The central problem I have with this premise — that "the media" are failing — is that the term is so vague and amorphous that it means almost nothing. When I was an intern at The Daily Caller, for example, we'd regularly disparage "The Media," even though we were a part of it.
To build on one of your points: yes, many outlets said Biden was fine to serve another term. There were also many other outlets saying the opposite.
This is a great point - I think the concerning part is really that the good actors and people who tell the truth are being outweighed by the antithesis. No one really knows how to fix that, although I do think in time the internet if it were maximally functional would help correct things. A good start would be for every tech company to stop throttling our hyperlinks, I know it sounds small but I still feel this one action has done incalculable damage to the global discourse.
"This is a great point - I think the concerning part is really that the good actors and people who tell the truth are being outweighed by the antithesis."
Agreed, for the most part. I also suspect that this poll is more indicative of media literacy than overall trust in journalists. I'll need to dig into the survey itself and see if they ask, but I'm guessing a lot of consumers confuse punditry/op-eds for objective(ish) reporting, in addition to getting news from outlets that align with their biases.
Put another way: people like what they think is news, when it's really just someone's opinion **about** the news; when they encounter something that doesn't align with their preconceived notions, then folks say they lose trust in media/journalists.
"A good start would be for every tech company to stop throttling our hyperlinks, I know it sounds small but I still feel this one action has done incalculable damage to the global discourse."
Many of these problems won't be fixed until J-schools tame the Marxist influences that dominate their faculty and/or journalism is taught outside of academia.
Why do you put the word "even" before the word police in the opening? Are they lowest on the American trust scale and best for comparison? Is this your supposition or are there facts behind it? Genuinely curious, as the need so support our public safety and first responder positions seem critical to successful governance.
Just to give some context, you can look at various data on trust in law enforcement it ranks higher than journalism. I am pro good police who do their jobs well btw, the "defund the police" people are quite misguided
This is great. I especially appreciated this part, “If you keep funding low‑trust properties with junk metrics, user-hostile environments and allocate to spam operations, you’re doing something worse than simply wasting money: you’re helping extend the time institutions act in a way your customers already told you they don’t believe in. “
I work really hard with my clients to build a long-term strategy. We send quality emails. We create great events. Our social media accounts are honest. We never post slop.
Sometimes I’m jealous of the garden-variety DC clout goblins !
Once again you take a fact (low confidence in media) and you attach your own opinion as the cause while providing no evidence. Meanwhile, there is more evidence that things like the GOP attacks on "fake news", condemnation of the media by influencers (hello!) and a preference of opinions over facts are bigger causes.
There is plenty of evidence of this, there are entire publications which exist on both the left and right which document it daily. I linked to several examples. I also work in this sector and talk to real people every day.
I think it would be a mistake to focus on just one outlet because it's absolutely bipartisan and bigger than any one site. It won't get better until people focus on truth vs activism.
My links have plenty of evidence. Also you’re right that correlation ≠ causation. I’m not claiming there is one single cause. I’m arguing there is ample evidence that newsroom incentives, politicization, and accuracy failures are large contributing factors.
A few other data points worth considering that might help you see my point of view better:
1. Americans increasingly perceive bias and inaccuracy in news coverage.
Gallup has found that roughly two-thirds of Americans believe the media is biased, and majorities say news organizations frequently report news inaccurately. That perception long predates Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric and spans parties.
2. Trust declines correlate with partisan sorting inside newsrooms.
Pew has documented that journalists overwhelmingly identify as left of center politically, while the public is more ideologically mixed. When audiences perceive ideological homogeneity in institutions that claim neutrality, trust drops.
Source: Pew Research Center, Journalists Sense Turmoil in Their Industry Amid Continued Passion for Their Work (2022).
3. Speed-over-accuracy errors in major breaking stories are well documented.
The Israel/Gaza conflict has produced multiple high-profile corrections from major outlets that initially reported unverified claims (e.g., early hospital explosion casualty narratives that were later walked back). That is a structural incentive problem in digital publishing where being first drives traffic.
Sources: Reuters correction logs; AP and NYT public editor notes on early Israel/Gaza coverage; media corrections compiled by outlets like Columbia Journalism Review.
4. Hostility toward audiences is measurable.
Pew’s 2023 news consumption research shows large shares of Americans feel journalists don’t understand people like them.
On Fox specifically: citing Fox as “most watched” doesn’t negate structural industry problems. Cable ratings dominance ≠ high institutional trust. In fact, Gallup shows Republicans’ trust in media has also fallen sharply over time — including during years when Fox led ratings.
Most importantly, my point is bipartisan: activist framing, outrage incentives, and speed-over-verification dynamics exist across left- and right-leaning outlets. The problem is systemic, not brand-specific.
You’re free to argue that political attacks on media contributed to declining trust — and they probably did. But it’s implausible to argue the industry’s own practices played no role. When 57% of Americans report low confidence, that suggests a credibility gap broad enough that internal incentives deserve scrutiny alongside external rhetoric.
If trust is to recover, the path likely involves:
• clearer separation of reporting vs. activism
• stronger correction culture
• less click-driven sensational framing
• more viewpoint diversity inside institutions
If unwilling to do that they don't deserve their trust back.
Happy to engage further, but the idea that newsroom practices couldn’t possibly contribute to distrust because Fox has strong ratings doesn’t follow logically.
Excellent, now we're talking about data! To really make your point you'd have to be able to explain why low confidence in the media is not evenly distributed. In fact, the reason that it's low is entirely due to conservatives.
And you'd have to explain what has changed in the media other than partisan perceptions. News orgs have had corrections for hundreds of years, none of that is now. Something changed and the only thing that aligns with the data is partisan opinions of the media.
Specifically (as I said before) continuous attacking of the media by conservatives (politicians, influencers, etc).
The data here is quite poor numbers on both sides IMO even if one is worse - it's really not great % anywhere. I personally wouldn't be happy unless it was much higher confidence by all.
BTW - if I was a media outlet concerned with conservative attacks (or attacks from anyone) I would make the work absolutely unassailable by critics.
61% of Dems have at least fair confidence. That's about as high as you see in anything in today's society.
It's not possible to make your work unassailable by conservative critics who parrot "fake news" about anything they don't like. If you trace this back, it's not surprising it starts around the first Trump term when he made it a core part of the MAGA movement, which is what defines conservatism today.
So what you're really highlighting is yet another impact of MAGA on US society, not anything specific about media.
The central problem I have with this premise — that "the media" are failing — is that the term is so vague and amorphous that it means almost nothing. When I was an intern at The Daily Caller, for example, we'd regularly disparage "The Media," even though we were a part of it.
To build on one of your points: yes, many outlets said Biden was fine to serve another term. There were also many other outlets saying the opposite.
This is a great point - I think the concerning part is really that the good actors and people who tell the truth are being outweighed by the antithesis. No one really knows how to fix that, although I do think in time the internet if it were maximally functional would help correct things. A good start would be for every tech company to stop throttling our hyperlinks, I know it sounds small but I still feel this one action has done incalculable damage to the global discourse.
"This is a great point - I think the concerning part is really that the good actors and people who tell the truth are being outweighed by the antithesis."
Agreed, for the most part. I also suspect that this poll is more indicative of media literacy than overall trust in journalists. I'll need to dig into the survey itself and see if they ask, but I'm guessing a lot of consumers confuse punditry/op-eds for objective(ish) reporting, in addition to getting news from outlets that align with their biases.
Put another way: people like what they think is news, when it's really just someone's opinion **about** the news; when they encounter something that doesn't align with their preconceived notions, then folks say they lose trust in media/journalists.
"A good start would be for every tech company to stop throttling our hyperlinks, I know it sounds small but I still feel this one action has done incalculable damage to the global discourse."
Hard agree.
Many of these problems won't be fixed until J-schools tame the Marxist influences that dominate their faculty and/or journalism is taught outside of academia.
I find the mainstream media to be very useful. Whatever talking points they are parroting, I just automatically assume the opposite to be the truth.
Exactly what I mean when I say it's not good we are in this situation, they have to work on restoring trust
Why do you put the word "even" before the word police in the opening? Are they lowest on the American trust scale and best for comparison? Is this your supposition or are there facts behind it? Genuinely curious, as the need so support our public safety and first responder positions seem critical to successful governance.
Just to give some context, you can look at various data on trust in law enforcement it ranks higher than journalism. I am pro good police who do their jobs well btw, the "defund the police" people are quite misguided
Gee I wonder why.
pretending Biden was fine was really quite bad
You gotta stop asking questions and just believe what they tell you.
This is great. I especially appreciated this part, “If you keep funding low‑trust properties with junk metrics, user-hostile environments and allocate to spam operations, you’re doing something worse than simply wasting money: you’re helping extend the time institutions act in a way your customers already told you they don’t believe in. “
I work really hard with my clients to build a long-term strategy. We send quality emails. We create great events. Our social media accounts are honest. We never post slop.
Sometimes I’m jealous of the garden-variety DC clout goblins !
Once again you take a fact (low confidence in media) and you attach your own opinion as the cause while providing no evidence. Meanwhile, there is more evidence that things like the GOP attacks on "fake news", condemnation of the media by influencers (hello!) and a preference of opinions over facts are bigger causes.
All of your supposed causes are negated by the fact that Fox News is the most popular news outlet and they most definitely don't do things like "promote Marxism". https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-channel-marks-24-consecutive-years-most-watched-cable-news-network-dominant-january
There is plenty of evidence of this, there are entire publications which exist on both the left and right which document it daily. I linked to several examples. I also work in this sector and talk to real people every day.
I think it would be a mistake to focus on just one outlet because it's absolutely bipartisan and bigger than any one site. It won't get better until people focus on truth vs activism.
No, you linked to opinion pieces that are making the same leap of causation. That's not proof.
I mention Fox News to demonstrate that the causes you claim are not possibly true because they don't apply to the largest of media companies.
My links have plenty of evidence. Also you’re right that correlation ≠ causation. I’m not claiming there is one single cause. I’m arguing there is ample evidence that newsroom incentives, politicization, and accuracy failures are large contributing factors.
A few other data points worth considering that might help you see my point of view better:
1. Americans increasingly perceive bias and inaccuracy in news coverage.
Gallup has found that roughly two-thirds of Americans believe the media is biased, and majorities say news organizations frequently report news inaccurately. That perception long predates Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric and spans parties.
2. Trust declines correlate with partisan sorting inside newsrooms.
Pew has documented that journalists overwhelmingly identify as left of center politically, while the public is more ideologically mixed. When audiences perceive ideological homogeneity in institutions that claim neutrality, trust drops.
Source: Pew Research Center, Journalists Sense Turmoil in Their Industry Amid Continued Passion for Their Work (2022).
3. Speed-over-accuracy errors in major breaking stories are well documented.
The Israel/Gaza conflict has produced multiple high-profile corrections from major outlets that initially reported unverified claims (e.g., early hospital explosion casualty narratives that were later walked back). That is a structural incentive problem in digital publishing where being first drives traffic.
Sources: Reuters correction logs; AP and NYT public editor notes on early Israel/Gaza coverage; media corrections compiled by outlets like Columbia Journalism Review.
4. Hostility toward audiences is measurable.
Pew’s 2023 news consumption research shows large shares of Americans feel journalists don’t understand people like them.
On Fox specifically: citing Fox as “most watched” doesn’t negate structural industry problems. Cable ratings dominance ≠ high institutional trust. In fact, Gallup shows Republicans’ trust in media has also fallen sharply over time — including during years when Fox led ratings.
Most importantly, my point is bipartisan: activist framing, outrage incentives, and speed-over-verification dynamics exist across left- and right-leaning outlets. The problem is systemic, not brand-specific.
You’re free to argue that political attacks on media contributed to declining trust — and they probably did. But it’s implausible to argue the industry’s own practices played no role. When 57% of Americans report low confidence, that suggests a credibility gap broad enough that internal incentives deserve scrutiny alongside external rhetoric.
If trust is to recover, the path likely involves:
• clearer separation of reporting vs. activism
• stronger correction culture
• less click-driven sensational framing
• more viewpoint diversity inside institutions
If unwilling to do that they don't deserve their trust back.
Happy to engage further, but the idea that newsroom practices couldn’t possibly contribute to distrust because Fox has strong ratings doesn’t follow logically.
Excellent, now we're talking about data! To really make your point you'd have to be able to explain why low confidence in the media is not evenly distributed. In fact, the reason that it's low is entirely due to conservatives.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/02/11/majority-of-americans-express-low-confidence-in-journalists-to-act-in-publics-best-interests/
And you'd have to explain what has changed in the media other than partisan perceptions. News orgs have had corrections for hundreds of years, none of that is now. Something changed and the only thing that aligns with the data is partisan opinions of the media.
Specifically (as I said before) continuous attacking of the media by conservatives (politicians, influencers, etc).
The data here is quite poor numbers on both sides IMO even if one is worse - it's really not great % anywhere. I personally wouldn't be happy unless it was much higher confidence by all.
BTW - if I was a media outlet concerned with conservative attacks (or attacks from anyone) I would make the work absolutely unassailable by critics.
61% of Dems have at least fair confidence. That's about as high as you see in anything in today's society.
It's not possible to make your work unassailable by conservative critics who parrot "fake news" about anything they don't like. If you trace this back, it's not surprising it starts around the first Trump term when he made it a core part of the MAGA movement, which is what defines conservatism today.
So what you're really highlighting is yet another impact of MAGA on US society, not anything specific about media.
We worry about AI but Vibe Reporting has been happening for years