How NPR lost the public's trust

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

From an NPR employee of twenty-five years plus.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust


It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding.

In recent years, however, that has changed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different: the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.

If you are conservative, you will read this and say, duh, it’s always been this way.

But it hasn’t.

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.

That wouldn’t be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience. But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it’s devastating both for its journalism and its business model.

He goes on to describe just how and why things went to had left at NPR. I know several posters here listen to NPR, they used to be on my daily read list, but dropped off sometime around 2016 as I already had several left to hard left news sites I read daily (Guardian, HuffPo, Politico). What I found most interesting his his repeating almost verbatim, my point about the media after Trump's election.

Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.

NPR is hardly alone in this, but it's nice to see it being actually acknowledged by those inside the system. The media made it personal, and in so doing became exactly what Trump had, previously incorrectly, described them as.

The article is an interesting read, I'd recommend reading the whole thing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Just to add, the article is hardly just about Trump, it covers the changes in coverage over the past eight plus years, including pretty much every topic you'd think it would. So please don't avoid it as being solely about Trump.

[Belsnickel]

I think one of the things that is important to understand in all of this is that NPR itself provides some of the big shows, but there are quite a few productions in the NPR network that are locally produced and funded that are not as impacted as much by this culture shift.

I personally stopped relying on NPR for my daily/weekly news coverage for the most part a few years back. With so many news podcasts available to me I still listened to "The Daily," but it is just one among roughly five or six that I listen to every day for my audio news fix. It is interesting to hear about the change in culture that it seems the new CEO has accelerated in the organization and it makes sense.

I will still enjoy the more in depth stories from things like Throughline and 1A, which I maintain do an outstanding job on covering topics important to us in the present day, but Reuters and the AP will still be my go-to news apps for US centric news reporting. This does highlight what I have maintained from the start, though, and that is that we must always use multiple sources for our news consumption because even the most neutral sources still have editorial biases.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 12:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think one of the things that is important to understand in all of this is that NPR itself provides some of the big shows, but there are quite a few productions in the NPR network that are locally produced and funded that are not as impacted as much by this culture shift.

I personally stopped relying on NPR for my daily/weekly news coverage for the most part a few years back. With so many news podcasts available to me I still listened to "The Daily," but it is just one among roughly five or six that I listen to every day for my audio news fix. It is interesting to hear about the change in culture that it seems the new CEO has accelerated in the organization and it makes sense.

I will still enjoy the more in depth stories from things like Throughline and 1A, which I maintain do an outstanding job on covering topics important to us in the present day, but Reuters and the AP will still be my go-to news apps for US centric news reporting. This does highlight what I have maintained from the start, though, and that is that we must always use multiple sources for our news consumption because even the most neutral sources still have editorial biases.

I knew you'd be the first, and possibly only, person to respond to this.  What concerns me about this story, and its confirmation of what many of us already knew is that I think the steady decay of journalistic standards is a far greater threat to our democracy than Trump, as it, if not fixed, will far outlive him.  As I've said previously, Trump initially had some points in regard to the media, but most of his claims were baseless and/or hyperbolic.  Now I fear the opposite is closer to the truth.  Maybe this gentleman having the courage to come forward is a sign that this is changing, but journalism as an ethical profession has really taken a beating and public trust of it is probably at record lows.  Without a fourth estate grounded in principles of accuracy, fairness and, at least some degree of impartiality I fear that the opportunities for misinformation to become the norm will grow exponentially.

I would think those constantly beating the drum of Russian propaganda would be in full agreement here.  Maybe the threat is too subtle for many to see it?

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2024, 05:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I knew you'd be the first, and possibly only, person to respond to this.  What concerns me about this story, and its confirmation of what many of us already knew is that I think the steady decay of journalistic standards is a far greater threat to our democracy than Trump, as it, if not fixed, will far outlive him.  As I've said previously, Trump initially had some points in regard to the media, but most of his claims were baseless and/or hyperbolic.  Now I fear the opposite is closer to the truth.  Maybe this gentleman having the courage to come forward is a sign that this is changing, but journalism as an ethical profession has really taken a beating and public trust of it is probably at record lows.  Without a fourth estate grounded in principles of accuracy, fairness and, at least some degree of impartiality I fear that the opportunities for misinformation to become the norm will grow exponentially.

I would think those constantly beating the drum of Russian propaganda would be in full agreement here.  Maybe the threat is too subtle for many to see it?

I forget which podcast I was listening to, but it was a very interesting self-reflection in journalism during and post-Trump. It may have been on an episode of the aforementioned 1A. They talked about one of the problems being not knowing how to cover Trump and being dismissive of him prior to his election. Then his attacks resulted in almost a vengeful position from the media in response and becoming very aggressive. This resulted in handling him with a little more kid gloves in some instances and swinging things too far in the other direction in some instances. Part of the issue is that any attempt to fact check him has been seen as an attack by him and his followers, leading to the confusion.

In addition to all of this you have the changing media landscape where the marketplace of ideas is flooded with information of all sorts and this makes more traditional media sources have far less of the market share than they once did. We don't have to rely on the airwaves or the newsstand for our information, it's all out there on the various sites. This changes the business model for these companies, including the non-profit ones. They are in a constant struggle for eyeballs and clicks that their old models weren't going to gain them. NPR's stereotypical programming isn't going to attract most Millennials and younger. The Associated Press doesn't present information in a way that stands out. Investigative reporting from anyone is just going to hold the attention of most people. As a result, these things we have relied on for so long are losing traction and when they try to modernize to compete they lose credibility with the masses.

Plus, as much as people like to claim they want unbiased news sources, the majority don't understand biases in media coverage and they often continue to rely on sources with those slants that they align with. If they do look at media they disagree with to claim they do, they essentially hate read it.

I have no idea how to fix it.

[HarleyDog]

Not going to add much to what's already been said, But I believe the competition for clicks has destroyed the media. It has gotten so bad, that many articles don't offer public response any longer. To me, that's a sure-fire sign the article was written to infuriate people and keep creating a divide, because its good business for media. Several times when I read an article, I have to research the author to find out how they lean. Usually, my instincts are correct when an article leans a certain way. Some news outlets are obvious and need no research at all. I mostly avoid those media sites.

[Luvnit2]

(04-09-2024, 08:43 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not going to add much to what's already been said, But I believe the competition for clicks has destroyed the media. It has gotten so bad, that many articles don't offer public response any longer. To me, that's a sure-fire sign the article was written to infuriate people and keep creating a divide, because its good business for media. Several times when I read an article, I have to research the author to find out how they lean. Usually, my instincts are correct when an article leans a certain way. Some news outlets are obvious and need no research at all. I mostly avoid those media sites.

Fox is one of the few and maybe only to allow public response on almost everything written.

The others like CNN uses to offer responses, but stopped because they were being called out all the time for poor journalism. 

[Luvnit2]

(04-09-2024, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: From an NPR employee of twenty-five years plus.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust


It’s true NPR has always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open-minded, curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, but not knee-jerk, activist, or scolding.

In recent years, however, that has changed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different: the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.

If you are conservative, you will read this and say, duh, it’s always been this way.

But it hasn’t.

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.

That wouldn’t be a problem for an openly polemical news outlet serving a niche audience. But for NPR, which purports to consider all things, it’s devastating both for its journalism and its business model.

He goes on to describe just how and why things went to had left at NPR.  I know several posters here listen to NPR, they used to be on my daily read list, but dropped off sometime around 2016 as I already had several left to hard left news sites I read daily (Guardian, HuffPo, Politico).  What I found most interesting his his repeating almost verbatim, my point about the media after Trump's election.

Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.

NPR is hardly alone in this, but it's nice to see it being actually acknowledged by those inside the system.  The media made it personal, and in so doing became exactly what Trump had, previously incorrectly, described them as.

The article is an interesting read, I'd recommend reading the whole thing.

I used to be a huge CNN fan, then I slowly watched them go extreme left. NPR, Politico and others also went far left. I thought I read somewhere there are only 22% conservative journalists in the US. I understand liberals love the lack of balance, but is it really good for our country? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I forget which podcast I was listening to, but it was a very interesting self-reflection in journalism during and post-Trump. It may have been on an episode of the aforementioned 1A. They talked about one of the problems being not knowing how to cover Trump and being dismissive of him prior to his election. Then his attacks resulted in almost a vengeful position from the media in response and becoming very aggressive. This resulted in handling him with a little more kid gloves in some instances and swinging things too far in the other direction in some instances. Part of the issue is that any attempt to fact check him has been seen as an attack by him and his followers, leading to the confusion.

A lot of accurate points here.  I've said before, if I gave Trump more credit I'd almost admire the win/win situation he set himself up with.  The media can't attack him without looking biased and they can't ignore him because he puts them front and center with constant attacks.  The only real opportunity the press had was in the beginning of his presidency.  If they had covered him as any other POTUS they may have won out.  But I suppose the temptation to fight back was too strong.  I can empathize, the desire to strike back against those who take a giant shit on your profession is strong.

Quote:In addition to all of this you have the changing media landscape where the marketplace of ideas is flooded with information of all sorts and this makes more traditional media sources have far less of the market share than they once did. We don't have to rely on the airwaves or the newsstand for our information, it's all out there on the various sites. This changes the business model for these companies, including the non-profit ones. They are in a constant struggle for eyeballs and clicks that their old models weren't going to gain them. NPR's stereotypical programming isn't going to attract most Millennials and younger. The Associated Press doesn't present information in a way that stands out. Investigative reporting from anyone is just going to hold the attention of most people. As a result, these things we have relied on for so long are losing traction and when they try to modernize to compete they lose credibility with the masses.

Indeed, a second industrial revolution as it where.  It is as liberating as it is terrifying.  On one hand the near limitless streams of information ensure more voices are heard.  On the other the more voices means the more likely deliberately false ones get into the mix.  And you are correct, the legacy media's response has been less than ideal.

Quote:Plus, as much as people like to claim they want unbiased news sources, the majority don't understand biases in media coverage and they often continue to rely on sources with those slants that they align with. If they do look at media they disagree with to claim they do, they essentially hate read it.

Again, can't disagree.  I literally force myself to read sites I know will annoy me, both left and right.  They definitely take turns triggering my gag reflex.  

Quote:I have no idea how to fix it.

I can literally hear the despair in your "voice" here.  I get where you're coming from.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2024, 08:43 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not going to add much to what's already been said, But I believe the competition for clicks has destroyed the media. It has gotten so bad, that many articles don't offer public response any longer. To me, that's a sure-fire sign the article was written to infuriate people and keep creating a divide, because its good business for media. Several times when I read an article, I have to research the author to find out how they lean. Usually, my instincts are correct when an article leans a certain way. Some news outlets are obvious and need no research at all. I mostly avoid those media sites.

Absolutely, although the dearth of comment section is hardly surprising.  They have to be heavily moderated and generate tons of complaints.  Where I completely agree is with sites that generally allow comments, but restrict them for certain topics they know aren't likely to skew the ideological way of the site.  HuffPo is a great example.  They tend to not allow comments on topics like transgenderism or other left leaning positions that are on the more controverisal side.  In that regard you are correct.

(04-09-2024, 10:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I used to be a huge CNN fan, then I slowly watched them go extreme left. NPR, Politico and others also went far left. I thought I read somewhere there are only 22% conservative journalists in the US. I understand liberals love the lack of balance, but is it really good for our country? 

CNN used to be the only option.  I don't think they really skewed left until Trump, and I think he almost forced that on them.  He attacked them so vehemently it, again, became personal and the professional detachment needed for honest journalism was eroded.  It used to be that journalists leaned left and the editorial staff leaned right.  That is certainly no longer the case, as the article in OP demonstrates.  I believe that used to work out well for the most part, a nice yin yang relationship.  For whatever reason that's no longer the case, and the profession is certainly suffering for it.

[Luvnit2]

(04-09-2024, 11:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, although the dearth of comment section is hardly surprising.  They have to be heavily moderated and generate tons of complaints.  Where I completely agree is with sites that generally allow comments, but restrict them for certain topics they know aren't likely to skew the ideological way of the site.  HuffPo is a great example.  They tend to not allow comments on topics like transgenderism or other left leaning positions that are on the more controverisal side.  In that regard you are correct.


CNN used to be the only option.  I don't think they really skewed left until Trump, and I think he almost forced that on them.  He attacked them so vehemently it, again, became personal and the professional detachment needed for honest journalism was eroded.  It used to be that journalists leaned left and the editorial staff leaned right.  That is certainly no longer the case, as the article in OP demonstrates.  I believe that used to work out well for the most part, a nice yin yang relationship.  For whatever reason that's no longer the case, and the profession is certainly suffering for it.

NPR editor found registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 87 to zero in newsroom | Fox News

This is a government funded news source that is 100% left leaning. All funding should be removed.

NPR editor found registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 87 to zero in newsroom

Editor Uri Berliner 'eagerly' voted against Trump, but criticized NPR's lack of viewpoint diversity

[SunsetBengal]

Interesting perspective from another former member of NPR's staff on Berliner's assessment of their political bias.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/juan-williams-responds-to-editor-s-charges-of-npr-bias-insulated-cadre-of-people-who-think-they-re-right/ar-BB1lmpON?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=f19295332c734efbbbba0a3d33e5ac63&ei=1163

Quote:Fox News senior political analyst Juan Williams, whose 2010 firing from his longtime perch at NPR came following analysis he offered on Fox News, responded Tuesday to allegations by an editor for the public radio broadcaster detailing rampant bias and absence of registered Republicans in its newsroom.

Veteran NPR editor Uri Berliner gave a lengthy rebuke of his employers' media coverage of major news stories over the last few years in an essay Tuesday for the Free Press. He blew the whistle on the outlet's coverage and cataloged voter registration records, which he said depicted an 87–0 Democratic bent in its newsroom. Berliner alleged there is an absence of "viewpoint diversity" and avoidance of terms such as "biological sex" in the NPR newsroom.
Williams suggested he was not surprised at Berliner's comments that an "an open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR... [that is] devastating both for its journalism and its business model."

On "The Ingraham Angle," Williams recounted the aftermath of his firing over a decade ago after an appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" in which he expressed apprehension about witnessing Muslim garb in airports after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

NPR EDITOR FOUND REGISTERED DEMOCRATS OUTNUMBERED REPUBLICANS 87–0 IN NEWSROOM

"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," he said at the time.

Williams noted Tuesday that that was enough for NPR to cut ties with their longtime, left-leaning analyst, as he quipped to host Laura Ingraham.

"I don't think I'm any wild-eyed conservative, but they thought I was too conservative a Black guy for their kind of company," he said.

"Not only did they fire me — they called me a psycho. I mean, they said horrible things about me quite publicly. So, no, it doesn't surprise me what [Berliner] had to say."

Williams noted his controversy happened long before former President Trump appeared on the political scene in 2015 and threw the media into fits that continue today.

"So they are a very much an insulated cadre of people who think they're right, and they have a hard time with people who are different," he said.

Williams noted that, after he made the comment about becoming nervous in the airport, he defended the right of Muslims to build property near Ground Zero — as Sufi Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had caused a firestorm at the time over his planned Park51 development a stone's throw from the former World Trade Center.

During his appearance on "Factor," he also noted that Christians in turn should not be blamed for terrorism committed by people like Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

"[Y]et they threw me out the door, so this doesn't surprise me at all," Williams told host Laura Ingraham.

"I think what you're seeing now, especially after Trump, is that we live in a very polarized media landscape, and they have established a beachhead on the far-left."

Williams said Berliner correctly cited NPR's audience is disproportionately further to the left than ever and that "you see fewer conservatives tuning in."

At the time of Williams' NPR firing, then-NPR CEO Vivian Schiller said in an email to member stations that news analysts may not "take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that's what's happened in this situation."

On Tuesday, Ingraham pointed to a posting from Heritage Foundation national security fellow Mike Gonzalez from Jan. 29, which called for the government to halt taxpayer funding to "biased [and] woke public broadcasting."

When reached for comment on Berliner's allegations, an NPR spokesperson directed Fox News Digital to a memo to staff by editor-in-chief Edith Chapin, where she said she and her team "strongly disagree" with Berliner's assessment of the quality of NPR's journalism and integrity.

"We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories. We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world," she wrote.

"Journalism is a collaborative process. Rigorous debate and self-examination are necessary parts of our pursuit of the facts, and exploring the diverse perspectives that drive world events is necessary to our public service mission. That’s why we have built in processes to verify accuracy and why we adhere to the highest editorial standards… "

"With all this said, none of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole, fostering a culture of conversation that breaks down the silos that we sometimes end up retreating to. Ideally, we engage in this debate respectfully, with the goal of lifting up and strengthening each other’s work. As our emerging strategic focus brings new insights into what audiences we do and do not currently serve, we have an obligation to more rigorously consider and measure how our coverage fulfills our public service to all audiences."

"Let’s not forget that the reason we remain one of the most trusted news organizations in the country is that we respect people’s ability to form their own judgments," Chapin added.

Fox News Digital's David Rutz contributed to this report

[HarleyDog]

(04-10-2024, 10:50 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting perspective from another former member of NPR's staff on Berliner's assessment of their political bias.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/juan-williams-responds-to-editor-s-charges-of-npr-bias-insulated-cadre-of-people-who-think-they-re-right/ar-BB1lmpON?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=f19295332c734efbbbba0a3d33e5ac63&ei=1163

NPR won't lose any funding under the current administration. Although, I think all news organizations that receive any government funding should be held to a higher standard. Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc do not receive government funding and are corporation-owned. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-10-2024, 01:46 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: NPR won't lose any funding under the current administration. Although, I think all news organizations that receive any government funding should be held to a higher standard. Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc do not receive government funding and are corporation-owned. 

They shouldn't have their funding cut, they serve a very important role.  What should happen is a radical shift away from partisanship and a return to what they used to be.  As they are government funded they can be largely immune to the need to pander to ideologues or engage in click bait.  While I agree with Bel about the differences in how newer generations consume news I do think as they get older they're going to want an unbiased source for real news.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but being government funded gives them the opportunity to set themselves apart from the for profit media in a way that could absolutely return to being in demand.

[masonbengals fan]

They should absolutely be held to a higher standard when our tax dollars are involved.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2024, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They shouldn't have their funding cut, they serve a very important role.  What should happen is a radical shift away from partisanship and a return to what they used to be.  As they are government funded they can be largely immune to the need to pander to ideologues or engage in click bait.  While I agree with Bel about the differences in how newer generations consume news I do think as they get older they're going to want an unbiased source for real news.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but being government funded gives them the opportunity to set themselves apart from the for profit media in a way that could absolutely return to being in demand.

I actually don't want news media being publicly funded. I think things in public media like Science Friday, Radio Lab, Freakonomics, or This American Life when it comes to radio are great. I love Nova and Nature as well as just about everything Ken Burns does and have zero problems with funding going towards those sorts of projects because they have cultural value and importance. However, news media should be antagonistic towards our government and I have a problem with state funding being used for it for that reason. Now, I hate corporate media with a fiery passion as well, which is why I support independent, nonprofit journalism.

[Dill]

(04-10-2024, 05:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually don't want news media being publicly funded. I think things in public media like Science Friday, Radio Lab, Freakonomics, or This American Life when it comes to radio are great. I love Nova and Nature as well as just about everything Ken Burns does and have zero problems with funding going towards those sorts of projects because they have cultural value and importance. However, news media should be antagonistic towards our government and I have a problem with state funding being used for it for that reason. Now, I hate corporate media with a fiery passion as well, which is why I support independent, nonprofit journalism.

You don't see a value in in having news media funded from differing sources?

[Belsnickel]

(04-10-2024, 07:14 PM)Dill Wrote: You don't see a value in in having news media funded from differing sources?

I like donor funded news media, but I don't like it being state funded. State media is something that I find concerning from a democratic standpoint.

[Dill]

(04-09-2024, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I forget which podcast I was listening to, but it was a very interesting self-reflection in journalism during and post-Trump. It may have been on an episode of the aforementioned 1A. They talked about one of the problems being not knowing how to cover Trump and being dismissive of him prior to his election. Then his attacks resulted in almost a vengeful position from the media in response and becoming very aggressive. This resulted in handling him with a little more kid gloves in some instances and swinging things too far in the other direction in some instances. Part of the issue is that any attempt to fact check him has been seen as an attack by him and his followers, leading to the confusion.

Certainly Trump posed problems never seen before.  Since the advent of radio and television, I doubt there is a political candidate anywhere who could have survived the Hollywood access tape; but Trump did, and went on to do much worse; now polls show enough people may want the chaos back to actually re-elect him.

So there is a more fundamental problem here than whether MSM coverage went too far or lost some "balance."  The response to fact-checking Trump which you mention indicates it. A mass audience was already groomed to regard accurate reporting itself as evidence of "bias"; Trump's instincts led him to capitalize on that, attacking the MSM as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people." 

I.e., Journalists doing what journalism SHOULD do became a primary reason for attacking journalism. 

While considering changes in journalism, people might also want to consider the great change in news consumers as well.

(04-09-2024, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In addition to all of this you have the changing media landscape where the marketplace of ideas is flooded with information of all sorts and this makes more traditional media sources have far less of the market share than they once did. We don't have to rely on the airwaves or the newsstand for our information, it's all out there on the various sites. This changes the business model for these companies, including the non-profit ones. They are in a constant struggle for eyeballs and clicks that their old models weren't going to gain them. NPR's stereotypical programming isn't going to attract most Millennials and younger. The Associated Press doesn't present information in a way that stands out. Investigative reporting from anyone is just going to hold the attention of most people. As a result, these things we have relied on for so long are losing traction and when they try to modernize to compete they lose credibility with the masses.

First and second bolded are the ground of the problem, plus what you've bolded in the quote below. When you start with the vast changes in technology and law which occurred in the '80s and '90s, you are less likely to mistake effects for causes.
 
Now multiple competing news sources can have all the trimmings of authority--fancy news room and streaming banners and well-groomed professional faces. And we no longer (if we ever did) have mass audiences which can discriminate well between them, in terms of quality vetting and investigation. When news is commodified, and this kind of news "market" appears, then Fox-style balance--"You decide, then we report"--is going to increase that sort of news consumer to critical, election-deciding mass.

(04-09-2024, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Plus, as much as people like to claim they want unbiased news sources, the majority don't understand biases in media coverage and they often continue to rely on sources with those slants that they align with. If they do look at media they disagree with to claim they do, they essentially hate read it.

Boy howdy.  This is closer to the immediate driver.  I'd add that nowadays many news consumers start and end with fuzzy labels like "Left" and "right," finding something they call "bias" everywhere, retreating to authorities they can "trust," like Trump and Hannity. Trump is himself a master of this approach, as he has become THE alternate source of authoritative news for 10s of millions of Americans. (But as I intimate above, he cannot be the "cause" of that, just the beneficiary.)

So you've got people who have not thought very much about what "bias" is while finding it everywhere, or what an "unbiased" alternative to "liberal media" would look like. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-10-2024, 07:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I like donor funded news media, but I don't like it being state funded. State media is something that I find concerning from a democratic standpoint.

The coverage of the trucker protests by the CBC would be a prime example of this.  The CBC was not a news organization during that event, it was a mouthpiece for the government's positions and talking points.  People noticed this.   The BBC has it's issues as well, but I wouldn't call them a mouthpiece for the government, certainly not the Torries.