Article content

Journalists know they are losing the public’s respect and attention. But instead of trying to win back the audience, they rush to a conclusion in which the last newscaster and the last viewer have one last conversation before turning out the lights. Take the CBS news program “60 Minutes,” which edited an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to replace her word salad with something coherent.

Article content

“Well, Bill,” Harris responded to a question from host Bill Whitaker about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is paying attention to the Biden administration. “The work we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much motivated by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to be done in the region.”

At least that’s what Harris responded in a teaser that aired before the full interview. On air, the answer to the question was more understandable: “We will not stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to make clear where we stand on the need to end this war.”

“60 Minutes” claims the response aired on the show came from “a different part of the response.” That may be true. The problem is easily resolved by releasing the full transcript or video. Fully 85 percent of respondents in a Harvard CAPS/Harris survey say “CBS should release the full transcript of Harris’ ’60 Minutes’ interview.” Fifty-three percent say CBS has tried to make her look better.

Article content

Article content

Given public sentiment on the issue, releasing the full transcript is a smart move. It is also, as former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge noted, what they did when she interviewed Donald Trump in 2020. “It’s about transparency and standing behind the integrity of the editorial team,” Herridge said.

It was inevitable that publishing two different answers to the same question would end badly in a politically polarized era where news organizations are seen as partisan players.

“It’s understandable that so many people are angry, especially after a national conversation about whether the media was complicit in covering up President Joe Biden’s physical limitations,” said Jennifer Graham of the Deseret News.

Of course, the problems go deeper than that. Once-prominent media outlets have been eroding their position with the public for years. Much of that damage has been done as the country splits into mutually hostile political camps and news organizations take sides.

After Special Counsel Robert Mueller III concluded the investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and then-President Trump with a report that found little substance in the allegations, former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth has detailed the related media frenzy for the Columbia Journalism Review scrutinized.

Article content

“Outside the Times’ own bubble, the damage to the credibility of the Times and its peers persists three years later and is likely to gain new energy as the country heads into another election season animated by antagonism toward the press.” Gerth wrote at the start of his detailed analysis of 2023. He added that while examining the media frenzy over Russiagate, “not a single major news organization made an editorial director available to talk about their reporting.”

The analysis was also not kind to Trump and his supporters. But, as Gerth emphasized, the low regard given to politicians is a separate concern from the disdain with which many Americans view the media, which is supposed to keep the public informed.

“Americans continue to register record low levels of trust in the mass media,” Gallup reported earlier this month. “For the third consecutive year, more American adults do not trust the media at all (36 percent) than trust it a lot or a fair amount.” Only 31 percent expressed “a lot” or “fair” confidence.

Much of the branded news media leans left. Allsides, a media literacy company, publishes a media bias chart, which includes the New York Times, the Washington Post, the three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC and CBS News), along with CNN and MSNBC on the left. The Wall Street Journal is in the center with Reuters and Reason magazine. Fox News is on the right, along with companies that usually label themselves as openly conservative.

Article content

So it’s no surprise that the media has lost the most ground to Republicans, from 68 percent who expressed a lot or a fair amount of confidence in the early 1970s to 12 percent today. Independents followed a similar path, falling from 74 percent in 1976 to 27 percent today. But even confidence among Democrats fell 22 points in just six years — from 76 percent in 2018 to 54 percent in 2024.

The audience has shrunk. Weekday newspaper circulation fell by two-thirds from a peak of 63.3 million in 1984. Viewership of the evening news on network nights is about half of what it was in 1980. Cable news followed a similar trend, although the three major networks – particularly Fox News – regained some ground. this election year.

Independent and online activities are picking up some of the slack, and many are doing very well. They tend to serve partisan silos or niche interests, and perhaps this fractured public is appropriate for a country so divided.

We’re fortunate to have talented Substackers, podcasters, and talking heads from Rumble and are interested in what they have to offer.

Article content

The future may belong to a host of relatively small media operations, many of which are openly opinionated. They can do well, as long as they avoid the mistakes of their predecessors.

“In these times, when the media is under extraordinary attack and widely distrusted, a transparent, impartial and accountable media is needed more than ever,” Gerth wrote in his Russiagate analysis.

“Unbiased” is a big ask with little precedent. The period of “objective” journalism was a brief diversion from a history of partisan American news operations that has now resumed. As long as journalists are open about their biases, they will find an audience, just as their predecessors did decades ago. That is, they will grow audiences and build trust if they remember to be transparent and accountable in their messaging.

Transparent and responsible. That’s what happens when you show your notes to explain why your work looks like a PR operation for a political candidate, or when you answer questions about your journalistic failures. The media of the future will be shaped by the way ’60 Minutes’ and other media misbehave now.

National Post

Article content