I will be speaking today in Colorado on the “Rise and Fall of the American Fourth Estate.” The speech explores the legal and political history of the free press in our democracy — and its rapid decline in the age of advocacy journalism. This week, a poll was released that shows just how much ground has been lost by this generation of journalists. Gallup and the Knight Foundation found that 50% of Americans believe that the news media lies in order to promote an agenda. Only 25% of Americans reject that premise.
The view of bias and untrustworthiness increased across the political spectrum, including among Democrats who usually favor the media given the liberal bent of the coverage.
It is also striking that the media is losing young viewers and readers with its current approach to journalism.
I have written for newspapers as a columnist for over 40 years and I have worked as a legal analyst for NBC, CBS, BBC, and Fox for over 20 years. I have watched the industry change each year as open advocacy moves from opinion pages to news reporting.
This latest poll is consistent with other polls showing that people are rejecting mainstream media in growing numbers. In 2021, a survey by the global communications firm Edelman (via Axios) found only 46 percent of Americans trust traditional media. That mirrors earlier polls by Gallup showing an even lower level of trust. Now this poll shows overwhelming distrust in the media.
I wrote a column a couple years ago asking how the media expects to survive while rejecting half of the country with overwhelmingly liberal coverage. Most news outlets seem to have written off conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans.
We have often discussed the increasing bias and advocacy in major media in the United States. While cable networks have long catered to political audiences on the left or right, mainstream newspapers and networks now openly frame news to fit a political narrative. With the exception of Fox and a couple of other smaller news outlets, that slant is heavily to the left. What is most striking about this universal shift toward advocacy journalism (including at journalism schools) is that there is no evidence that it is a sustainable approach for the media as an industry. While outfits like NPR allow reporters to actually participate in protests and the New York Times sheds conservative opinions, the new poll shows a sharp and worrisome division in trust in the media. Not surprisingly given the heavy slant of American media, Democrats are largely happy with and trusting of the media. Conversely, Republicans and independents are not. The question is whether the mainstream media can survive and flourish by writing off over half of the country.
A 2021 study from the non-partisan Pew Research Center showed a massive decline in trust among Republicans. Five years ago, 70 percent of Republicans said they had at least some trust in national news organizations. In 2021, that trust was down to just 35 percent. Conversely, and not surprisingly, 78 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they have “a lot” or “some” trust in the media. When you just ask liberal Democrats, it jumps to 83 percent.
This latest poll shows that the problem is only getting more acute for the media. Yet, publishers and editors are still pandering to the mob in calling for more advocacy and less objectivity. For individual media figures, these woke policies protect them personally from backlash or criticism even as they undermine their respective publications or media outlets.
For example, we recently discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done. No need to give credence to opposing views. It is a familiar reality for those of us in higher education, which has been increasingly intolerant of opposing or dissenting views.
Downie recounts how news leaders today
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
There was a time when all journalists shared a common “identity” as professionals who were able to separate their own bias and values from the reporting of the news.
Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press declared “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”
This move away from objectivity has gained steam even as Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting. Yet, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
This movement has been building for years.
In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.
Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project has been challenged as deeply flawed and she has a long record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotton as inaccurate and inflammatory.
Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin has also called for the media to abandon balance and impartiality. Rubin has become notorious due to her screeds against Republicans and even calling for the Republican Party to be burned to the ground. I have previously written about how her work has lacked not just of objectivity but accuracy.
All of these voices show a complete disconnect from readers and viewers who do not want advocacy journalism and no longer trust what they are reading in the media. Yet, these calls remain personally popular for writers and editors alike. It is reminiscent of how executives at companies like Disney have pursued woke policies to the detriment of their shareholders and the alienation of many of their customers. The same is true for the push for censorship on social media despite the clear preference of users for more free speech and fewer speech controls.
That is why the latest poll is unlikely to deter the movement of “new journalism” in abandoning objectivity and impartiality. As Downie explained “objectivity” is
“keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.” So they will do their job even when viewers and readers no longer are interested in their work. Perhaps the new media can find a way to exist not only without conservatives but customers in general. That type of vanity press will require increasing subsidies from billionaires like Jeff Bezos, but they may balk at a media that is increasing writing for itself.
What I fear is that a goodly portion of those 50% who are aware of the machinations of the MSM are my age and will soon age out with few younger citizens to replace our ranks. This is why our allowing the prog/left to infiltrate and infest our schools was such a lethal disaster. I don’t know how much success you can achieve de-programming minds that have been so stamped with the idiocy and evil of the prog agenda. Without a swift action to curtail the prog/left at this last moment I am not sure whether we can endure as a nation in the manner set forth by our founding fathers.
@Alma Carmen
I’ve thought similarly – the 50% that mistrusts is 50+, the rest don’t even watch/read news, they look at Tik Tok, and they will inherit the earth. If we can’t steer clear now, and if another presidential election is lost, I personally don’t see how the generational decay could result in anything other than wide scale collapse for all but the wealthy. Venezuela was supposed to be an object lesson, not a strategy.
The left took their sweet time in their destruction, though it all cultivated quickly – it will take a great deal of time to repair. If we don’t start now we may never get the opportunity to earnestly begin *at all*.
Take a look at what Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida regarding schools. There is hope.
I remember reading way back in the 1980s a book I think was titled called Spiked telling how the Soviets used their media contacts to “spike” a story that harmed their interests…does anyone really thing it is not a coincidence that the left, the same group that loved the Soviets, use this same tactic in our media today? See the Laptop story for proof of this supposition.
Michael Tracey yesterday: “The NYT could openly convert into a full-time lobbying organ for nuclear war and you’d never see any “open letter” from contributors. But run a single article that deviates mildly on race/gender stuff and they’ll have a fiery letter with 500 signatories ready in about 30 minutes”
The neolib/neocon convergence is the poison in the well. obamma, biden, clinton, kerry, romney, graham, mcconnell, hailey, EU, msm – poison, all of them, everything they do and stand for, they are the enemy, make no mistake.
Objective truth does not fit their narrative, why does anyone think they would use it in their reporting. lauren wolfe, jones, and rubin are simply propagandists, that is clear to anyone with any objectivity. The real problem in the country is the people that know this and then pay to print their opinions – those mofos should, at best be deported and barred from any business or business interests in the country (actually I think they deserve worse, but it’s family time), imo.
It’s not only the lies media tells that is disturbing — it’s the stories they refuse to print because they might harm their preferred Democratic party. I’m still waiting for one of the major media outlets — left or right — to pick up on Seymour Hersh’s bombshell story about how Biden, Nuland, Blinken and Sullivan blew up the Nordstream2 pipeline, thus making Germany forever a slave to US energy supplies. And don’t expect accuracy or truth in war reporting. There is amazing bipartisan cooperation (collusion?) when it comes to certain issues.
“It’s not only the lies media tells that is disturbing — it’s the stories they refuse to print “
True lies do not easily survive in sunlight. It is more important that all news is available.
MSM operates to protect and advance the interests of wealth and power. That’s what right-wingers call “liberal”.
The mainstream media needs to burn down and be rebuilt from the ground up. The get too much protection from the Supreme Court and their Sullivan dicision. If the MSM was held to the same libel and slander standard as the rest of us activism and poison would not progress to this level. They have been allowed to slander and libel and destroy any opposition to their point of view. That Supreme Court decision tilted the playing field to an unacceptable slant and needs to be righted. In this regard, I like the British standard which is more robust. American political discourse was vivid and robust before the Sullivan decision and remains afterword, but it has just given the media a higher bar of protection which they do not need. They should have to be held to account for what they print and say. It seems the Supreme Court , in the Sullivan decision, did what the constitution prohibited congress from doing “abridging the freedom of speech”. In effect saying the press and its freedom of speech exceeds that of the people (public figures) and their freedom of speech. The People are the Ultimate arbiter of the Consitution, not the press, not the congress, not the president and not the Supreme Court.
Having to defend the truth is not a burden but a sacred responsibility. But the MSM seems to think they have virtually no limit to what they can say (if you are a public figure) and a higher level of protection. They already have greater assets to defend themselves, the people deserve better and they need the legal weapons to pursue them, as well as the public figures who are out their defending the people.
A year or so ago Gorsuch and Thomas called for reconsidering Sullivan.
my question is why many low paid journalist continue to support the destruction of the country, their state and cities…in support of obvious democrats lies and crimes.
Like Fetterman, the Biden Crime family, etc….why would a journalist support defending this failure….even if you are a fat leftist in support of communism or fascism? Example in NJ the far left media supports two former Goldman Sachs Executives as Governors…when it is obvious those Executives couldn’t care less what happened to the state?
what percent know that the DOJ and FBI are 100% corrupt?
This process has been going on for years. It is the systematic control of information to turn this country into a communist nation. Phrases like “Social Justice” synonymous for Socialism. When you control the media and education you control the minds. The only hope is family and God through the churches.
I wonder if Hannah-Jones realizes she is repeating what Joseph Goebbels said about journalism?
Only 50%?
That must be the 50% that reads alt-media and independent journalists for their news. Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and The Free Press to name a few.
No one aspires to publish an accurate encyclopedia of current events. Journalism has always been about managing public opinion. It needs a false facade of integrity to fool readers. The Pulitzer prize is just a left wing NYC conformance prize; indeed Pulitzer got rich printing trash talk.
sorry that just isn’t true
I moved from an extremely blue state, MA, to a pretty red state about 7 years ago and even though mostly red our local paper is a far, far left rag. I have written to the paper to ask why they would publish in a red area of a pretty red state and yet tilt so blue because to me it is inexplicable. Every week it is the same old run of far left letters, a far left cartoon and far left editorials and it is maddening.
The “journalists’ that are leaving our J schools are just another step in the left’s takeover of the country. Yesterday I was discussing this with Upstate Farmer and I disagreed with his point of just voting against these tyrants because we are losing this fight for freedom. We need to argue stronger against universities banning only conservative speakers and professors. We need to argue more aggressively against what is happening down into out high schools, middle schools and even elementary schools. This is happening in J schools, law schools and even medical schools. We need to argue against this more forcefully, we need to become more involved in what the left is doing. Right now if a man, who “claims” to be a woman goes into a spa and exposes himself it is a lady that will be tossed for complaining. It happened in CA so you know it is coming our way.
Just so you all understand why I still get this rag on Sundays only it is because I am addicted to crossword puzzles and they pick up a few national ones that I enjoy. While I was still living in my previous blue state I canceled the Boston Globe due to it being completely insane. I do believe in NOT supporting our enemies and that is why I would never watch CNN or MSNBC or even purchase Disney+. But unlike the left, I do not call for a ban on these outlets, I just shun them.
If you go to a bookstore or online book seller you can get collections of 200 NY Times Sunday puzzles or 1001 daily NY Times puzzles for very cheap prices. They also sell 200 Friday and sometimes saturday puzzles which are fairly tough for low prices so you save alot of money and dont have to mess with the baloney. I have found that a few years later you forget the answers and can buy the same editions again. Huge savings. Good luck
Thanks RD. I do already have a few old books of NY Times crosswords but I find old puzzles less enjoyable due to some being dated. But thanks! I also watch Jeopardy, which I love even as it becomes more and more biased in their clues.
Money talks. Rejecting products/services and not donating to woke companies/institutions can have an impact if enough take this approach. It appears that might be happening as major companies are reported to be downsizing/closing DEI groups. DEI might lose quite a bit of momentum if SCOTUS rules in a few months that affirmative action is no longer in place. Stay tuned.
Hullbobby,
“I moved from an extremely blue state, MA, to a pretty red state about 7 years ago and even though mostly red our local paper is a far, far left rag. I have written to the paper to ask why they would publish in a red area of a pretty red state and yet tilt so blue because to me it is inexplicable.”
Syndication is one of the answers. The ones that determine the news in a local paper might be from a completely different state.
If you are looking for the best paper, choose the Epoch Times, which more accurately portrays the news and has excellent editorials. Because of their origins, their knowledge of China and its surrounding area is the best. They are not beholding to large media groups centered around NY and California.
The paper newspaper comes once a week, but it is online. Unlike the MSM the Epoch Times has been correct on almost every major issue. I think one can sign up for free to sample its quality, and then one has to pay for all its benefits. This newspaper needs to be supported since it is one of the few that provides independent news to all sides of the aisle.
Thanks S. Meyer!
I’d add that EpochTV has some very good reporting and interviews.
I think that a substantial part of the problem is that there are just a few owners of too many media outlets. It’s very formulaic. Remember Operation Mockingbird?
The mainstream media’s relentless pursuit of censorship knows no bounds (sort of like stupidity). I have to give them credit for their commitment at least. When I was growing up, real Journalism used to be digging up the facts. Not anymore. They are nothing more than well paid mouthpieces for the woke left. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Just 50%? Apparently the other shit percent are straight up morons.
The area newspaper where I live in the Western part of the most blue State, is nothing more than an anti-Trump rag that just can’t seem to pull enough AP wire stories, and leftist artitcles on a daily basis. I have changed my subscription to only Thursday and Sunday, the days that there are flyers and coupons, that allow me to effect savings enough to almost pay for the subscription. I now get my news from conservative websites. Other than the Jumble, funnies, and 24 hr. late sports scores, the newspaper is just a waste of a tree.
Show me shocked and stunned.
The alternative media is the only place to find any truth in media.
As in so many other areas of life these days, the free market system – what’s left of it – will take care of media bias and drive out the bad with good. I’ve witnessed this elsewhere in the world firsthand as far back as the 1980s when South American media were laughed at by many readers who bought it for the local stories, sports, obituaries, and advertisements. When it came to national and international news, readers were highly skeptical and anticipated the slant or bias of the reporters. We are catching up with this phenomenon but it’s not the catastrophe some would make of it. Today, unlike the 1980s, we have many alternate sites from which to factcheck our news and major media reports. There is still a cost to having lost credibility and integrity. Look at the censored Hunter Biden story. The media gave up trying to apologize and make up for its failure and now is just hoping by ignoring the story and their abysmal lack of honesty in failing to report it – and the fact that it cost a presidential election and resulted in the most corrupt and inept government we’ve likely ever had in this country – that it will go away and this will return to “normal.” Despite the phony media, print and electronic, Americans are able to see through the chicanery and reach their own conclusions or, as Corey Booker might illogically say, their “own truth.”
Sadly, I think you are wrong. The profit motive is being overwhelmed by fear of the woke mob. Executives are petrified to be classified as racist or anti-trans, or anti-whatever. Their superiors (Boards of Directors) are similarly fearful, and mostly don’t care since ESG has become as important to them as shareholder value creation.
While your perceptions are correct, what confounds me is why are they so cowered by such a small but viciously loud extreme group. If ALL citizens who decry what the prog/left is doing it should be simple enough to overwhelm the fanatics on the left. Why are these 50% so silent and afraid to move upon their truly great enemies?
Good point, Alma Carmen! The emergence of this so-called “woke” movement seems to be having an outsized impact.
Because their interests are to protect their status and their income, above all. Their honor and dignity, are secondary.
“Today, unlike the 1980s, we have many alternate sites from which to factcheck our news” while that is true, what we do have, also, are several younger generations who cannot discern truth from the inculcated misinformation that our media/education industries have pumped into their heads. They have been brainwashed into believing the big lie and are not interested in questioning their comfortable bubbles. They expect a life of comfort, ease, and little deep thinking or hard work. Demographically we have allowed the enemy to increase while we sat back watching netlix codswallop and chasing after more personal gain. I doubt if we have much time left to reclaim our nation.
The conclusion that most Americans don’t trust the media is wonderful news. It shows what I have felt for a long time, that the groundwork exists for the growth and perpetuation of media that reflects the beliefs of the majority. These beliefs include many things that the present MSM does not support, namely, the superiority of the American form of government and the philosophies behind it, most importantly the 1st Amendment. The left is aware that most people do not support them, and this is why they censor. A larger media/communications footprint should be seen as the holy grail for our side.
American Pravda, Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Krasnaya Zvezda, Sovetsky Sport, Trud, and Pionerskaya Pravda