As distrust in news media grows, can the fourth estate save itself?
The future is bleak, but there is hope.
Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/27796/americans-trust-in-the-media/
Monetizing anger, paranoia, and distrust was a great business model perfected by Fox News. Since then, MSNBC and CNN have joined in the game. And now, their cynicism is biting them in the @ss.
Distrust in news media has sunk to a new low. I have been tracking the decline in trust over the years, but it has just plummeted five percentage points since last year, according to a recent survey by Gallup.
Only 11% of U.S. survey respondents said they had a “great deal” or “quite a lot of” confidence in television news in June 2022, and 4% said that had no trust at all. Newspapers fared slightly better with 16% of people having confidence in it as a news source and 3% having no trust.
According to Gallup, most Americans would say news media fails to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.” Even worse, they believe that newspaper and TV reporters are not highly ethical.
Emotions = Profits
Taibbi called out this tactic in his book, Hate, Inc., which he based on his experience covering elections where the audience’s emotional response is the most profitable. In the book, Taibi talks (and warns) about political journalism's dirty tricks.
Many point to technology, mainly social media, being the problem. Empirical studies point to a small minority of Americans, driven by a mix of demand and algorithms, driving competing narratives that align with their political ideology.
However, purely focusing on technology dismisses television audiences that consume news in the background of their lives. A recent study estimated that only 17% of Americans consume partisan-leaning news through television (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) versus roughly 4% online. Not only are TV viewers more partisan, but they are also several times more likely to maintain their partisan news diets month-over-month compared to online news consumers.
The headline is that people who consume news online are less partisan. This suggests that television news—rather than social media distribution—is the top driver of partisan audience segregation among Americans.
Yes, mainstream television news is playing with its audience’s emotions. It is the business model, and it is working in the near term. This is how partisan news channels’ audiences are growing even as the TV news audience as a whole is shrinking.
Long-term, a larger percentage of a much smaller audience is a losing proposition. These same channels are trying to enter the digital world. And failing miserably…
Give the audience what it wants?
The economics for unbiased reporting can be seen from three perspectives: audience information demands, the cost structure of stories, and supply incentives.
For news media, there are four basic audience information demands:
Producer: What information is going to help me do my day job?
Consumer: How do I get this quick?
Entertainment audience member: Will I enjoy my time with this content?
Voter: How does this information help me make a better voting decision?
The first three markets are relatively efficient. If you don't seek out the information, you don't get the benefit.
Sadly, the voter’s demand is rarely met. One glaring problem is that there's this gap between what people need to know as citizens and what they want to know as audience members. And Anthony Downs called that gap rational ignorance in An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Even if you care deeply about a candidate —and if more information might help you make a better decision—the statistical probability that you are going to determine the election's outcome is miniscule. Hence, well-informed voters that delve into policy details rarely benefit more than the opportunity cost of their time combined with subscription costs.
The result: many voters rationally forego deep research.
That sets up a gap between what we need to know as citizens and what we want to know as audience members.
A small percentage of people feel they have a duty to become informed about politics. For them, the details of politics are interesting—and C-SPAN is as interesting as ESPN. However, this group is about 1% of the audience of the News Hour on PBS… Nothing to base a business on.
On the other hand, the majority do not focus on the details of politics. Instead, they follow politics through the lens of entertainment demand, which is where mainstream news outlets have focused their energies. Reporting on rollercoaster elections: you who's ahead, who’s behind, and why. Or updating their audience on the lastest scandal—or non-scandal—depending on the audience’s perceived political bias.
Original reporting is not profitable
Investigative reporting has a catch-22: It can greatly benefit society, but it is hard to produce. And it is even harder to monetize.
If a news outlet eventually uncovers a story that leads to changed laws or saved lives, it is hard to monetize the story because benefits of that story will spill over to people who were not watching it or were paying for it but not consuming it.
In his book Democracy's Detectives, James T. Hamilton analyzes such a story by the Raleigh The News & Observer in 2008.
In a series on the North Carolina probation system, The News & Observer found that 580 people had murdered someone while they were out on probation between 2000 and 2008. The paper devoted six months and $200,000 to create that statistic.
Before the story, no one knew this statistic. Nobody in the penal system, the court system, or the state government had an incentive to do the math for North Carolina residents. So, they avoided it.
In reaction to the story, people were fired and new people were hired from the probation system. The state legislature also appropriated more than $10 million a year in additional funding for probation. Most importantly, Hamilton estimates these changes resulted in eight fewer murders in the first year alone.
He further estimates that the community received about $72 million in benefits from the story based the Office of Management and Budget value of statistical life at $9.2 million. When you consider the additional $11 million in expenditures the state invested in the probation system, the Raleigh The News & Observer generated more than $60 million in policy benefits from that investigation.
It cost Raleigh The News & Observer about $200,000 to do so. But here is the catch-22: People did not personally recognize the benefits. As Hamiton put it:
Nobody rolled out of bed in the morning and said, "It's a great day not to be murdered by somebody else on probation because The News & Observer changed the probation system." And it costs $200,000. It's much cheaper, as we know, for somebody to repeat what somebody else has done in a story—or to make something up—than to spend $200,000 to establish the facts of what's really going on.
North Carolina residents received almost $300 in net policy benefits for every dollar the paper invested in that story. Unfortunately, this phenomenal return on investment goes unnoticed.
It’s competitive out there
At the same time, competition has increased for news outlets. Facebook and Google are now the main news distribution sources, capturing advertising dollars. Social sharing also gave smaller outlets more impressions than before. (Although, we may learn more about whether Google’s more recent algorithm tweaks did the opposite.)
This shift in news distribution did the following:
forced established players to innovate, pushing the news ecosystem to subscription business models with the non-profit incentives
established a digital presence with varying degrees of success
attracted smaller, more nimble news outlets to enter the market as barriers to entry decreased
As the market becomes more competitive, the line between opinion and fact-based reporting has blurred.
News outlets report stories based on their audience’s biases, massaging the facts to serve a narrative.
Reporters need access to knowledgeable sources to get breaking news. To earn and maintain access, relationships sometimes become a little too cozy. Reporters often treat powerful government and business leaders with kids’ gloves to maintain access.
Mistakes are often made to meet demanding internet-driven deadlines. Those mistakes are rarely corrected. Thus, reporters face much less reputational damage from making missteps.
As competition increases, reporters are thrown into a winner-takes-all system. To escape newsrooms that are becoming increasingly toxic, some reporters are striking out on their own.
And here we are… Trust in news media is at an all-time low. The fourth estate is crumbling.
Competition springs innovation
There is hope. Returning to the study on partisan news consumption, online news audiences are less partisan because they tend to seek out multiple points of view. Thus, online news consumers can quickly spot spin when they see it.
Seeking out new sources, these news consumers are more frequently turning to independent news sources. At the same time, reporters seeking to escape bias-following-yet-forming narratives are striking out on their own on YouTube, Substack, and Locals.
Here are some outlets to check out:
FITSNews.com is an independent covers politics and current events in South Carolina. Its reporting has been sourced by Politico, Sports Illustrated, and others. The Columbia Journalism Review has described it as "a must-read for Palmetto State politicos." In 2010, FITSNews was named to The Washington Post's list of the "best state political blogs" in the country.
The Murdaugh Murders Podcast is a real-time investigation into one of the most powerful (and connected) families in South Carolina. The podcast provides insight into struggles in our strained judicial system and suspicious deaths that are all interconnected.
Breaking Points is an independent newscast with both left and right-leaning hosts. Its website displays a George Orwell quote, “The Further Society Drifts From The Truth, The More It Will Hate Those That Speak It.”
The Problem with John Stewart is as informative as it is biting and humorous.
TK News is where Matt Taibbi reports on complex topics like finance, congressional procedure, and military contracting in clear, accessible language. His unique takes are refreshing and often go against the grain.
We are here to learn from each other. Please share your favorite independent news sources in the comments.