Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[GordMay]

Trust in Media

According to a recent Gallup survey [1], the percentage of Americans with no trust in the mass media hit a record high in 2020: only nine per cent of respondents said they trust the mass media "a great deal" and a full 60 per cent said they have little to "no trust at all" in it.

A Pew survey [2] suggests 95 per cent of MSNBC's audience are now Democrats, while 93 per cent of the Fox News audience are Republicans. A similar trend is unfolding online.

CBC's “Big News”, which was released March 26 on CBC Gem [3], examines some of these issues in depth, by interviewing media insiders and critics, who dig into the ratings wars, public mistrust, the Trump effect, the politicization of the anti-racism protests, and the pandemic, and the weaponization of social media. Coming off a record-breaking news year, the documentary asks, can the U.S. media be saved from itself?

This year's Edelman trust barometer report paints a particularly bleak picture. [4]

According to a University of Michigan analysis [5], COVID-19 stories in American newspapers and network news were highly politicized and polarized.
"It is likely that media coverage is contributing to the polarization of public attitudes [around COVID-19]," the study concluded.


[1] “Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media” ~ Gallup
9% in U.S. trust mass media "a great deal" and 31% "a fair amount"
27% have "not very much" trust and 33% "none at all"
The percentage with no trust at all is a record high, up five points since 2019
While majorities of Democrats have consistently expressed confidence in the media since 1997, this has not been true of independents since 2004. Republicans' last majority-level reading for trust in the media was in 1998.
➥ https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/...ass-media.aspx

[2] “Americans’ main sources for political news vary by party and age” ~ Pew
➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...party-and-age/

[3] “Big News” ~ CBC
➥ https://gem.cbc.ca/season/big-news/s...3-8f77593eb348

[4] “Edelman Trust Barometer 2021"
➥ https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer

[5] “Politicization and Polarization in COVID-19 News Coverage” ~ by P. Sol Hart et al
➥ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...75547020950735

[Mike OReilly]

Thanks Gord, interesting reading. No big surprises though. Probably the most interesting finding (to me) is that the old Big 3 networks appear to have the most balanced audiences. Maybe because politics isn't their only, or primary, news content.

Also interesting how the Democratic news ecosystem is so much more diverse than the Republican. Shows just how powerful Fox News is.

Got any comparable data for other countries?

[boatman61]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...age-group.html

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Also interesting how the Democratic news ecosystem is so much more diverse than the Republican. Shows just how powerful Fox News is.

Got any comparable data for other countries?

Diverse would imply they have diversity of thought. This is just a large number of outlets with near identical thought. Mostly based on how much they can hate the opposing side...but then they point to the plurality of media agreeing, so it clearly can't be hate and must be correct because there is consensus (sarcasm intended).

Many other countries have a dominant government outlet (CBC, BBC, RAI, etc...) In the USA, we have NPR & PBS which hold a similar role but represent a tiny percentage of the market. While less outlandish than the for profit outlets (though they are far less non-profit than they were 40yrs ago), they still join the consensus group as they tend to be dominated by the academic world which leans heavily liberal.

Of course, the real question: is it worse to have multiple outlets twisting the truth or outright lying vs a single outlet doing it. Honestly, neither is a good thing but very challenging to break the status quo without violating freedom of speech...especially when both sides will join together to fight any restrictions to their outlandish behavior.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Diverse would imply they have diversity of thought. This is just a large number of outlets with near identical thought. Mostly based on how much they can hate the opposing side...but then they point to the plurality of media agreeing, so it clearly can't be hate and must be correct because there is consensus (sarcasm intended).

Many other countries have a dominant government outlet (CBC, BBC, RAI, etc...) In the USA, we have NPR & PBS which hold a similar role but represent a tiny percentage of the market. While less outlandish than the for profit outlets (though they are far less non-profit than they were 40yrs ago), they still join the consensus group as they tend to be dominated by the academic world which leans heavily liberal.

Of course, the real question: is it worse to have multiple outlets twisting the truth or outright lying vs a single outlet doing it. Honestly, neither is a good thing but very challenging to break the status quo without violating freedom of speech...especially when both sides will join together to fight any restrictions to their outlandish behavior.

I didn't imply anything, nor does the study data I cited. The Pew study simply shows that those who claim Democrat affiliation reference more news sources vs Republicans. You'll have to cite other datasets to support your other claims.

[Sand crab]

I trust most of the big news outlets. I am capable of independent thought though and do my own analysis. It is interesting that the actual news portion of Fox News was pretty good but it is such a small portion of the programming. I just don't get the Fox viewers revolt when they were the first to call Arizona for Biden. Did the Dems banish CNN from their lives when they called the 2016 election for Trump? Sometimes the news is not what you want to hear but that's the way it is.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

...It is interesting that the actual news portion of Fox News was pretty good but it is such a small portion of the programming.

Agreed. I find the actual news content of all sources cited in the Pew data to be pretty good. The problem is that the actual news hole is shrinking, and getting crowded out by the opinion.

In the past these two segments of the media were clearly delineated. Today, opinion has nearly completely bled into the news sections.

[jimbunyard]

The real 'interesting statistic' would be how many of these self-described 'mistrusters' watched how much of which 'news' source.

And why. (given their stated mistrust)

Always been interesting to me to see Faux 'news' claim to be the 'most watched' when it compares the numbers of viewers for the myopic, closeted entertainment shows that it publicly tries to pass off as news* against every other (less psuedo-conservative) news shows individually. Add up just CNN and MSNBC and see how their numbers fare. Add in all the rest, ABC, CBS, PBS etc., and then one can see how overrepresented the psuedo-conservative element in American society actually is. Guess the 'squeaky wheel' syndrome is real (just add in a little serial voter disenfranchisement...)

*I assume everyone's heard that little Tucker's ['most popular in the world'] disinformation show is, (according to "Fox [lawyers] persuasively argu[ing], that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes") Total BS, i.e. not to be taken seriously.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye


Though I know for a fact that many of his cult members takes it as 'god's own truth'.

Disinformation indeed...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Many other countries have a dominant government outlet (CBC, BBC, RAI, etc...) In the USA, we have NPR & PBS which hold a similar role but represent a tiny percentage of the market. While less outlandish than the for profit outlets (though they are far less non-profit than they were 40yrs ago), they still join the consensus group as they tend to be dominated by the academic world which leans heavily liberal.

Of course, the real question: is it worse to have multiple outlets twisting the truth or outright lying vs a single outlet doing it. Honestly, neither is a good thing but very challenging to break the status quo without violating freedom of speech...especially when both sides will join together to fight any restrictions to their outlandish behavior.

The simple truth is that if you treat news and information like any other for-profit commodity... you get "junk food" news and information. The current problems with misinformation in social media and walled gardens like Facebook (...the theme of this thread) should drive this home.

The majority of western democracies have an arms-length-funded national broadcaster. These outlets are less encumbered by commercial pressures, and they have the journalism budgets to do more in-depth investigations and reports. Their presence in the market raises the bar; commercial stations have to match the quality of journalism, or get laughed out of the arena. The trust numbers clearly reflect these findings.

The academic world skews liberal maybe because reality (which they study) skews liberal . Anyway, I've found that the national broadcasters do a better job of investigating and reporting from a broader range of viewpoints and perspectives. Americans would do well to regularly browse several foreign national broadcasters across the world, to get multiple perspectives.

[Island Time O25]

Historicaly (when newspapers dominated the news delivery, way before radio and TV) there was a profound difference between US and European approach to journalism as such. Euro model consisted of myriad politically affiliated newspapers, each clearly identified with one or another political movement. At the time politically engaged people were perfectly fine with this arrangement even if it meant extra spending on a number of papers and extra time and effort reading/analyzing their content. I'd call it a practical approach to the news media.

The US had a more idealistic approach - pretending journalism was/supposed to be neutral, not openly acknowledging that journalism was no better nor worse than any other profession where the paying boss demanded (if not always overt but always subtle) loyalty and toeing the owner's worldview with an eye toward profit raking sensationlism.

When the US model was exposed as either deluded fantasy or delibarate lie (doesn't really matter now which) the news consumers became disenchanted, sort of like the children learning that there is no Santa.

IMO the practical way forward for the politically enged on all sides is to drop the eye shutters, acknowledge the obvious and to start receiving the news from several perspectives. We will never have "100% neutral disinterested and balanced" news delivery, Fox claims notwithstanding but on the other hand this Hegelian approach will get us to at least look at the issues from more than one perspective as is currently done by the many (most?) politically engaged.

I know it may be asking too much of the populace with the attention span of 15 second commercial but what other alternatives are there other than shouting the opponents down or worse yet legislating the unwelcomed news outlets out of the mainstream?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Historicaly (when newspapers dominated the news delivery, way before radio and TV) there was a profound difference between US and European approach to journalism as such. Euro model consisted of myriad politically affiliated newspapers, each clearly identified with one or another political movement. At the time politically engaged people were perfectly fine with this arrangement even if it meant extra spending on a number of papers and extra time and effort reading/analyzing their content. I'd call it a practical approach to the news media.

The US had a more idealistic approach - pretending journalism was/supposed to be neutral, not openly acknowledging that journalism was no better nor worse than any other profession where the paying boss demanded (if not always overt but always subtle) loyalty and toeing the owner's worldview with an eye toward profit raking sensationlism.

You raise some interesting points. I think that even in the US, there were flavours of journalism based on ownership (eg the Hearst papers). Because the newspapers were the only game in town for news, I believe this helped keep the bulk of their reporting on serious stories as factual, because people were going to notice if the facts differed between publications.

I also believe that the newspapers often served as a public "conscience" - in the better papers, their editors took this duty more seriously, and newspapers were often instrumental in driving social change. Vote for women, the New Deal, civil rights, etc.

Nowadays, with all the possible sources of free news, commercial papers and news broadcasters have to seek niches in order to survive.

I know it may be asking too much of the populace with the attention span of 15 second commercial but what other alternatives are there other than shouting the opponents down or worse yet legislating the unwelcomed news outlets out of the mainstream?

There needs to be recognition that quality independent journalism is a public good, not just another commercial commodity, and try to raise the overall news landscape by means of some sort of journalism review panel that can call out false, biased or lazy journalism... or by supporting a healthy national broadcaster with dependable arms-length funding, that could raise the bar by example.

[Mike OReilly]

I can't claim any expertise with regard to the history of European journalism, In North America there has been an arc of change that moved from highly partisan, overtly biased journalism, to what some called the "golden age" of journalism, and now back to the more yellow form.

That said, there is excellent journalism done at most outlets in North America. The main problem, as I said, is that the barrier between opinion and news has now all but evaporated. Even in the major newspapers you'll routinely see "analysis", or "commentary" or "insight" plastered all over the news sections. Readers or viewers can be excused for mistaking these items or articles for news -- they are not.

As far as bias goes, to be human is to be biased. One of the key skills of good journalists is to build awareness of one's own biases, and to take steps to counter them. Nothing is perfect, but good journalists and journalism go a long way to achieving some level of bias-free reporting.

But this is the fundamental difference between opinion and news; opinion requires bias.

The highest ranked cable "news" shows are not news. They are babblers. The actual news producers and reporters are a shrinking segment because babblers are cheap, and also because too many of us would rather have our biases confirmed than challenged.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...One of the key skills of good journalists is to build awareness of one's own biases, and to take steps to counter them...

What I think we need to address, or at least identify, are those cases where the creator of the content has no intention of being a good journalist, is aware of his/her bias, and is knowingly creating misinformation. I see a lot of harm done by the media which allows and facilitates widespread desemination of that and I'd like to see that limited.

Allow free speech, but don't facilitate spreading misinformation.

And it is a difficult line to avoid crossing, but I think the cancel culture has gone too far, however we need, again, to a stop facilitating the spread of misinformation. But hey, getting someone fired, or prevented from speaking, because thier views are not popular, is not democratic either.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But this is the fundamental difference between opinion and news; opinion requires bias.

I challenge this a bit. People who are subject-matter experts, or people who have a position based on experience (eg older) and a track record of being fair and intelligent analyzers (eg court judges, senior journalists and editors, village elders), provide a useful service to us by giving us their opinion on something.

This does not necessarily require bias going in. The task they perform is to apply their experience and knowledge (aka wisdom) to a situation, then deliver their opinion...which becomes their bias, sure, til their opinion is swayed by later input. This is a useful and important function. Yelling 'bias' whenever it's done is disingenious.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I didn't imply anything, nor does the study data I cited. The Pew study simply shows that those who claim Democrat affiliation reference more news sources vs Republicans. You'll have to cite other datasets to support your other claims.

Exactly, more channels repeating the same mantra doesn't equal diversity.