who of the Republican Party.
Whatever one may think of Donald Trump, he has prevailed against the violently opposed duoparty establishment and is a candidate of the people. Not all the people, clearly, but likely a majority of them.
Trump is clearly not the candidate of the majority of the people. He lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020. And while he is favoured to win the election in 2024 he is still likely to lose the popular vote for the third time in a row.
A person has to be very confused to vote for Kamala Harria or any other radical Democrat.
We’ll have that number in just a few days. How many millions of confused voters are there in the United States? Let’s hope it’s not a majority. Anyone who wants to continue the last four years is very confused indeed.
Kackles had a rally in Georgia yesterday, it started with a Bruce Springsteen concert (that was certainly not one of his best). When Bruce was done, the crowd headed for the exits en masse, no one wanted to stay and listen to the word salad of the day.
She is not the candidate of the people.
So what?
likely to lose the popular vote
Irrelevant, since that’s not how it works. You don’t play baseball with basketball rules.
“And while he is favoured to win the election in 2024 he is still likely to lose the popular vote for the third time in a row.”
How many times did Bill Clinton, Woodrow Wilson, etc. lose the popular vote?
The Dems only complain about the popular vote when they’ve lost the Electoral College.
This is the United States of America.
Each state gets 2 votes for each senator then 1 vote for each representative of that state based on population in a Presidential election.
Pat ==> I am not a political analyst. But my memory too says that Trump started as on outsider, nearly a Third Party candidate, and sorta forced himself onto the Republican ticket.
I think that they nominated him because they thought he could win for them.
After the Obama years, Trump said he’d do what people wanted done. (Reverse Obama’s border mess, “Global Warming” policies, bring jobs back to the US, etc.). He just kept winning in primaries and others kept dropping out.
(My personal choices were Ben Carson or Ted Cruz. But both had dropped out before my state’s primary.)
Once elected he actually tried to do those things.
Many things were blocked, hindered by the Dems and Rinos (such Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, John McCain, etc.).
Wasn’t 60 Minutes busted for trying to make Harris appear less dumb?
I can’t believe they have advertisers…must be Pharma as they advertise everywhere.
Derg ==> Don’t follow all that closely enough to remember — it may have been an impossible task anyway…
How much do I trust the MSM? On a scale if 1 to 10, with 10 being best, about a -5.
I trust the msm..just not about telling the truth.
There would appear to be 2 things wrong with the claim that:
“The fact that only 8%, less than 1-of-10, of the general public only trusts the news media a Great Deal means that the news media is known to have abrogated its very purpose which is to act as a source of objective, unbiased and fair information about what is happening in the world”
Firstly the purpose of the media is to sell advertising space. Whether you like it or not media companies exist to make a profit which means they have to sell advertising space to large companies. Hence they are all right wing leaning since large corporations will buy advertising space from media corporations that do not threaten their business. Expecting a company that gets the majority of its revenue from selling ads to be neutral when reporting news is naive at best. See for example Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” for example for how this works.
Second all the poll shows is that years of politicans telling people that the media can’t be trusted is having an effect. Not that that the media is becoming more biased. Politicans like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Boris Johnson in the UK, Trump in the US etc have all learnt that you can lie and then claim the media is lying when they point out the truth is a very effective strategy to gain power. And if all the politicans are claiming with no evidence that media companies can’t be trusted then is it surprising that distrust in the media is rising.
So where is the evidence that the media has “abrogated its very purpose”?
“So where is the evidence that the media has “abrogated its very purpose”?”
The election of Joe Biden is one example. The only way he could win is if the Leftwing Media lies him into office.
Joe Biden, the worst, most destructive president in the history of the United States.
If you were to remove your head from the Marx Stream Media, you might know that DJT holds rallies in city-after-city, day-after-day, to which tens of thousands come to hear what he has to say, after lining up for hours and hours before they start. Tens of thousands more watch from outside. The MSM won’t cover them, of course, because this might shed a positive light on him.
Meanwhile Kackles holds events in high school gyms, and has to bus people in from out-of-state to get a “crowd” (the same people have been identified at multiple events, so they are likely paid).
No one wants to hear Kackles tell her lies.
Izaak ==> The LA Times example is the evidence, Bari Weiss is he evidence, Uri Berliner is the evidence.
Scott Adams defines a “false because” in his book “Win Bigly”.
Look it up. The concept sheds light on how people make decisions and much of what we see in the “MSM”.
Journalism has become the practice of supplying innumerable “false becauses” to support the Democratic party – the “right team”; as practitioners are brainwashed to believe in college.
There is nothing democratic about how the democrat party appointed Harris.
Post says:”…politicans are claiming with no evidence that media companies can’t be trusted…”
It isn’t politicians saying it rather average Americans. ABC was busted for faking a spy story. CBS was busted years ago for causing rollovers with explosives. All of them (except Fox and NY Post) didn’t tell the truth about Hunters laptop. Need I list more evidence?
Large corporations will buy advertising space from any outlet that gives them exposure to potential buyers. They tend to be more rational than ideologically driven groups, such as democrats. It is funny that I don’t see the evidence that the main stream ‘news’ media are right wing. It is only in your imagination.
Do You Trust the Mass Media?
Not one finger nail long.
When I was director of public relations for the Royal Navy I was told by a TV producer that he was the only person in the BBC who.votes Conservative.
Brian Redhead did.
From the article: “The American people have not been offered the best candidates that our country has to offer – but only one each from the two parties which the party leaders think represent their best chance to hold and/or gain power.”
I wouldn’t describe Trump that way. The People, not the Republican Party leaders, picked Trump. The Republican Party leaders did everything they could to prevent Trump from running. Witness Liz Cheney and the other Old Guard Republicans coming out against Trump even now and showing their utter ignorance and inability to detect the existential threat the radical Democrats pose to the freedoms of the People with their efforts to establish a One-Party System, their system, in the United States. Stupid, clueless, holier-than-thou, Republicans! Be Gone! Your confused thinking is dangerous to the nation, as you support the enemies of the nation, the radical Democrats..
The Old Guard Repubicans are history. They just don’t know it yet. Soon, they will know.
The People choose Trump. And for good reason.
Eleven more days and we will see just how much influence the Lying Leftwing News Media really has.
This ought to be a landslide victory for Trump if the truth were told. But, of course, the Media is not in the business of telling the truth, they are in the business of promoting radical Democrat politicians.
And selling ad clicks. Can’t forget to follow the money, too.
Tom ==> Yes, Trump, first time out, came into the race as a 3rd Party outsider. The Republicans let him in because it looked like he could win…..
From the article: “In a social media post on Wednesday, Dr. Pat Soon-Shiong, the owner of the LA Times, [@DrPatSoonShiong] said:
“So many comments about the @latimes Editorial Board not providing a Presidential endorsement this year. Let me clarify how this decision came about.
The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation. In addition, the Board was asked to provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years. In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years.
Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision. Please #vote. “”
Excellent !!! Who can legitimately criticize this requirement? All the owner is asking for are the facts perfaining to both candidates.
But, you see, that’s the problem for the radical leftists on the Editorial Board. If they actually did show the candidates records side-by-side, they would demonstatre that Trump had a terrific record, and Kamala had NO record.
So telling the truth would harm their political candidate, so the one woman on the Editorial Board chose to resign rather than tell the Public the true story.
Instead of adopting this path [unbiased factual analysis] as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent
Says all you need to know.
My wife was a production planner/buyer in a computer manufacturing facility. Basically she managed the plant’s supply chain for a particular product line.
Her fundamental practice for dealing with suppliers (sales force) was something she called ‘the five whys’. She always challenged her suppliers with questions that went five deep. So, “buy my stuff because A”, becomes “why A?”, and so on down to E.
Her theory was that the descent from A down to E would always involve a transition to BS at some point in the descent. She was a generalist of course so she resorted to this because usually BS gets easier to detect on the way down her interrogation.
Today’s journalists don’t do this. I suspect J schools either don’t teach this or actively prevent learning it.
The Five Why’s is a standard Japanese quality method. Good on your bride to use it.
I voted yesterday.
As I approached the polling site, a Democratic volunteer (campaign worker) offered me a Democrat version of the ballot. I nicely informed him that I had made my decisions.
Another campaign worker (later revealed as Republican) started listening as I said in no uncertain terms the USA was NOT a liberal democracy, but it was a Constitutional Republic and I was irate at how the political parties no longer represented their constituencies but rather voted party line almost exclusively and if the did not, they were punished. Not exactly concise but close enough. At that disclaimer, the Democrat backed off and sat down at his table.
What was remarkably curious is both of them revealed a belief that this could or maybe even would be the last election.
I’ve mulled that over and there is a level of credibility that is hard to shake. As divided as we have become, it may be necessary by whoever wins to call out the National Guard and perhaps even the Army to suppress violence in the streets.
A house divided against itself can not stand.
I hope the Dem was outside of the polling limit.
Yes. All of the campaign people were are the requisite distance from the doors.
Good people, all of them.
Sparta ==> In my opinion, there should be no politicing within sight of a polling place.
Grossly wrong to approach voters on their way to the polls.
Kip, I would rather have a handful of people than the acres and acres of political signage, given a choice. There was signage from the turn-in for half a mile and literally hundreds of signs space closely together. That politicing should be outlawed.
The people I engaged with were not really politicing. They were offering information but NOT pressing.
There have been times past when that was not the case and I agree.
When the McCain van was parked at the curb by the entrance and stated a Vote for McCain is a vote against Obama, that was obnoxious enough (and wrong) that I flipped.
What I do not understand is why these businesses don’t grasp what will become of them if “net zero” or “end fossil fuels”really happens. They love to play doomsday with CO2 increase, but no consideration about the other side.
They need to be very careful for what they wish for.
Thermodynamics is not their friend, and apprehension of this fact is beyond their ken.
I was already suspicious of the “main stream media” before, but does anyone remember the rigged reporting by NBC about GM trucks exploding? And that’s certainly not the only one. I haven’t trusted MSM for a very long time (and that includes Fox). They’ve just become more blatant about their BS
Tony ==> The problem originates in journalism schools — where they teach journalistic activism in place of true journalism.
Kip, maybe not 100%, but that absolutely is a major part of the problem. And it goes back many decades.
But I think you could simplify that to “The problem originates in schools”
Tony ==> In the NY Times today a professor laments that he can’t assign the class even one book to be read in its entirety. He used to assign many.
I remember Philosophy 101 many moons ago—one of books the prof assigned was The Plague by Albert Camus. I was the only one in the class who made it all the way through.
Some days, reading media is akin being 1 of the 600 in The Charge of the Light Brigade.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
My distrust of the MSM is sufficient that I subject every story I read in them (fewer and fewer) to the ‘prove this isn’t a pack of lies, a wilful distortion or a plain smear’ test. I never, ever start from the assumption that a single member of the media tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Just imagine the Daily Telegraph having to print: ‘Actually, Jeremy Corbyn’s a nice guy, he most certainly isn’t anti-semitic and he got 3 million more votes than poster child Keir Starmer’.
Imagine CNN having to say that Donald Trump is considerably less criminal than Joe Biden. If that were true of course, which I am neither saying it is nor that it isn’t. Because I don’t know.
And imagine the BBC having to acknowledge the major role of natural climate change over the past 5000 years, having to acknowledge the time of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and having to admit that the Romans grew grapes in Lincolnshire.
Do you think that any of that is going to happen any time soon???
So NPR, the NYT and the WashP have a problem now in that they will not employ workers or writers that push conspiracy theories, i.e. election denial, vax denial, climate denial. So you aren’t going to get a “fair” shake there. So do you think they should hire people that consider conspiracy theories?
I think, in their heart of hearts, they won’t, because they don’t want to give conspiracy theories an equal forum to reality.
Luckily, there is Fox…
trafamadore ==> Actually, they wont hire (or keep or make it possible to stay) journalists who are conservative, republican, right of center, or fail to hold and profess and write the way their editors want — which is progressive, leftist, democrat, woke, or all the other ways they bias the outlook of the newspaper/news program/broadcast etc.
Not so.
David Brooks, NYT, George Will, Wash Post, Uri Berliner, NPR
Meta Comment:
Of Note is the choice of papers of record, US and UK.
Not Canada, Not Australia, Not BRICs countries. Not the EU, or other G7 countries.
This shows one of the most significant and uncommented trends in news reporting in the US and UK.
The two medias are merging.
TV, Film, Books and Journalism are becoming one.
From UK authors like Lee Child to US musicians like Taylor Swift, the two cultures are re-merging in a way that they haven’t been since the invention of radio.
Or since 1776?