“Do You Trust the Mass Media?” By Kip Hansen

“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…”

Do You Trust the Mass Media?

By Kip Hansen on October 24, 2024

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 on 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 Statesand 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 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!

# # # # #

Comment