Foundations of Trust: Restoring Journalism in the Age of Misinformation

Then-UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism students, watching their colleagues explain deep, investigative projects that reinforced the kind of journalism sorely wanted by the public (Photo courtesy of Armon Owlia)

America is far from the days of Walter Cronkite, who anchored CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981 and was a prominent figure in journalism and American culture. Cronkite delivered the day's important stories, shaping the national conversation for nearly two decades.

It was a different world, devoid of cable television, social media, and today's trends. This was the early stage of modern journalism. Many are proud beneficiaries of that legacy at a time when journalism is crucial but facing significant public distrust. However, there is hope. Acknowledging current challenges and working together can restore trust in journalism.

A Pew Research Center study highlights a gap between how journalists and the public perceive the media's performance. While most journalists feel they cover essential stories, report accurately, hold leaders accountable, give voice to the underrepresented, and manage misinformation well, the public largely disagrees.

This gap and the failure of newspapers to embrace technology have led to a cultural shift. Content that caters to opinions rather than challenges them, like The Young Turks and InfoWars, exemplifies this shift.

According to the Pew Research Center, weekday newspaper circulation in the U.S. has decreased by about 67% since its peak in 1987, and weekend circulation has declined by approximately 65%. Meanwhile, millions of Americans now turn to social media for news. For example, 30% of U.S. adults regularly get their news from Facebook, while 26% use YouTube. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok are also popular for news consumption.

Distrust in the media is influenced by how politicians portray the media, and some media members amplify these portrayals. According to the Knight Foundation, most Americans see political bias in news coverage. Many perceive excessive bias in supposedly objective reporting as a significant problem.

Many suspect that inaccuracies in reporting are intentional, believing reporters misrepresent facts to push specific agendas. They believe that news organizations they distrust are trying to persuade people to adopt certain viewpoints.

This distrust is fueled by politicians' portrayals of the media, creating a vicious cycle. Politicians from both parties accuse the media of bias, leading to polarized audiences who trust only news that aligns with their viewpoints.

Another remedy is to more precisely define who qualifies as a "journalist," a term used too loosely in the age of instantaneous and unchecked information. Journalism is not just about writing articles or picking up a camera. It requires judgment, specialized skills, and education.

Proper training and education in journalism are crucial. Just as truck drivers, doctors, and janitors undergo significant training, so should journalists.

In scenarios where journalists with strong political affiliations cover opposing viewpoints, trust can be further eroded. A journalist known for supporting progressive causes might be perceived as biased when interviewing conservative figures, and vice versa. This can lead to skepticism about the fairness and accuracy of the coverage.

In the current culture of distrust, paranoia, and "cancellation," society seems to be looking for any reason to end a career.

A significant part of the problem is that many people in our society are not adequately educated about politics, policy, and the role of newspapers. Declining literacy rates and a growing indifference among the population exacerbate this lack of education.

This environment can be harmful, impacting mental health and how people treat each other. There is a need for a cultural and personal reset, leading us back to Walter.

One of the few moments where Cronkite’s opinion of a story could be seen, as Cronkite gets visibly emotional reporting the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 to a stunned nation. (Photo courtesy of CBS News)

There is a good reason why Walter Cronkite was known as "the most trusted man in America." During his time on the air, he stuck to the facts. He would only speculate or express his personal feelings if the time and place were right.

When he declared Vietnam unwinnable after visiting the war zone, his declaration had credence because he observed it firsthand and spoke with a diverse group of knowledgeable individuals. Using his personal context, he could tell the whole story, present all its nuance, and come to a conclusion based on logic and fact, not emotion.

He had no fear of technological innovation; he relished and welcomed it, not for glory or attention, but in service to the people and the principles of journalism. Whether it was part of the first satellite news broadcast in American history or his coverage of NASA during the Apollo missions, his enthusiasm matched that of many Americans for the achievements being made.

What does that have to do with us? Simply put, Cronkite's legacy provides a foundation. His example can be brought into the current journalism climate by starting with journalists and consumers. The audience is crucial in demanding and supporting high-quality, unbiased reporting. By critically engaging with news, questioning sources, and seeking diverse perspectives, the public can help restore trust in journalism.

First, journalists should focus on perspective, particularly the perspective brought to a story. Preconceived notions and strong opinions on various matters are human nature. However, personal feelings must not influence reporting because that is not the job.

The job is to present the facts from every possible angle, whether there is agreement with them or not. Even in the strongest pieces of misinformation, an element of reality often needs to be addressed and clarified. For example, while numerous audits debunked claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, isolated instances of fraud were documented. Fact-checking and verification are essential, ensuring the presentation of the most accurate and reliable information to the audience.

Journalists must give the audience a complete picture of the black, the white, the grey, and every spectrum of color in existence. By presenting all perspectives, even those that may not be agreed with, the audience can make informed decisions and foster a more inclusive and understanding society.

If an opinion must be given, do it sparingly. If all that is being done is commenting on stories already made, there's a title for that: opinion columnist. To strike at the heart of the matter, do the reporting on it, whether locally or nationally.

Rachel Maddow, a prominent commentator on MSNBC with her own self-titled program, often presents opinion-driven content. MSNBC's decision to place a commentator in a primetime journalistic spot blurs the line between journalism and opinion, molding journalists in Maddow's image. This issue is not exclusive to MSNBC; similar practices are seen across networks such as Fox News with Tucker Carlson and CNN with Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon. (Photo courtesy of InStyle)

The key to being a reporter is reporting impartially. This commitment to impartiality ensures the profession's integrity and the audience's trust.

Additionally, the taste of the modern consumer has shifted along with that of the culture. From the era of New Journalism to TV journalism and now to digital media, audience preferences have evolved. Independent commentators like Ben Shapiro and The Young Turks highlight this shift.

Ben Shapiro's show frequently ranks in the Top 10 of Apple Podcasts, appealing to conservative listeners with direct, opinionated content. The Young Turks, YouTube mainstays since 2005, have built a strong following among progressives with their commentary style.

Although both are primarily commentators, many viewers regard them as journalistic sources.

One commonality between Shapiro and The Young Turks is that they often choose not to challenge their audiences to see the other side of the argument. Instead, they encourage their viewers to reinforce their beliefs, presenting the opposing side as fundamentally flawed. This approach has contributed to their popularity but also to increased polarization.

This popularity stems from consumer demand. Journalists may need to change, but consumers must also decide if they want better journalism.

Embrace technological innovation, but never just for the sake of embracing it. Ensure it makes sense in the story's context and whether it can lift the story.

The audience is much more intelligent and willing to listen than often given credit for. When something is made too simple, the nuances disappear, leading to miscommunication and increased conflict. Don't be afraid to go into more detail, especially on social media.

Speaking of social media, new guidelines are needed for what journalists can and cannot post or share. Journalists should avoid posting personal opinions on controversial issues, sharing unverified information, or engaging in public arguments. Personal political affiliations or endorsements should remain private. Instead, focus on sharing verified information, promoting stories with thorough context, and maintaining a professional demeanor online.

It's also important to consider who benefits from the mistrust of journalists and newspapers in the United States. This widespread skepticism ultimately benefits politicians, who often exploit this mistrust to their advantage.

They can deflect criticism and manipulate public perception without facing the same level of accountability. And with a lack of local reporting and accountability, the amount of rhetoric many politicians can get away with is boundless.

This erosion of trust harms the public, undermining the essential role of a free press in a democratic society.

This also applies to the audience: it's not about getting the scoop first but getting the facts right. You can't go fast and produce the highest-quality work. True journalism takes time. True journalists aren't reactionary. You can't just pick up a camera and start filming; there needs to be a level of old-school education to understand the proper mentality and course laid down by people like Murrow and Cronkite.

Additionally, transparency is crucial. Be open about sources, methods, and potential conflicts of interest. Issue corrections and apologies when mistakes are made to build trust with the audience. Continuous learning and professional development should also be prioritized to stay updated on new journalism tools, techniques, and ethical standards.

Journalists should engage with their communities, understand their concerns, and create platforms for community feedback and dialogue. This builds stronger connections and leads to more relevant and impactful reporting. True journalism is a partnership between reporters and the public they serve.

Lastly, it's essential to hold all politicians accountable, regardless of personal political affiliations. Walter Cronkite and President Johnson had a significant professional relationship, and Cronkite even broke the news of Johnson's death. Despite their professional respect, Cronkite was notoriously tough on Johnson, especially regarding his critical coverage of the Vietnam War. Similarly, if you're a progressive Democrat, hold figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the same level of accountability as other politicians. Consistent accountability ensures credibility and trust in journalism.

Walter Cronkite (left) met every American president between Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush, with one of his most notable relationships, both friendly and somewhat adversarial coming with President Lyndon Johnson (right) (Photo courtesy of CBS News)

Reporters are not solely to blame for the larger systemic issues in journalism today. The current landscape lacks the formality and strictness of the past regarding sharing beliefs, but embracing honesty and reporting against one's own beliefs could lead to more nuanced journalism. This is evident in the treatment of journalists who speak out on contentious topics like Israel and Palestine. Expressing views on these issues can be particularly divisive, even within the left-wing echo chamber, leading to intense reactions and internal conflicts.

For society to change, journalism needs to change, too. It requires a marriage between the old and the new. A commitment is made to follow these new rules, and everyone, not just colleagues but the audience as well, is expected to hold this to account. This challenge is sent out to every one of my colleagues who see themselves as journalists.

While some may argue that journalists shouldn't apologize, the call for higher standards and a renewed commitment to integrity is critical. We can rebuild trust by acknowledging past failures and striving for greater accountability.

Everything must be done to make journalism trustworthy at a time when such trust is needed more than ever. I challenge colleagues who see themselves as journalists to do the same. Together, we can rebuild the integrity of our profession and restore the public's faith.

And that's the way it is.