POLL: NEWS MEDIA’S CREDIBILITY PLUNGES TO NEW LOW

COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 15 Sep 2009

Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press

The news media’s credibility is sagging along with its revenue.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the news stories they read, hear and watch are frequently inaccurate, according to a poll released Sunday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. That marks the highest level of skepticism recorded since 1985, when this study of public perceptions of the media was first done.

The poll didn’t distinguish between Internet bloggers and reporters employed by newspapers and broadcasters, leaving the definition of "news media" up to each individual who was questioned. The survey polled 1,506 adults on the phone in late July.

The survey found that 63 per cent of the respondents thought the information they get from the media was often off base. In Pew Research’s previous survey, in 2007, 53 per cent of the people expressed that doubt about accuracy.

The findings indicate U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could be alienating the audiences they are struggling to keep as they try to survive financial turmoil. Pew Research didn’t attempt to gauge how shrinking newspapers, reduced staffs and other cutbacks at news organizations are affecting people’s perceptions, although the reductions probably haven’t helped, said Michael Dimock, an associate director for the center.

The financial problems mainly stem from a steep decline in the ad sales that generate most of the media’s revenue. Newspapers’ print editions have been losing readers to the Internet, and broadcasters’ audiences are fragmenting in an age of cable TV and satellite radio.

Newspaper ad sales plunged by 29 per cent, or nearly $5.5 billion, during the first half of this year, according to the Newspaper Association of America. TV ad revenue on broadcast stations dropped by 12 per cent, or nearly $3 billion, during the same period, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. Radio advertising fell by 23 per cent, or $2.3 billion, according to the Radio Advertising Bureau.

The budget squeeze "means facts don’t get checked as carefully as they should," according to Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times.

But he still believes many media outlets still go to great lengths to get the facts right and own up to their mistakes when the information is wrong.

"The great flood that goes under the heading ‘news media’ has been poisoned by junk blogs, gossip sheets, shout radio and cable-TV partisans that don’t deserve to be trusted," Keller told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

The Internet also has made it easier to research information and find errors in news stories, said Kathleen Carroll, the AP’s executive editor. And the Web’s discussion boards and community forums spread word of mistakes when they’re found.

Carroll hopes the increased scrutiny and accountability fostered by the Internet will lead to better journalism.

"We’re in the early stages of a changing relationship between news organizations and consumers, who are becoming much more vocal about what they like, what they don’t and what they want to know," Carroll wrote in a statement. "It’s not always pretty or pleasant, but that engagement can and does help improve coverage."

The public’s trust in the news media began to deteriorate long before the industry’s finances began to droop and the Internet hatched more competition – as well as more gossip and speculation.

With few exceptions, the news media’s credibility has been eroding since 1985. Back then, 55 per cent of the respondents believed newspapers and broadcasters generally got things right.

By 1999, the figure had fallen to 37 per cent. The only time the Pew survey recorded a significant shift in the media’s favor was in November 2001, when 46 per cent said they believed news stories were accurate. Dimock attributes the anomaly to the sense of goodwill that permeated the United States after the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

The most recent poll found just 29 per cent believed news reports had the facts straight. (Eight per cent said they didn’t know.)

Similarly, only 26 per cent of the respondents said the press is careful to avoid bias. The figure was 36 per cent in 1985.

As has been the case for years, television remains the most popular news source. The poll found 71 per cent of people depend on TV for national and international news. Some 42 per cent said they relied on the Internet, 33 per cent turned to newspapers and 21 per cent tuned into the radio. (The figures don’t add to up 100 per cent because some people cited more than one medium.)

A decade ago, only 6 per cent of the survey participants said they leaned on the Web for their national and international news while 42 per cent relied on newspapers. (TV also led in 1999, at 82 per cent).

The poll didn’t try to determine whether the people who cited the Internet as their primary news source were reading Web sites run by newspapers and broadcasters.

Television also is the leading outlet for local news, with 64 per cent relying on that medium. Newspapers ranked as the second-most popular source for local news at 41 per cent, trailed by radio at 18 per cent and the Internet at 17 per cent. In this case as well, people could name more than one source.

Even as more people than ever don’t believe everything in the news, Pew found that the public still seems to value the media. When asked how they would feel about a news outlet closing, 82 per cent said it would be an important loss if there were no local TV news and 74 per cent said it would be a major blow to lose their local newspaper.

Keller suspects many people cherish the newspaper they read or TV news program that they watch.

"Just as polls routinely show that people hold Congress in low esteem but tend to like their own congressman, I think the public is suspicious of the media in general but tends to trust the particular news organization they turn to for news," Keller wrote.

GO TO ORIGINAL – CANOE MONEY

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.