Polls show you probably won't trust this article

A recent study reveals almost two-thirds of Americans don't trust the mass media. Who's to blame?

Sang Tan/AP/File
A customer buys a copy of 'News of the World' from a newspaper vendor in central London. Britain's best-selling Sunday tabloid signed off with a simple front page message, 'Thank You & Goodbye,' leaving the media establishment here reeling from the expanding phone-hacking scandal that brought down the muckraking newspaper after 168 years.

The so-called “glory days” of journalism – when people actually got the newspaper at their doorsteps – are rumored to be fading. But declining subscription rates don't tell the real story, a new study claims. 

According to a recent Gallup poll, 6 out of 10 Americans don’t trust the mass media. In a poll conducted in July this year, Americans were asked how much they trusted the media to report fully, accurately, and fairly: "great deal," "fair amount," "not very much," or "none at all. Like last year, 60 percent went straight for the two lowest categories.

The study, which is disheartening if not downright alarming, comes at a time when newspaper staffs are down by 10 percent, and young reporters can churn out two stories a day for an $18,000 salary.

The last time more than two-thirds of the public trusted the mass media, according to Gallup, was in 1976. Ten years ago, the numbers were split 50/50.

So what changed?

The surveys have tracked a series of major journalistic blunders that have gone viral in recent years.

Two years ago, CNN and The New York Post came under fire for repeatedly messing up facts during the Boston bombings. CNN’s John King made comments that police were seeking a "dark-skinned male;" the New York Post published photos of the wrong men as suspects. Last April, Rolling Stone published an inaccurate account of a rape case at the University of Virginia that went viral and became known as a "failure of journalism." In July, a Twitter stock jumped over eight percent after a story was published on a fake platform (that looked exactly like Bloomberg News) claiming Twitter had received a takeover offer.

The number of major journalistic gaffes goes on. And on. And … on.

Still, the media keeps monitoring the media. David Carr, the long-time columnist behind the New York Times's "The Media Equation," kept journalists biting their nails with his scathingly honest if not obsessive voice on the power – or lack thereof – of media tycoons and the ever-changing status of the news.

"Journalism's status as a profession is up for grabs," he wrote in March 2014. "A viral hit is no longer defined by the credentials of an individual or organization. The media ecosystem is increasingly a pro-am affair, where the wisdom – or prurient interest – of the crowd decides what is important and worthy of sharing."

A team of hawk-eyed journalists at the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) keeps tabs on media missteps, with a near-daily update on their blog.

News outlets have committed "plenty of screw-ups, and CJR has kept track of them so you don’t have to," wrote CJR’s David Uberti. CJR was established as a wing of Columbia University's elite journalism program in 1961 to "encourage excellence in journalism."

But the mass media caravan isn't the only one losing its own wheels – a recent study from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government found that young Americans trust their President, the US military, and the Supreme Court even less than they trust the media.

But hey, don’t shoot the messenger.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Polls show you probably won't trust this article
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today