Throughout Donald Trump’s scattered Twitter presence is a constant thread of suspicion toward American news media.
“FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT.”
“FAKE NEWS media, which makes up stories and “sources,” is far more effective than the discredited Democrats – but they are fading fast”
“Sorry folks, but if I would have relied on the Fake NEWS of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, washpost or nytimes, I would have had ZERO chance of winning WH”
Growing skepticism of the media, exacerbated by Trump, has created new challenges within the media industry today. According to a 2022 Gallup study, only 7% of adults report a “great deal of trust” in their sources of media, such as newspapers, TV, and radio. Thirty-eight percent reported no trust at all, marking the second lowest degree of trust that Gallup has recorded.
In a period marked by political tumult and digital proliferation, it is no surprise that American news media has gone through a significant change. However, with the increasing fragmentation of media and the upcoming elections, it is now more crucial than ever to address the accusations of media bias and the impact that they have on journalistic integrity.
Left-Leaning or Politically Polarized?
Those mistrustful of mainstream news often claim that there is a liberal bias in the media. Their perception is further backed by the fact that left leaning Americans tend to identify themselves more with mainstream media than their right leaning counterparts. For example, according to a study done by Pew Research, it was found that consistent conservatives expressed greater distrust than trust in the 36 news sources surveyed while consistent liberals expressed greater trust than distrust in the same sources. In an interview with the HPR, Howard Kurtz, the host of Fox News’ Media Buzz, echoed this attitude, claiming, “The media is becoming too partisan, especially in the liberal direction.”
Alexander Burns, head of news at POLITICO, offered an alternative interpretation. “I don’t think that mainstream media monolithically leans to the left or leans to the Democratic party,” he told the HPR. Burns acknowledged that there has been a rise in traditional media outlets that were explicitly left, but added that there are also many outlets that are explicitly right, making the point that the media is becoming more polarized as a whole, but not shifting to only reflect a singular party’s perspectives.
Both interpretations are valid perspectives, but they fail to define one crucial variable: objectivity. It is difficult to argue that the news media is left or right leaning without first establishing a firm definition of what objective media coverage entails.
Matthew Baum, a professor of global communications and public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, emphasized this point, contending in an interview with the HPR that “you have to define some metric of objectivity before you can say ‘left’ or ‘right.’”
“We tend to define objective as what agrees with me more often than not, so it’s really hard to know [what objectivity is],” he said.
This elusiveness of objectivity as a term makes answering the question of whether or not there is media bias in either direction a complex task. Yet, despite this nuance, critics on both sides of the aisle are quick to jump to conclusions that the media is politically biased against their preferred parties.
This knee-jerk response to unfavorable coverage can be in part explained by a phenomenon called the hostile media effect. This occurs when individuals with strong opinions on an issue perceive balanced news coverage of that issue to be biased against their own side. While the presence of the hostile media effect does not invalidate legitimate criticism of current journalistic ethics and coverage formulas, it does provide a potential explanation for why members of both parties often appear aggrieved by the same coverage, as seen recently when both Trump and Biden allies publicly criticized CNNs moderation of the June presidential debate.
The Trump Effect
An additional factor influencing increasing media criticism is Donald Trump’s rhetoric.
The Independent reported that between 2016 and 2020, Trump said the phrase “Fake News” a total of 1906 times. His insistence that unfavorable news coverage of him is “fake news” has fed into the narrative that there are good and bad forms of media. This has led party members to villainize certain media companies.
When asked about how Trump’s critique of popular media sources, such as the Washington Post, and emphasis on “fake news” could have affected media polarization, Burns responded, “I think you’ve seen a number of outlets in recent years that historically would see themselves as neutral or objective position themselves more as anti-Trump.”
Although there are a relatively small number of outlets that are viewed as pro-Trump, such as Fox News and Newsmax, they have had a significant political and cultural change. Now, society has created the perception that media companies need to pick a side. Media companies are often categorized as either pro-Trump or anti-Trump; claiming to be neutral will may hurt audience retention and loyalty.
Therefore, it is incredibly difficult for media companies to ignore audience pressure to take a stance. Even if the information that is being reported is factual, they have to market themselves as pro or anti-Trump, which can undermine the standard of journalistic integrity opposition groups perceive them to have. Journalism and political biases have always been difficult to separate, but with Trump, it has become impossible to.
“The New York Times, or the Washington Post would not describe itself as an anti-Trump outlet,” Burns said. “But they have, you know, over the years, marketed themselves quite explicitly as outlets that sort of stand up to the bullying of the administration and often, that’s how they’re perceived by readers,” Burns said.
Kurtz, on the other hand, disagreed with the notion that Trump has led to American media polarization. “Sure, he spends an awful lot of time beating up on what equals fake news and singling out journalists he doesn’t like, but we’re not in business to be liked,” he argued. “Whether he attacks us or not, shouldn’t affect an effort to produce some minimal standard,” he said.
In addition to his direct criticisms of the mainstream media, Trump has posed numerous other difficulties for journalists with the number of falsehoods he’s broadcasted over the course of his career.
“We’ve never really had another politician like Donald Trump, and he’s been really difficult for journalists, especially mainstream journalists, who adhere to this sort of neutrality,” Baum said. It’s challenging to write coverage on a politician that “tells 20, 30,000 lies over the course of his administration,” he added.
Journalists have to wrestle with a question of ethics. Is it right to give a platform to blatant lies or is it necessary to cover the things said by a prominent politician? It’s difficult to find a balance between reporting what happened and not reporting information that is misleading.
Companies that choose to not report misleading information are typecast as liberal while those that do report Trump’s lies are viewed as conservative. But in reality, it is not a matter of the companies taking a political stance. It is about them being forced to make the choice of how to report things that are objectively a lie.
Today’s journalists have been thrust into a uniquely complex journalistic environment. They have to redefine what kind of coverage is appropriate to give to politicians like Trump while keeping in mind how their audience will react to what they publish in the politically polarized social climate.
This acts as further evidence that the issue in the media today does not lie in mainstream news sources attempting to only push liberal opinions onto consumers. Rather, it is in the struggle of adapting to an increasingly polarized audience landscape due to an incredibly polarizing presidential candidate
Fragmentation
If it remains on its current trajectory, American news media will only continue to be driven into greater disarray. Among other reasons, this is due to the fact that there are new sources of media that are not being held to a high level of objectivity or accuracy.
“I think it’s going to become more and more fragmented,” Burns shared. There is “not just left wing news or right wing news, but news on TikTok or news on X or this YouTuber or that YouTuber,” he added.
Although it is broadly acknowledged that social media is not always an accurate source of information, people are quick to believe what they see. A prominent example is Pizzagate, when thousands of Americans were convinced Democratic politicians were running a child trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza restaurant, despite the claims being baseless.
In addition, individuals are even more inclined to believe what’s written when it aligns with their personal beliefs. This is due to an inclination known as confirmation bias – the tendency of people to search for information that confirms their preexisting beliefs and values. The combination of declining quality and increasing partisanship in Americans’ news diets will only make Americans more polarized, and, as a result, more suspicious of balanced news sources, thus driving even worse coverage.
If American news consumers want reliable sources of media to be the norm, they will have to actively search to find trustworthy sources. They have to shift the mindset that they have. News should not be about proving one’s opinions, but about developing one’s opinions so they are more accurately based in reality.
As Kurtz says, “We’ll get the media that we deserve.”
Looking forward to the presidential election this upcoming November, reliable news, especially when covering politics, is at its utmost importance. This will only exacerbate the issue of media bias – whether it exists, in which sources it exists within, and what connotes as “fake news.”
Taking accountability of the role that we, as an audience, play in media coverage rather than discrediting sources that disagree with our perspective will be essential in us understanding the world for what it is. Not what we want it to be.
