Americans' trust in media plummets to historic low: poll (2023)
axios.com
axios.com
And now that I think of it, that must be exactly the feeling that people have in oppressive regimes: Everyone knows that they're being lied to, but it's just accepted as a fact of life.
For instance a Fox News viewer might not trust “the media” but does trust Fox; meanwhile a MSNBC viewer thinks MSNBC is trustworthy and the Fox News viewer is being lied to.
The media has gotten too addicted to clickbaity headlines and pushing drama. The drama is exhausting, and the headlines border on misinformation.
It has gotten so bad that I find myself routinely checking the comments first to see how the author misinterpreted or twisted some fact to arrive at the headline. That, plus realizing you’ve fallen for the Gell-Mann amnesia effect again, and you have a perfect recipe for distrust of the news.
It really feels like the only legitimate newspapers left are The Economist and FT.
I would guess the amount of time people spend consuming media over those decades has increased, and that people trust the media they choose to listen too.
Imagine someone says "the media in general is not trustworthy" and everyone nods in agreement. "But the media we listen too is good", again everyone nods in agreement. Then gradually, everyone realizes they all listen to different media. What do they do now? They mostly keep quiet and retreat into their own media bubble.
How many hours have you spend watching political content the last month? How many hours have you spent engaged in calm and respectful talk with someone who would challenge your beliefs? Do you even have someone you can disagree with in a calm and respectful way? Are you able to disagree in a calm and respectful way?
Not sure where I'm going here, just a train of thought. I've been thinking about how I can get more of my "news" from people who I can actually talk to (not necessarily in person). I'm tired of political commentary where, if I have a question, I can't do anything, the talking head keeps going, skipping over any counter points that might be raised. Why am I listening to people who wont listen to me? How can I find people to listen to who will also listen to me in return?
The doctrine was abolished in 1987.
The news became much more entertaining. Now you have lots of mud-slinging, bias, and name-calling, and a lot less reasoned debate and thought. Network news departments now make a lot of money.
In order to make more money, you need more advertisers. If you have high-paying advertisers, you can't offend them. That means that there are many topics, especially corporate-funded takeovers of regulatory agencies, which aren't covered at all. You never hear CNN or Fox News talk about the revolving door between the FDA and big pharma, or the USDA and big ag, or between the SEC and big banks, or between defense contractors and the CIA. Neither "left-wing" nor "right-wing" networks wants to talk about that, because it would decrease their profits.
Viewers can sense this. They're not made of stone. That's why they don't trust the media.
(I wrote "left-" and "right-" in quotes, because there aren't any left-wing networks at all, but that's another issue).
I don't know much about the formation of those other agencies so they're probably fine :/.
But if you go back in history, other than about a three-decade blip, the media has never been trustworthy. It's always been schlock designed to make money, entertain, and push positions and ideologies, since the beginning, all the way up to today. The baby boomers tried to make this statement about the media being a force for good, but it was ultimately a pipe dream, and people knew it even in the 70s. Yet they kept trying to sell us this bill of goods about the media's inherent virtue and necessity.
The end result is modern generations just expect the media to be something it's not, and couldn't ever be for long. So of course they're disillusioned. Ever since Nixon, Americans' falling trust in society and widening political and ideological gaps have led to a status quo of anomie, cynicism and apathy.
And I think that's great! You can't break an addiction until you hit rock bottom. Society has been so fucking obsessed with the media for so long that they can't imagine a world where someone isn't spoon-feeding them garbage. But the less people trust it, the closer they are to realizing that they might need to check up on the shit they're eating to see if there's poison in it. "Mama broadcaster and Papa newspaper would never deceive me - we vote for the same politicians!!"
My hope is that in 10 years, people will finally get off their fat, lazy, stupid asses, and do some due diligence. Get some critical thinking skills and learn to research. Look into local politics and find out what's happening around them. Maybe actually learn what the positions of political candidates are and what the actual implications of them are. (Ok that last one will never happen, but a boy can dream)
You don't hear much about discrimination against Irish or Polish Americans these days, unlike "the good old days".
People thought Kennedy could not win the Presidency because that would give the Pope too much power.
Surely, there are many differences like this that have simply faded with time and have been replaced by new, equally ridiculous divides that will also fade in time when replaced by another set of ridiculous divides.
When that happens, our divides today will sound as absurd as the Pope controlling a Catholic president just because they are Catholic.
How about a near civil war between Catholics vs Protestants? How could that ever happen? Only in the "good ol days!"
Related: ‘Too many people watched’ – UK MP explains why RT was banned - https://archive.is/urSI2
Yeah, let's listen to pro-Kremlin RT commentator on the topic of media freedom /s
You can't be pro-press freedom if you're not going to allow biased, dissenting and outright deranged media.
I wanted to vote for that kid who registered "Deez Nutz" for president in 2012 Iowa caucus. Iowa Republicans took him off the ballot. Thank goodness our Supreme Court would allow Deez Nuts on the ballot today!
Trump says the voters should choose. The MAGA folks in general seem to think the rules don't apply to Trump. Amy Coney Barret wanted to "turn down" the metaphorical temperature. The OP says I should have been allowed to vote for who I wanted. I wanted Dees Nuts.
Deez Nuts should have stayed on the ballot to allow voter choice and keep me (among many others) from getting upset.
It's not a paradox of freedom of speech to allow people who don't support freedom of speech to talk.
> I wanted to vote for that kid who registered "Deez Nutz" for president in 2012 Iowa caucus. Iowa Republicans took him off the ballot. Thank goodness our Supreme Court would allow Deez Nuts on the ballot today!
I don't know about your specific case but I assume it's very different from a person who already qualified to be on the ballot for a position which was already held by that person. I'm not arguing Trump shouldn't be able to be removed from the ballot if he is indeed unqualified, I'm deriding the folks who _claim_ democracy is at stake if we let people vote for who they want when that's a thin facade for partisan, anti-democratic efforts.
The analogy goes to the press freedom limitations because, somehow, eliminating wrong speak always seems to align with the eliminators ideology. Freedom of speech (and the press) exists because the arbiters will always have a bias and that is worse than letting people say whatever they want.
I've met Norma Anderson, one of the plaintiffs, around 2000. She was fairly partisan back then. I'm genuinely surprised she was involved. Also surprised she's still alive, but that's biology, not politics.
I read the Denver Post for years. I cancelled my subscription in part because of Krista Kafer's pro-Trump, illogical editorials. Another surprise plaintiff.
If this was an anti democratic partisan effort, it was by staunch Republicans.
It is of course in retrospect blindingly obvious that this would be an RT interview with George Galloway, but perhaps future readers can be saved a click.
Sometimes knowing the truth is a matter of life or death even if the truth is not easily obtainable, but ignoring the truth is not logically defensible.
I find it funny that Democrats had a big surge of thinking highly of the news when it was on a 24/7 fuck trump loop for 6 years straight.
Wow, how did you come to this conclusion? News is an onion, in that there are many many layers. Every single news story (from established sources that strive for truth) has truth and bias in it, and it is up to the viewer to realize that we have to put effort into aggregating from different sources. Single source news is not recommended. It's a lot of work to get unbiased information, and I don't know if it exists in the world. Even your own perception is biased (consider the parable of the blind men and the elephant).
Constant lie? No. Biased? Yes.
If there was any 'truth' in anything that the modern Western msm pushes, they wouldnt be able to lie about nonexistent WMDs for 8 years straight without even one of them breaking the line.
Anyone who thinks that was a 'one time' affair is a gullible fool.
I have lost trust in all media.
I did a simple exercise on Google News, I blocked a media source if:
1. The title was clickbait 2. The reported story turned out later the be false 3. There was no actual “news” (i.e. something happened and verifiable facts about it were reported)
In 6 months I had blocked every news source provided.
Media is a gimmick for attention, with a veneer of a cause (whatever your cause of choice is).
What’s worse, there is a shared bias about the world within the writer class. Having known the truth of more than a few reported stories by reputable journalist, I was stunned how often what was written had no grounded whatsoever in what actually happened. It was simply an anthology of opinions by people with the credentials to give a viewpoint on a topic they had no personal insight into.
Now that I’ve eliminated media from my diet, I spend far more time investigating and learning.
Just like junk food takes the place of nutrition without providing it, media is narrative without instruction.
This wasn’t always the case. Look at newspaper articles from the 1920s. They are basically Wikipedia articles as told by a friend.
I’m shocked how many otherwise intelligent and well-educated people truly feel they “won’t know what’s going on in the world” without media. Fact check even two or three stories with experts from your personal network. You’ll learn quickly that media isn’t solving that problem and doesn’t deserve the job.
"The deadlock of the global society involves world’s radical restructuring based on the control of information, as well as on a systematic maintenance of a “preventive disorder” – which is actually the title of the manifest-novel, written in a journalistic style, about the mediatic order of today –equivalent, in the vision of the writer-journalist Vişniec, with the instauration of a new religion."
1. https://www.ijcr.eu/articole/116_Pagini%2053-59%20Prus%20IJCR%201-2013.pdf
2. https://www.visniec.com“No news service gets everything right 100% of the time” is pretty shallow criticism. Who does?
Before cable TV News was a loss leader mostly limited to time slots that were the least profitable for commercials and mostly covered headlines.
When 24/7 cable arrived with CNN and then Fox, the filled in time essentially became 23 hours of talking head opinion. Suddenly the critics isolated to talk radio got their own forums.
But what really finally destroyed trust was social media. Now instead of just your uncle telling you to watch Fox, he’s resharing all over FB, and now Post-Musk Twitter.
With the signal to noise ratio going to hell, and one side almost constantly spreading (according to a peer reviewed a Science journal paper recently) significantly more misinformation to their own bubble, is it any wonder trust is declining?
The final nail in the coffin will be AI where deepfakes and bots will make it almost impossible to believe any story.
I feel like the jig is up when it comes to the media, ‘citizen journalism’ via apps like Twitter, Instagram etc makes quick work of debunking or exposing biases in mainstream media.
I don't feel I can do justice to the irony here.
The concept of a COVID death tracker is asinine, that was my ultimate point.