A Gallup poll shows trust in mainstream media fell to a record low 32%. Trust has been on the decline since 1972.
On November 30, Armstrong Economics reported Gallup Poll: Trust in Mainstream Media Falls to 32%.
Armstrong posted a chart of the decline. Armstrong did not link back to the Gallup article, one of my pet peeves.
A search led me to this September 14 report: Gallup poll Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low.
Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.
Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.
Bottom Line
The divisive presidential election this year may be corroding Americans’ trust and confidence in the media, particularly among Republicans who may believe the “mainstream media” are too hyperfocused on every controversial statement or policy proposal from Trump while devoting far less attention to controversies surrounding the Clinton campaign. However, the slide in media trust has been happening for the past decade. Before 2004, it was common for a majority of Americans to profess at least some trust in the mass media, but since then, less than half of Americans feel that way. Now, only about a third of the U.S. has any trust in the Fourth Estate, a stunning development for an institution designed to inform the public.
With the explosion of the mass media in recent years, especially the prevalence of blogs, vlogs and social media, perhaps Americans decry lower standards for journalism. When opinion-driven writing becomes something like the norm, Americans may be wary of placing trust on the work of media institutions that have less rigorous reporting criteria than in the past. On the other hand, as blogs and social media “mature,” they may improve in the American public’s eyes. This could, in turn, elevate Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media as a whole.
Not only did Armstrong fail to link to Gallup, he also failed to note the date of the article was September 14, a pertinent fact to someone who may be thinking the Gallup report is recent news.
In the following snip Armstrong did provide links.
We should expect that the media will viciously attack Donald Trump in a futile effort to cling to some level of importance and to desperately try to demonstrate that they were not wrong with 99% of the media endorsing Hillary. But the media willingly conspired to make Hillary president. They will now try to vindicate themselves by trashing Trump at every possible chance. They will now fuel the civil divide and help lay the foundation for the collapse of the United States itself by turning left against right. Even the New York Post wrote that what they were witnessing was the end of journalism. They will do everything to try to change Congress in 2018. It appears that will be their last stand. The younger generation does not buy newspapers and magazines. Their end is near.
I traced back the link beginning with “99%” to this Armstrong article: The Press Conspiracy Against Trump Continues.
That article begins …
“CNBC came out and said it is breaking its non-endorsement policy to say Trump is unfit. While the press should never endorse anyone, this election is revealing just how corrupt the press really is.”
However, it was not CNBC that changed its policy, it was USA Today.
The preceding link points to an article on a CNBC cite, about a USA Today editorial: USA Today editorial declares Donald Trump is ‘unfit for the presidency’.
USA Today has decided to end its 34-year-old policy of not taking sides in a presidential election, declaring in an editorial: “Trump should not be president.”
The Actual Editorial concluded “Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.”
Sloppy Reporting
Failing to link to the source, not mentioning pertinent facts such as the data is 2.5 months old, and incorrectly attributing the editorial policy of USA Today to CNBC is pretty sloppy reporting.
It’s another factor in the story on falling confidence in media.
In the above link I note NY Mag sponsoring clickait ads on a page bitching about clickbait.
NY Mag did not bother responding to an email.
Clickbait Ads on NY Mag
Link Pet Peeve
My pet peeve, to which Bloomberg is the top offender, is writing articles without linking to the source.
Take Bloomberg Econoday. Econoday’s PPI and CPI analysis come straight from a BLS report. No Link. Econoday’s Philadelphia Fed and Empire Fed regional analysis comes from the Fed. No Link.
Econoday never links to its news source. Bloomberg seldom, if ever, links to anyone but itself.
It’s not just Bloomberg, MarketWatch does the same. The practice is universal and disgusting. And Bloomberg is loaded with extremely annoying auto-play videos.
I am not perfect; I occasionally miss a link, but if so, it’s by accident, not design.
Washington Post Discredits Itself
Finally, please consider Washington Post Thoroughly Discredits Itself With McCarthy-Style Smear Campaign Against ZeroHedge, Naked Capitalism, Truth-Out 200+ Others.
Yes, confidence in media is down, for good reason.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Watched CBS News tonight, Thursday, and was once again outraged by the bias demonstrated by the anchor and chief political correspondent. Their comments on Trump demonstrated why no one pays any attention to them.
I know I’ve flipped onto an MSM news channel by the commercials; it’s all ‘Buy this Drug’ or ‘Sue this Drug Company’.
Says a lot about their audience.
You did.
The western media has exiled itself into an alternate universe, echo chamber constructed of the lies it wants to believe. Sometimes it’s fun to watch, but mostly I just want it to die from choking on itscontradictions.
It is not only in America. Yesterday Australia’s premier news organisation IMHO and its best female anchor interviewed Pussy Riot girls. The question, “how do you think relations between Putin and Donald Trump will go?” The answer from what looked to be two sensible young women if you didn’t know the covered their heads entirely and screamed abusive “songs” was:- “I was in Mexico during the election and the Mexicans seemed to like Trump” and the other one said “trust in Putin is at an all time low since Russia invaded Ukraine”.
I have no idea how Donald Trump is viewed in Mexico but I doubt he has many fans there and I had no idea Russia had invaded Ukraine.
Russia did invade the Ukraine.
???
Russia re-claimed Crimea, not Ukraine.
The conflict in Ukraine is/was seeded by the US/CIA, not Russia… this is well-documented.
Link source for “well documented”?
I have suspected all along that “pussy riot” are Putin’s own psy-op.
Take their bizarre caper inside Moscow’s newly rebuilt Church of Christ the Savior. If one examines that incident closely, even though it was strange and intrusive, they really didn’t commit any overt religious offenses. Their heads were covered and did not play their musical instruments. It appears to me, they are imitating a radical form of Yurodivy… the Russian Orthodox version of “holy fool.” If so, they are Putin’s psy-op “fools.” Also suspicious were news interviews when they were “in prison” with nicely stylized hair and makeup.
As for Ukraine and Putin’s peaceful invasion of Crimea. There appears to be a lot of tomfoolery happening there too. Crimea was the birthplace of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity. Putin recently dedicated a huge statue of Vladimir the Great near the Kremlin. Vladimir the Great was baptized in Crimea in 988AD, then returned to his capital in Kiev and baptized the Rus, who became Holy Rus.
My only question is why do 32% of the respondents express trust in the media? I’ve got a bridge to sell them.
Working backward from conclusions is the very essence of religion. Reason is dying.
Just turn the tv and radio off. It’s really in your control.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zX9kPR29Riw
I just watched Trump’s live rally in Ohio.
Trump put on a great show as usual… repeatedly attacked the lying liberal media and named his new Sec of Defense… ‘Mad Dog’ Maddis.
Even most of the the post-speech CNN panel seemed to be in good humor discussing it. They laughed about how some foreign governments might react to Trump’s top military general called “Mad Dog.” 😉
oops… Mad Dog MATTIS
Most western newpapers don’t do investigative journalism or corroborate their stories. They don’t have the means for correspondents anymore. They parrot the news services, who parrot other new services and “the authorities” and “experts”. Most of the people do not want investigations, they want infotainment, which is a great deal cheaper to produce. Even in countries where ownership of the media is much more diversified than in the US, the same dynamics are at play. The internet has widened the possibilities to compare and evaluate stories, but most people prefer to engage their own circle via social media. People under thirty rarely hear of anything that does not spread via their social media circle. Besides, if it’s not personal it is simply part of the infinite stream of bull out there. Although the internet widens the possibilities, it also affords lot of kooks a bully pulpit without censure from reasonable people with standards of civility and fairness.
We don’t trust the media anymore, but it’s not just them, it’s us too. Eventually the line between advertisement, propaganda, news, bullshit, and entertainment might blur altogether. What we think of as society with a coherent discourse and narrative may not exist then.
Webej you are hereby kicked out of the Optimist Society.
(are they even around anymore?)
Mad Dog MATTIS
Just watched Trump’s live rally in Ohio.
Trump put on a great show as usual… repeatedly attacked the lying liberal media and named his new Sec of Defense… ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis.
Even most of the the post-speech CNN panel seemed to be in good humor discussing it. They laughed about how some foreign governments might react to Trump’s top military general called “Mad Dog.” 😉
Armstrong spent 12 years in jail of which the first seven years was for contempt – he couldn’t produce some items that the judge insisted he had in his possession. Whether he was guilty of original charges, it seems doubtful to me that Armstrong would have sat for seven years in jail without a trial if he could have avoided it by producing the items.
That stay in jail probably caused brain damage as you don’t get proper nutrition in jail. He should be taking nootropics and other supplements.
Well, Armstrong Economics is not really a media outlet.
He is in the business of selling seats at his economic conferences and access to his “models”.
The blog he publishes on-line is really just an afterthought. I take his prognostications with a (big) grain of salt, but I think he is often right on “big picture” topics.
Not sure I get your point, but anyone that discounts Armstrong’s forecasting ability (actually the models), does so at their own risk.
I’ve contacted my local print media company several times over the years and advised them that I was raised to support my local newspaper. I explained that I discontinued my subscription to their publication because I found their news reports to be incredibly biased on political topics and current events (ie, illegal immigration, health care, government spending, etc…). It didn’t help. The biased reporting and distortion only got worse.
The print media is having a hard enough time competing with the internet. It needs people like me who would subscribe IF they reported accurately and objectively. Yet they refuse to come halfway so I refuse to buy their papers. It’s as if the print media is engaged in suicidal behavior.
Go figure.
I purchase the Sunday for my coupon clipping wife. Coupons on counter. Comics on table. Remainder in recycle bin, unopened.
What’s amazing is that the same people who don’t trust the Washington Post or ABC news stubbornly believe every fake news story from other “sources” as long as it fits their world view.
So people who don’t trust MSM believe every other BS story? That pile of utter horse s*** deserves a headline on the Washington Post.
ha ha well crafted response, Steve.
Funny thing is, if you simply take whatever the MSM writes, and inverts it, you’re pretty much good to go as far as accuracy goes:
“Trump unfit for presidency” -> It’s really Hillary who is.
“Russia invading Ukraine” -> Nope! Ukraine was the aggressor.
“Recessions need laxer monetary policy and lower interest rates” -> Nope again. Recessions demand stricter monetary policy and higher interests.
“Religion is unscientific” -> Nope yet again. Religion and science are entirely orthogonal. Wat’s unscientific, is scientism: Pretending your blind faith is somehow rooted in anything but blind faith simply because you pepper your drivel with sciency sounding jargon.
” ‘Free Trade’, markets and rapid economic change benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor” -> Yet again: Nope: The wealthy always have and always will definitionally be those benefitting the most from retaining economic relations exactly as they are today. While those with less, have the most to gain from maximizing their ability to route around, change and gut existing arrangements. Those currently stuck the shittiest hand, will always be the ones with the most to gain from a reshuffle.
And so on, and so on……
Yes, I had the same thought several years ago.
I decided that vast majority of whatever I saw on television or read in a mainstream newspaper or news magazine was not only untrue, but in fact the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. “Anti-Reality”, in fact.
You talk about “accuracy” and then list a bunch of opinions.
Yes, all is opinion.
Go to the headline article of a source you consider real news. The topic is unimportant.
Create a list of non-repeated facts. Cross out the ones you already knew. How many facts remain? Usually I find zero new facts.
For fact based news, a correct headline contains nearly all new facts.
“[Who][did what][to whom][where]”. [Why] usually isn’t a fact.
Coincidentally correct headlines are disappearing. Here are examples from my Google News front page.
A. Good: “Worst possible conditions’: Residents flee Gatlinburg, Tenn., as flames engulf popular resort town”. [Fire][caused evacuation][to residents][of Gatlinburg]. Four-for-four.
B. Typical: “OSU: What did “Run Hide Fight” tweet mean?”. Zero-for-four.
The mirror image of an opinion, will necessarily also be an opinion, I suppose…… Works both ways. This issue faced by the mainstream media, is that the illusion that their particular opinions are somehow immune to this, is no longer as readily accepted on faith anymore.
On a meta level, the “quality” of a set of opinions, can in addition be ranked according to their lack of internal inconsistencies. Which is where deductive approaches show their strength, as soon as one moves beyond statements which are empirically testable in a direct, incontrovertible fashion (as in, specifically, not “empirically” “verified” in the sense of economics consisting of curve fitting, contrived “experiments” on college students, and sloppy econometric sleight of hands.)
Excellent analysis of the issue, Mish!
THat last article you quote to my ear sounds as though someone — not you — thought that Clitnon would win. Clinton losing probably made matters worse.
“…Clinton would…”
I still want Billy Bush named as White House Press Secretary. The media is already a joke unto itself, what more harm can Bush cause?
LMAO.
Who would have thought main stream media would stoop so low as to make the National Enquirer a beacon of truthful journalism!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/cb/97/81/cb9781bd5b550987cf57ee94e3a57d50.jpg
bottom line: why would anyone believe polls?
polling has proved to be biased and unreliable.
pick your poison.
When a poll is close it cannot be relied upon. When there is a wide discrepancy, it is telling you something.
The MSM have a vested interest in conjuring “close polls”… horserace=ratings.
Don’t see many wide discrepancies in polls anymore… THAT should tell you something.
Besides the bias obvious to any objective observer and the huge disparity in mainstream media employee (we won’t call them “journalists”) campaign donations for Trump vs. the Hildabeast, a clear indication of the media’s leftward bias is the graph that shows 51% trust by Dems, 30% by Indies, and 14% by Reps.
14% of repubs apparently do not know that the media has for decades been dominated by liberals:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/
All the articles on the subject I could find said only 7% of journalists and media execs are repubs.
7% of journalists and media execs are repubs.
And that’s on Fox. ABC/NBC?CBS/CNN range from 99% to 100% Dim, if you go by contributions to political parties and campaigns. And most of the 1% going to Repubicunts like Bloomberg (when that was his label), McCain (aka Queekeg) and various Bushes.
What would cause the public to be so negative about the mainstream media?
I’d imagine loading a prestigeous news site like the NY Times, one would get a glimps of what happened in the world today in a nice national and international summary. At this point in time, the top stories at the top of its page are 80% about Trump:
“Trump Chooses an Outspoken Ex-Marine to Lead Defense”
“Trump’s Breezy Calls to Leaders Leave Diplomats Stunned”
“Trump Revels in Crowd and Plays His Hits”
“Trump’s Good News in Indiana Comes With a Warning”
“Trump’s Chaos Theory: A Single Tweet Causes Jobs To Return”
“Things Get Ugly at Talk With Clinton and Trump Aides”
“Op-Ed: Trump’s Business Empire Isn’t Just an Ethical Disaster”
Its literally turned into a propaganda rag with a sole focus on Trump and only Trump.
And while all this is happening, alternative news is “fake news”. Obviously, given the evidence people are looking for alternatives.
I’d expect a mass firing at the NY Times — snap out of it.
Apparently the NYT thinks it can survive with only liberal subscribers. I would not take it for free.
I wish people would stop referring to them as “liberals”.
They are NEO-MARXISTS.
As this election has clearly shown, it is “their way or the highway”, with the ends justifying the means.
There is nothing “liberal” about them, other than their disregard for the truth.
There is a simple reason why no sources are given in internet articles. When you click on such links you leave the initial website and may not return. Very Bad for click and visit statistics. If you don’t believe me websearch “bounce rate”.
Honestly, Millennials just don’t care one way or the other. MSM is for older generations only. If a millennial cannot get it on their phone, they don’t want it. Loss in NFL viewership, cutting cable in favor of streaming services. Loss of viewership by MSM, it is all interrelated. Print media is all but dead. Most paid media is dying. Unless you offer a one of a type service like the WSJ, people will not pay for your information. They will just get if free elsewhere. Trump has gone around The media. WH daily briefings if they even have any will be a joke.
32% trust the media. I’m surprised it’s that high.
Can’t even stand to listen to the strident voices on the tv.
As for print, Stef did the best deconstruction of the NYT & co. I’ve ever heard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ0wk_Xi7H4&feature=youtu.be&t=0m0s
Share!
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I get all my hyped up diet study, fear of the future and pet video news from The Now, formerly the 4:00 news on KMGH:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/thenow
There is no actual news anymore. Just hype for the next story “after the break,” native ads and junk.