According to Pew Research negative opinions about the press are at an all time high.
Definitely check out the source article because they have a ton of infographics that are worth looking at.
The main graph related to the research is the one below:
As you can see, the public no longer views the media as unbiased or fully accurate.
There are dozens of variables that play in to this phenomena, but I think the biggest one is that the public has traditionally viewed the media as doing the people's work. Which is to say, they are kind of like the FBI, but they work for the people not the government.
They are suppose to root out what is going on and inform the people so that society can hold politicians and corporations accountable (note the reoccuring theme of accountability that I talk about often in this blog, because it's a causal variable behind much of the issues in the world today).
Over the past 15 or so years, the press has lost it's credibility with the public because they have failed to root out the real story time and time again...
But you know who must find this more frustrating than anyone else? People in the media!
For all of the above disasters, there was someone in the media writing about it long before it happened. The problem is that they were one voice. Meanwhile their colleagues were so focused on other things, or even espousing counterviews, that the few articles that were setting off alarms simply came and gone with little notice paid to them.
The general public though doesn't care about such nuances. In their mind the press is suppose to be the canary in the gold mine, safeguarding society by rooting out the crooks and liars and basically keeping society honest. With the majority of the public perceiving corporations and politicians as corrupt, it's no surprise that they would feel let down by the press as they conclude that it is no longer serving its function of keeping society honest.
One has to wonder if the press even feels this is there job though. Reporters use to view that as their job, to root out corruption for the public good. But today, is that their mandate, or rather, is it to simply report on current events as they happen?
If the latter is the case, then obviously they can't act as a canary in the gold mine.
You'll also notice that for many reporters their reporting abilities are secondary to their expertise in a subject matter. Which is not surprising if you think about it. If their job is more and more about reacting to events as they happen, then the most valuable skill they have is the ability to analyze said events.
A reporter not steeped in knowledge of their 'beat' has to call around and talk to 20 different people to figure out what the story really is. However, if the reporter is a near expert in the subject matter related to their beat, then they can make a quick couple of calls for comment and hit the presses with a story within hours.
The obvious problem with this however is whether they are as much of an expert as they think themselves to be. Which is where we fall in to this trend of the media being biased. You get one expert reporter at one outlet saying X and another at another outlet saying Y and the public doesn't know what to make of it. It's very rare nowadays not to read an article that is filled with commentary by the reporter themselves (versus the old 'just the facts 'mam' style).
Ultimately these things will work themselves out though. There are new media outlets cropping up all the time now. I'd have to say that I get more than 50 per cent of my news from outlets that have only been around for the past few years. I don't have anything against the major outlets, but I like getting detailed insight in to a story that you generally can't get with mainstream media.
As more and more people stumble on new media options it will ultimately push traditional media back towards 'getting the scoop' style journalism, versus simply commenting on breaking developments type journalism.
Until then, we can at least be thankful that the media is able to correctly pronounce people's names...
Definitely check out the source article because they have a ton of infographics that are worth looking at.
The main graph related to the research is the one below:
As you can see, the public no longer views the media as unbiased or fully accurate.
There are dozens of variables that play in to this phenomena, but I think the biggest one is that the public has traditionally viewed the media as doing the people's work. Which is to say, they are kind of like the FBI, but they work for the people not the government.
They are suppose to root out what is going on and inform the people so that society can hold politicians and corporations accountable (note the reoccuring theme of accountability that I talk about often in this blog, because it's a causal variable behind much of the issues in the world today).
Over the past 15 or so years, the press has lost it's credibility with the public because they have failed to root out the real story time and time again...
- The dot.com bubble
- WMDs and Iraq
- The housing bubble
- The credit default swap bubble
- Regulatory sloppiness (hello BP)
- Bernie Madoff and SEC incompetence
But you know who must find this more frustrating than anyone else? People in the media!
For all of the above disasters, there was someone in the media writing about it long before it happened. The problem is that they were one voice. Meanwhile their colleagues were so focused on other things, or even espousing counterviews, that the few articles that were setting off alarms simply came and gone with little notice paid to them.
The general public though doesn't care about such nuances. In their mind the press is suppose to be the canary in the gold mine, safeguarding society by rooting out the crooks and liars and basically keeping society honest. With the majority of the public perceiving corporations and politicians as corrupt, it's no surprise that they would feel let down by the press as they conclude that it is no longer serving its function of keeping society honest.
One has to wonder if the press even feels this is there job though. Reporters use to view that as their job, to root out corruption for the public good. But today, is that their mandate, or rather, is it to simply report on current events as they happen?
If the latter is the case, then obviously they can't act as a canary in the gold mine.
You'll also notice that for many reporters their reporting abilities are secondary to their expertise in a subject matter. Which is not surprising if you think about it. If their job is more and more about reacting to events as they happen, then the most valuable skill they have is the ability to analyze said events.
A reporter not steeped in knowledge of their 'beat' has to call around and talk to 20 different people to figure out what the story really is. However, if the reporter is a near expert in the subject matter related to their beat, then they can make a quick couple of calls for comment and hit the presses with a story within hours.
The obvious problem with this however is whether they are as much of an expert as they think themselves to be. Which is where we fall in to this trend of the media being biased. You get one expert reporter at one outlet saying X and another at another outlet saying Y and the public doesn't know what to make of it. It's very rare nowadays not to read an article that is filled with commentary by the reporter themselves (versus the old 'just the facts 'mam' style).
Ultimately these things will work themselves out though. There are new media outlets cropping up all the time now. I'd have to say that I get more than 50 per cent of my news from outlets that have only been around for the past few years. I don't have anything against the major outlets, but I like getting detailed insight in to a story that you generally can't get with mainstream media.
As more and more people stumble on new media options it will ultimately push traditional media back towards 'getting the scoop' style journalism, versus simply commenting on breaking developments type journalism.
Until then, we can at least be thankful that the media is able to correctly pronounce people's names...
Comments
Post a Comment