It is probably easier for them to dump 1B into something like this initiative than restore trust in those institutions.
Do you know how many anti-vaxxers talk about Biden and Harris saying they'd never take the vaccine last year until it was fully FDA certified, or how masks likely don't work because the CDC and FDA said they were mostly worthless to anyone who wasn't a trained professional (before changing their viewpoint, without explanation, last summer)?
How many newspapers, online, and tv presenters either don't even bother with corrections, or run them on page 11 in small font at the bottom? If it hurts the ax they are grinding, they'll never admit a mistake.
Here's an example that includes Climate Change.
On the right they deny its existence (they used to believe in it, then didn't as Obama came in, and are turning around again albeit slowly). News and politicians say the scientists are lying and taking money from "Big Green." They then promote coal, oil, and their interest groups. The right is too easy to pick on here because it is just so blatantly anti-science.
On the left there's definitely a significantly closer resemblance to what the scientists are saying, but they ignore what is convenient. There's only really discussions about what is popular. There's minor talk about carbon taxes. There's little to no talk about carbon capture, and when there is they only talk about reforestation (reforestation is great but suspected to not be enough, specifically fast enough) (scientists actually want us to be carbon negative, not zero carbon). There is little discussion outside of electricity and vehicles (which is only 54% of contributions from America). The idea that the crisis is purely political and can be solved politically is still perpetuated, not recognizing we need major scientific advancements (e.g. better batteries, smarter grids, new zero carbon energy sources, inventions in heating, significant reduction in clean energy production that can be exported to developing countries and be cheaper than coal for them --this one is huge actually--, etc). Politicians here blame Republicans for not being able to pass any bill but still are not united on their own front. They still aren't acting with anywhere near the same concern the scientific community has about the issue.
But the real kicker is: why are we listening to politicians about science anyways? I also don't want Bill Nye talking about climate change on TV I want climate scientists. I don't care if it is boring and an unfamiliar face (Fauci was unfamiliar not long ago).
I wouldn't say that in the past they have been as polarized. In fact you can actually measure this by looking at node connections.[0] But we need to hold politicians accountable. That's the mechanism to keep them in check but we're also failing at that.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...
So what is different now?
My pet theories for suspects are: social media algorithmically enhancing negative emotions and behaviors, a relative lack of enforcement of white-collar crime (especially amongst the rich), large media conglomorates (not a new phenomenon really, but the current ones are a bit different than past) and wealth inequality.
No one is claiming they were. This isn't a binary thing, it is a spectrum. So what's different now? Where they lie on that spectrum.
> My pet theories for suspects are:
You and pretty much everyone else. This is extremely common. But these are also pretty common things in history. Though again, spectrum. We're in one of the most unequal times in America. Rich rarely got persecuted, ever (hell, remember the Pinkertons?). Rumors and misinformation used to spread faster than horses could travel. So let's instead look at what similarities there are to historical examples.
A lot of these things change slowly (and are decades in the making), but aren't apparent until they have changed too much to easily fix so they require a lot of collective work to restore, which is extremely difficult because it often works against the incentives laid out by the environment that caused them to be this way. Using the news example, media sources could simply try to become more rigorous in their pursuit of being trustworthy again, but clearly society has incentivized them to move in the way they have. Running against those incentives runs the risk that it just makes them unprofitable again and then unable to report news all together when they go out of business (or become bought out by wealthy interests with an agenda). So the 'solution' would have to come in some sort of innovation in how people consume media that aligns journalistic rigor and being profitable, which nobody has really figured out how to do yet.