As it turns out, I am not the only person who is concerned about whether they can trust media. In a recent Gallup article published on October 2, 2024 the headline stated, "Trust in Media at New Low of 28%". It also reported that Republican's faith in mass media was at 8%. Just to get a sense of how it has dropped on average, let me give you the overview. In 1970 confidence was at 68%, in 1997 it was at 53%, in 2004 it was 44%, and again, as I have stated, currently it is 28%. In general, Democrats have more trust in mass media than Republicans, and older people have more trust in mass media than young people. The Gallup article states as its bottom line, "Confidence in the mass media is historically low, with fewer than three in ten Americans now placing trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, fairly and accurately." Of course, it all depends on how you approach the question. Apparently, 47% of Republicans watch Fox News regularly. If so, I'm assuming they trust Fox News considerably more than 8%. It's just any other media they don't like.
When it comes to the discussion on this issue within the public square, one of the most frequently cited causes of distrust is what the Gallup article referred to as "an increasingly polarized and skeptical public." How did this come about? I actually have an answer for that question. When older folks watched the news say in the fifties and sixties, they would regularly hear both sides of an issue. By law, the FCC, or Federal Communications Commision, had a mandate to promote competition between media outlets, ownership diversity, local content, and most important viewpoint diversity also known as the Fairness Doctrine. In support of the Fairness Doctrine the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public..."
As a consequence of the commitment to viewpoint diversity, the American public in the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s had a civil and polite awareness of a broad perspective of opinions. However, in 1987, as a result of Republican initiatives, the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the media. Consequently, broadcast news no longer had to consider differing perspectives in reporting the news. This led to the rise of partisan media such as the conservative Fox News and a slide into an increasingly polarized and extremist media landscape.
At the same time, there has been the rise of news reporting online via social media, which places individuals in partisan echo chambers through the use of algorithms. Related to this has been the establishment of a broad range of partisan news websites and radio programs which report massive amounts of fake or misleading news. Public figures, government officials, elected representatives have no problem making false statements for which there are no legal consequences. Thus, you have Alex Kelly claiming that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook was fake.
Furthermore, I've read reports of partisan ideologues going online and altering entries in Wikipedia and other databases to match their political agendas. This means that anyone doing online research who wants to get accurate and balanced information about what is going on has to sift through a considerable number of articles, videos, radio and television broadcasts to get at it. Meanwhile, comment sections which often kept journalists honest, are being cut back or entirely eliminated. News rooms are being cut back and decimated which means that investigative reporters, fact checkers as well as copy editors who make sure grammar, spelling, and content is correct are gone. The outcome is sloppy, inaccurate and badly written material.
Another factor leading to public mistrust in the media is the loss of ownership diversity. As I mentioned, the FCC is supposed to be supervising the broadcast industry to ensure ownership diversity. However, instead of doing so, according to "Free Press" it has overseen the development of a broadcast industry "where a few powerful and wealthy mega-corporations dominate." In the media industry, around 6 mega-corporations own all of the media including radio, TV, and print.
The Free Press continues on to state in regard to the FCC, "The agency's failures to address the substantial market power these conglomerates wield has consequences--including the stifling of independent voices and shuttering of local-news outlets--while increasing wealthy owners' influence over public opinion and national politics." A handout from an online class from lumenlearning.com states, "Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these companies control everything from initial production to final distribution."
How has the FCC allowed for a Broadcast arena so in constrast to its mandate? The answer is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which eliminated the limits on ownership of media, which then led to massive media consolidation. Supposedly the act was intended to increase competition, but instead it did the opposite. Sort of like the Big Beautiful Bill is actually not beautiful, if you know what I'm saying. I looked at different lists of companies who now own the entirety of the broadcast industry which tend to vary because each has a different focus.What struck me is that Republicans loudly exclaim that news media is liberal, etc. etc., and as a result only 8% of them trust media. What I saw is that a good many of the companies that own or distribute the news are conservatives, if not outright Trump supporters and contributors.
Here is some of the research I did on that issue. Conglomerates such as Fox Corporation, Nexstar Media and Sinclair Broadcast Group affiliated with ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox News are all politically conservative. In print news, Alden Global Capital which purchased Tribune Publishing (owners of the Hartford Courant) in 2021 and is the second largest newspaper in the United States contributed substantially to the Trump campaign. Adams Publishing Group originally owned by Stephen Adams are ardent trump supporters. Lee, Ogden, Horizon, Hearst--all with pro-Trump owners. Just as an aside, if you were wondering, when it comes to the tech companies, the CEOs of Meta, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Open AI were all substantial contributors to the Trump campaign. New Media Investment Group which took over Gate house and Gannett in 2019 is owned indirectly by Masayoshi Son, a Korean national who lives in Japan and is also an ardent Trump supporter and contributor to his campaign..
So how do we get an owner of a major American news outlet who is a foreign national? In 2013, the FCC relaxed its rules to allow for 100% foreign ownership of a media company if it is deemed to be in the U.S. interest. This change was widely supported by industry organizations such as the National Association of Broadcasters because it was seen as bringing new sources of capitol into the industry. While this change is reported to have occurred primarily in 2013, news articles from 1990 are already reporting on the trend and indicating it might be a serious national security risk.
Seriously, how many of you reading this feel comfortable knowing that foreign countries are possibly controlling the news we have access to? It is even more alarming because it is hard to track foreign ownership, which I tried to do, because of the Russian doll effect of companies being owned by other companies which in turn are owned by other companies. What I conclude from the expansion of foreign ownership of news sources is that to American political and business leaders the public interest doesn't matter, national security doesn't matter. What matters, the only thing that matters, is money.
Not only is there the termination of the fairness doctrine, the concentration of media companies into a smaller group of elite wealthy owners and the expansion of foreign ownership, news sources are now subject to extremely prohibitive financial pressures. For instance, we have seen how big news has collapsed in the face of Trump's lawsuits paying out huge sums of money for settlements. Corporate cowardice demonstrated by the failure to defend these lawsuits means that all news sources, mainstream media, independent media, independent influencers are subect to more pressure to back away from difficult subjects.
I know that in the area of family court reform, Tom Wilkerson, Linda Wiegand's ex-husband sued the Hartford Courant for $200,000 at the end of the case. This is another reason why the Courant tries to stay away from the issue, because even if we have freedom of the press in the country, major legal fees to defend it can essentially nullify the right . These factors have all led to a substantial drop in the quality of both print and broadcast news. As a result, audiences are going elsewhere. According to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, U.S. citizens are abandoning television news, print news, and online news sites and getting the majority of their news from social media. Use of social media for news has risen by 27 points since 2013. This means that advertising revenue goes along with it, making traditional news media considerably more financially vulnerable, particularly local news. There are many citizen journalists out there on social media doing excellent work. On the other hand, the same corporations and political ideologues who are buying up national media can also buy them. So again, you have to be careful who you believe.
In their vulnerable position, local and state governments can put pressure on print media to restrict their coverage simply by threatening to stop putting public notices in their pages. These public notices provide thousands and thousands of dollars of income to these newspapers. The loss of revenue if notices are withheld can be considerable. Many news outlets around the country report being placed under this kind of pressure. It can actually go either way, government can cut back or expand on these public notices, to the point where they can act as a bribe. In the days when I was doing this kind of research, I observed considerable sums of money going from state government to the state's print media which I think impacted its ability to report honestly about what was happening in family court.
As a blogger, I have also been subjected to financial and legal pressures. Even though bloggers have the right to freedom of speech, it doesn't last too long if anyone can sue us and take us to Court over our work. I have reported on my website how I was taken to Court and asked to reveal my sources for some of my articles. Defending myself from that assault on my rights as a journalist cost me $2,000. In the face of that kind of attack, it becomes very difficult to get out there and do the work of an independent journalist. Eventually, I left the field. Recently, I looked up the domestic violence statistics for the State of Connecticut. Nothing has changed. I'd suspect nothing has changed in family court as well. That's what happens when government, by controlling media, can shut down opposition, and silence its critics. Note this happened in Democratic Connecticut, not Trump country.
