Oddly enough, in respect of my last blogs about the dissemination of news and opinion, the November 2025 edition of Harper’s Magazine arrived on the doorstep. Clearly it could not have come at a better time. Within the magazine was a chart indicating where Americans gat their news at the present time. The chart shows the percentage of adults using the various news sources over the last twelve years. It would appear that 54% of adults in the United States now rely on Social and Video Networks. Twelve years ago it was only 27% and the least source for news and it is now the majority’s go to for current affairs.
The magazines question of “Why don’t we trust the media?” is a good question, but I would ask “What media do we choose to trust?”. Our use of the internet, the searches we make and the algorithms that are created from them, by our own fingers, automatically feeds us information in support of what we appear to be interested in, and aligns us with news and opinion we seem to favour. Our views are surreptitiously reenforced and we accept as truth that which we are presumed to already believe.
As to the article in the magazine, it is a round table discussion between four people, Jelani Cobb, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School and a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author, most recently, of Three or More Is a Riot: Notes on How We Got Here; Taylor Lorenz, an independent journalist and the founder of User Mag, a Substack publication, and she is the author of Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet; Jack Shafer, a media critic who has written for Politico, Reuters, and Slate, and he previously edited Washington City Paper and SF Weekly; and, Max Tani a reporter at Semafor covering media, politics, and technology and he previously covered the White House for Politico. The discussion was chaired by Harper’s editor Christopher Carroll.
Carroll opened the discussion with: “Why don’t we begin with the biggest question. A Gallup poll from last year showed that the media was the least trusted civic or political institution in the United States—among other things, Americans trust Congress more than they trust the media. What accounts for this? Why don’t we trust the media?”
To be frank, journalists talking about the problems of journalists is not very enlightening. It’s like lawyers griping about lawyers or actors moaning about actors, nit picking about the jobs they have to do and the environment in which they do it, and the people they do it for and who they do it with. You can find the article for yourselves on line at:
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/11/why-doesnt-anyone-trust-the-media-jelani-cobb-taylor-lorenz-jack-shafer-max-tani-establishment-journalism/
Also, in mentioning a Gallup poll from “last year”, I presume he meant during the final term of President Biden, in that apparently Americans trusted Congress more than the media. I do not believe that Americans trust the Congress under Trump to any great degree at all. I would guess trust in both spheres are pretty low on the scale, in the present climate. I am probably wrong, but if it is in fact the case that the American people have trust in the current congress, then we are in big trouble. It is clear that this congress has abrogated all of its responsibility in government to the executive branch. There are no checks and even less balance. It is all weighted in one direction, down, negative, nil.
It is difficult for the average punter to come to grips with trusting the ‘news’. We have seemingly straightforward factual news, such as reports of accidents, robberies, earthquakes, arrests, births and deaths, festivals and celebrations, sports results, quirky animal stories, feel good moments, the weather. This is all interspersed with analysis, which can only be described as opinion. Also included are comments made by various political representatives and ministers of state, which are from a specific point of view and which may or may not be correct or true. For example: If you have “There was a pile up on the express way” followed by “Trump is a stable genius” followed by “The Dodgers beat the Blue Jays” followed by “Minister says no new taxes”, it could be confusing in that an insanity placed between two or more facts and political statements could seem like just a flow of facts. That is clearly not the case, and that is the problem. It is not quite the trope “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”. A comment such as “Trump is a stable genius” no matter how often repeated, will never become legend or fact. It is an insane remark and will always be such. A minister’s comment about taxation is forever problematic.
I accept there is an attempt to organise newscasts in the form of international new, national news and local news. The opening of most broadcast begins with what the editor considers to be the days headline, which could be from any one of the preceding criteria. Some act of very disturbing violence will usually top the show, and on occasion some outrageous political comment or activity. Nonetheless it is all presented as a flow of facts. Although there are moments when there are clear and upfront political party adverts and propaganda pieces, persistent interviews with ‘newsworthy’ politicians are effectively free propaganda under the guise of presenting the news.
The White House ‘press briefing’ is an instance in point. The White House press corps, allegedly a variety of independent examining journalists, ask penetrating and searching questions in order to inform the public and hold the executive to account. All they get is a flow of nonsense, propaganda, exaggerations and untruths. Any push back is extremely rare or indeed non-existent, and any question that even vaguely hints of criticism is batted away as stupid or despicable slander. Yet it is presented as if it presents facts and reality. The only fact is that it takes place. Its contents are fantasy.
Given this array of babble emanating from just about every source of ‘media’ technology, is it any wonder that there is a growing mistrust of the content. Printed media are full of opinion and analysis, as are now most television broadcasts. Readers and listeners will now tune into dramatic series of thrillers and romantic comedies along with talent, quiz and reality shows just to avoid the ‘news’. They can get that anytime on their phones and PC’s which are mainly used for texting and gaming.
It would appear that so called news is just part of another show presented by a network with a specific agenda which has a corps audience. Fox News, a cable network in the United States is just such a broadcast company. This is very disturbing as it has an audience of over 2.4 million Americans who swallow their misinformation and tedious support of the Trump regime. On a daily basis. In a country of 360 million people that doesn’t seem a lot, but that corps audience, in subscriptions alone, provides Fox with a minimum income of at least £400 million per annum, if not twice that. That is not insignificant. The companies recorded revenue was $16.3 billion for 2025 so far. That is almost 10% of the UK’s National Health budget. It is not therefore surprising that the company was able to pay out $787.5 million to Dominion in settlement of their defamation lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that Fox and some of its pundits spread conspiracy theories about Dominion, and allowed guests to make false statements about the company. That represents about 4% of a years revenue. I guess not a huge loss for Fox, and it hasn’t stopped them from continuing to disseminate misinformation and untruths.
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/11/why-doesnt-anyone-trust-the-media-jelani-cobb-taylor-lorenz-jack-shafer-max-tani-establishment-journalism/
Also, in mentioning a Gallup poll from “last year”, I presume he meant during the final term of President Biden, in that apparently Americans trusted Congress more than the media. I do not believe that Americans trust the Congress under Trump to any great degree at all. I would guess trust in both spheres are pretty low on the scale, in the present climate. I am probably wrong, but if it is in fact the case that the American people have trust in the current congress, then we are in big trouble. It is clear that this congress has abrogated all of its responsibility in government to the executive branch. There are no checks and even less balance. It is all weighted in one direction, down, negative, nil.
It is difficult for the average punter to come to grips with trusting the ‘news’. We have seemingly straightforward factual news, such as reports of accidents, robberies, earthquakes, arrests, births and deaths, festivals and celebrations, sports results, quirky animal stories, feel good moments, the weather. This is all interspersed with analysis, which can only be described as opinion. Also included are comments made by various political representatives and ministers of state, which are from a specific point of view and which may or may not be correct or true. For example: If you have “There was a pile up on the express way” followed by “Trump is a stable genius” followed by “The Dodgers beat the Blue Jays” followed by “Minister says no new taxes”, it could be confusing in that an insanity placed between two or more facts and political statements could seem like just a flow of facts. That is clearly not the case, and that is the problem. It is not quite the trope “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”. A comment such as “Trump is a stable genius” no matter how often repeated, will never become legend or fact. It is an insane remark and will always be such. A minister’s comment about taxation is forever problematic.
I accept there is an attempt to organise newscasts in the form of international new, national news and local news. The opening of most broadcast begins with what the editor considers to be the days headline, which could be from any one of the preceding criteria. Some act of very disturbing violence will usually top the show, and on occasion some outrageous political comment or activity. Nonetheless it is all presented as a flow of facts. Although there are moments when there are clear and upfront political party adverts and propaganda pieces, persistent interviews with ‘newsworthy’ politicians are effectively free propaganda under the guise of presenting the news.
The White House ‘press briefing’ is an instance in point. The White House press corps, allegedly a variety of independent examining journalists, ask penetrating and searching questions in order to inform the public and hold the executive to account. All they get is a flow of nonsense, propaganda, exaggerations and untruths. Any push back is extremely rare or indeed non-existent, and any question that even vaguely hints of criticism is batted away as stupid or despicable slander. Yet it is presented as if it presents facts and reality. The only fact is that it takes place. Its contents are fantasy.
Given this array of babble emanating from just about every source of ‘media’ technology, is it any wonder that there is a growing mistrust of the content. Printed media are full of opinion and analysis, as are now most television broadcasts. Readers and listeners will now tune into dramatic series of thrillers and romantic comedies along with talent, quiz and reality shows just to avoid the ‘news’. They can get that anytime on their phones and PC’s which are mainly used for texting and gaming.
It would appear that so called news is just part of another show presented by a network with a specific agenda which has a corps audience. Fox News, a cable network in the United States is just such a broadcast company. This is very disturbing as it has an audience of over 2.4 million Americans who swallow their misinformation and tedious support of the Trump regime. On a daily basis. In a country of 360 million people that doesn’t seem a lot, but that corps audience, in subscriptions alone, provides Fox with a minimum income of at least £400 million per annum, if not twice that. That is not insignificant. The companies recorded revenue was $16.3 billion for 2025 so far. That is almost 10% of the UK’s National Health budget. It is not therefore surprising that the company was able to pay out $787.5 million to Dominion in settlement of their defamation lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that Fox and some of its pundits spread conspiracy theories about Dominion, and allowed guests to make false statements about the company. That represents about 4% of a years revenue. I guess not a huge loss for Fox, and it hasn’t stopped them from continuing to disseminate misinformation and untruths.
Indeed, with such wealth behind the Trump regime’s acolytes in control of so much of the media, is it any wonder that most American’s, in particular the other 350 million who do not watch Fox News, are sceptical and do not trust anything to do with media.
There used to be respected journalists who did once have a semblance of integrity and were accepted as news caster who could be trusted. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, Edward R Murrow, Gordon Parks, Dan Rather, even arch conservative William Buckley Jr. to name a few. I’m sure there are and have been many others trusted by the public, but they appear to be few and far between. I’m sure the truth is out there somewhere. One just has to keep looking.
No comments:
Post a Comment