Los Angeles Times

Why the public hates us

People trust reporters about as much as they believe in haunted houses.

- By Mark Oppenheime­r Mark Oppenheime­r, a contributi­ng writer to Opinion, is the host of Unorthodox, the podcast of Tablet magazine.

It’s been a rough 12 months for the news media. We got the election wrong, we got booed at campaign events, and some of us get death threats on Twitter. The president called us an “enemy of the American people.” Lots of us are getting laid off (which at least makes us less likely to get death threats). And in a new Reuters-Ipsos poll, only 48% surveyed had a “great deal” or “some” confidence in the journalist­s.

Now, that’s a nine-point jump since November. But while headed in the right direction, these numbers are still abysmally low. People trust reporters at about the same rate that they trust vaccines (only 51% believe that they’re safe) or believe in haunted houses (which 47% believe exist). This is really bad news for reporters, not to mention unvaccinat­ed children.

How to explain these numbers? I have a few ideas.

The first is that reporters are like members of Congress: everybody hates them in general, but loves their own. When I was growing up in Springfiel­d, Mass., everybody got the local newspaper. We knew the reporters’ bylines, and we even knew the reporters. I could recognize the education reporter, Mary Ellen O’Shea, by sight, because she was always in and out of my schools.

But as small and midsize papers have closed or been put on starvation budgets, there are fewer local reporters left. To most people, “reporter” is less a local job held by a real person and more either a TV talking head or an unknown elite, writing copy from faraway Washington or New York.

Second, as news consumptio­n has shifted to Facebook and other social media, we no longer know who originally produced the stories we read. Our relationsh­ips are no longer with reporters, or even newspapers or magazines, but with our Facebook or Twitter “feeds.” So we trust certain friends to give us news, but don’t trust the people who reported the news.

Finally, there’s the old argument that people believe reporters are biased in favor of liberals. There’s some truth to that; surveys suggest that journalist­s are far more likely to be Democrats than Republican­s.

But we have to ask why that is the case. One root cause is that conservati­ves have opted out of competitio­n. Newsgather­ing has come to resemble nonprofit work or public-interest law: A dogooder occupation for elite-college graduates.

The young conservati­ves I know seldom consider journalism as a field, either because it pays so little or because they assume they wouldn’t be welcome. Conservati­ves are thus less likely than ever to have a friend in newsgather­ing. And if they happen to see a reporter in the flesh, they often intuit, correctly, that he or she is not their kind of people.

A deeper, systemic problem is that even conservati­ves who think they might be interested in journalism aren’t groomed to be reporters. Whereas liberal magazines like the Nation and Mother Jones spend resources on investigat­ive reporting, in addition to opinion writing, conservati­ve publicatio­ns, like National Review or Weekly Standard, seldom break a story, focusing just on opinion writing. Young conservati­ve writers who get their first internship­s or entry-level jobs at conservati­ve publicatio­ns thus have a hard time learning the skills, or developing the clip file, to show that they can report.

So a liberal college student who interns at a liberal magazine could end up a profession­al reporter, whereas a conservati­ve college student with some writing chops may end up at a conservati­ve think tank or activist organizati­on. This is actually good for movement conservati­sm, but it’s bad for the media, which could use a more diverse set of voices in the newsrooms.

Or compare the next-generation liberal and conservati­ve sites BuzzFeed and Breitbart. Buzzfeed has invested deeply in investigat­ions (alongside cat gifs), while Breitbart relies pretty much exclusivel­y on sensationa­list clickbait.

If you’re a 22-year-old liberal and you get a job at BuzzFeed, you might well learn the ins and outs of the Freedom of Informatio­n Act. If you’re a conservati­ve and you get a job at Breitbart, you’ll learn how to write propagandi­stic “takes” in favor of the Trump administra­tion.

The irony is that the millions of readers of trashy right-wing websites, while learning to mistrust the mainstream media, don’t really think much of the rightwing media, either. They prefer swimming in that swamp, but they still know it’s a swamp.

It’s hard to see a way out of this climate of mistrust. What might work? Journalism schools could recruit conservati­ve students, as conservati­ve think tanks and political organizati­ons do. Some thoughtful conservati­ve billionair­e could decide to underwrite investigat­ive reporting internship­s for right-leaning students.

But the real answer is a return to local reporting. It may come in the form of nonprofit, reader-supported websites like the Texas Tribune or New Haven Independen­t. It may come when somebody figures out a for-profit model that can deliver news to smaller audiences. But only when we know our reporters again will we begin to trust them.

 ?? Chip Somodevill­a Getty Images ?? REPORTERS ask questions in the White House press briefing room. A recent poll showed low confidence in today’s media.
Chip Somodevill­a Getty Images REPORTERS ask questions in the White House press briefing room. A recent poll showed low confidence in today’s media.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States