Why No One Trusts the Mainstream Media

2,160,039 Views
Nov 10, 2017

Trust in the media is at an all-time low. But should it be? Why do fewer and fewer Americans trust the mainstream media. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear, explains.

The media has destroyed its own credibility. Almost two-thirds of Americans think mainstream news organizations publish “fake news.”

  • Almost two-thirds of Americans think once reputable mainstream news organizations publish “fake news”.View Source
  • Democrats trust mainstream news sources more than Republicans, but both now show high levels of skepticism.View Source
  • Related reading: “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote” – Sharyl AttkissonView Source

Why is trust in the media so low? Journalistic firewalls that once separated news from opinion have been abandoned by news outlets. 

  • Once-forbidden practices such as editorializing within straight news reports, and the inclusion of opinions as if fact, are not only tolerated; they’re encouraged.View Source
  • Journalist and author Sharyl Attkisson argues that the media got even worse with the election of Donald Trump, seeing the election as a threat to their establishment and their jobs.View Source
  • Many outlets, such as the New York Times and Washington Post have effectively suspended journalistic rules due to Trump’s election.View Source
  • WATCH: Sharyl Attkisson: “Well-Funded Actors” Manipulate News and the Way We ThinkView Source

Political interests often collude with journalists to engage in mass manipulation disguised as reporting. 

  • Low standards in journalism make it easy for special interest groups and politicians to “feed” stories to journalists.View Source
  • Political interests often collude with journalists to engage in mass manipulation disguised as reporting. Journalist and author Sharyl Attkisson defines this transactional journalism as “reporters making inappropriate deals with the people they’re reporting on.”View Source
  • WATCH: Sharyl Attkisson on “astroturf” and the manipulation of media messages.View Source

Trust in the mainstream media is cratering. Only about a third of Americans trust the MSM to report the facts straight.

  • An August 2017 Pew Research Center study found that only 37 percent of Americans believe the mainstream news outlets report the facts accurately.View Source
  • Journalist and author Sharyl Attkisson says that journalists have “exempted ourselves from the normal rules that used to govern us, and so the most egregious kinds of reporting errors are becoming more common.”View Source
  • Related reading: “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington” – Sharyl AttkissonView Source

Many journalists have become tools of special interests, who feed them stories in exchange for special treatment. 

  • Many news reports now are based on information “fed” to reporters by special interest groups. Journalist and author Sharyl Attkisson says the media has only itself to blame, with special interests understanding that many journalists have low standards and thus special interests “peddle tasty bites of scandalous, dubious information, hoping one major news organization or popular blog will bite.”View Source
  • Related reading: “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote” – Sharyl AttkissonView Source

Why is so much news so biased? One reason is that journalists are fed stories from political sources in exchange for one-sided reporting.

  • Low standards in journalism make it easy for special interest groups and politicians to “feed” stories to journalists.View Source
  • Example: Emails show in July 2009, The Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder was promised an advanced copy of a speech by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — if he followed certain conditions, as privately dictated by Clinton aide Philippe Reines.View Source
  • His resulting article reads in part: “When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today.”View Source
  • Ambinder defended himself by saying that he found Clinton’s speech to be muscular so the adjective was appropriate.View Source

Trust in the media is at an all-time low—and for good reason.

We in the business of journalism have exempted ourselves from the normal rules that used to govern us, and so the most egregious kinds of reporting errors are becoming more common.

Formerly well-respected news organizations and experienced national reporters are making the sorts of mistakes that wouldn’t be tolerated in journalism school.

When these mistakes are corrected at all, it’s with seemingly little regret.

And the corrections never get anywhere near as much attention as the original salacious—but incorrect—narrative.

How did we get here?

I discuss that in detail in my book, The Smear.

Here are three factors:

First, firewalls that once strictly separated news from opinion have been replaced by hopelessly blurred lines. Once-forbidden practices, such as editorializing within straight news reports and the inclusion of opinions as if fact, are not only tolerated—they’re encouraged. The result: It’s never been harder for Americans to separate news that’s real from news that’s not.

Example: May 14, 2016, ten days after Donald Trump became the Republican presidential nominee, the New York Times published a blockbuster article titled, “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved with Women in Private.” The story’s authors, Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, interviewed Rowanne Lane, an ex-girlfriend of Trump’s. Her quotes made Trump sound, at best, like a jerk, and at worst, like a predator.

The reporters went so far as to provide their own quotes for the story, presenting their personal commentary as if it were established fact, writing, “This is the public treatment of some women by Mr. Trump...degrading, impersonal, performed.”

The problem is, the reporting wasn’t true—according to Trump’s supposed victim.

Once the story was published, she publicly accused the Times of misleading her, writing a “hit piece” against Trump and putting a “negative connotation” on what—she said—was “not...a negative experience.”

No matter where you stand, this was a huge development in terms of journalism: the main source behind front-page national news discredited the entire premise of the story.

You’d expect something like that to rock the whole news organization and prompt investigations, a retraction, and re-examination of policies. Yet, I can find no record of any of that. The Times and their reporters never even apologized or printed a correction.

Second, though we may personally like or dislike a politician, as journalists we’re obligated to treat them the same. Too often, that’s not the case.

For example: In May 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said he had visited 57 states. Since there are only 50 states, everyone knew what he meant. He meant to say was that he had visited 47 states. The remark, nothing more than a verbal gaffe, drew little attention. And it didn’t deserve more. But when Sarah Palin made a comparable gaffe, saying, “We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies,” she was relentlessly ridiculed and mocked in the media even though everyone knew she meant to say “South Korean allies.”

Third, too many of us have allowed ourselves to become tools of politicians and spin-meisters— often in order to get something in return. I call this “transactional journalism.”

Example: Emails show in July 2009, The Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder was promised a scoop. He’d get an advanced copy of a speech by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton— but only if he followed certain conditions, as privately dictated by Clinton aide Philippe Reines.

Reines emailed Ambinder precise instructions, including: “Describe Clinton’s voice as ‘muscular’” and “Don’t say you were blackmailed,” by which Clinton aide Reines obviously meant, “Don’t reveal our arrangement.” “Got it,” replied Ambinder.

His resulting article reads in part: “When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today.”

That Ambinder, then considered a serious journalist, would allegedly violate basic ethics for such a minor story speaks volumes about the state of today’s news media.

For the record, Ambinder defended himself by saying that he found Clinton’s speech to be muscular, so the adjective was appropriate.

I think most Americans would like to believe their news is factual, well researched, and untainted by a reporter’s opinion. To put it another way, they want their news straight up. But too often now, that’s not what they’re getting, and they know it.

I’m frequently asked, “Can the news be fixed?” The answer is yes…but the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that we have one.

Until we do that, nothing can change.

I’m Sharyl Attkisson for Prager University.

Download a PDF of this Transcript

PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide.Help us keep our videos FREE!

More 5-Minute Ideas

Does it Feel Good or Does it Do Good? Left vs. Right #2

3M Views

Is Climate Change Our Biggest Problem?

2.6M Views

The Progressive Income Tax: A Tale of Three Brothers

10.6M Views

As the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Richer

3.6M Views

Social Security Won't Give You Security

1.8M Views

Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts

1.2M Views

Teachers Unions vs. Students

2.5M Views