The MSM is failing, business is down, layoffs are systemic.

@dancingtongue I'm not sure I would use the term "stealing" but yes, this is a problem for print media in the current economy.


So I'd like to just reiterate my main point on this, and that is, this is just desserts. There is absolutely an audience for journalism and again, if you go to Substack or Rumble you can see that. The MSM has lied repeatedly for YEARS about Trump, Covid 19, the mRNA vaccines, Ukraine, and the border.

They have absolutely no trust or authority outside of the bubble they write for.

Check this stat: Over 50% of Americans have little or NO trust in our media.

https://fortune.com/2023/02/15/trust-in-media-low-misinform-mislead-biased-republicans-democrats-poll-gallup/

This is absolutely a self inflicted problem for these media companies and I find it notable they don't take responsibility for their own failures.

@SumKindaMunster
And Substack and Rumble don't preach to the choir in their own bubble?


Which is still higher that most institutions, politicians, the government, and polls themselves.

@dancingtongue
No, its like a market place and you pick and choose what you want to read and follow. Could some people create a bubble of confirmation bias using these mediums? Sure. But they are absolutely not homogeneous and a promoter of narratives like the MSM.


Maybe. You got a stat backing up that claim? I believe the trust factor with the media is much more significant. News and journalism is something you seek out, if you don't trust it, there is no need for it. We may trust the government less, but we are stuck with them if we want to get things done.

Nobody has to patronize something they disagree with, or doesn't represent what they want to read and hear about.

@SumKindaMunster [quoteNo, its like a market place and you pick and choose what you want to read and follow.][/quote]

Likewise with what you label MSM. What has changed is that the number of options remaining has shrunk dramatically because of the economic impact of broadcast media and social media. Urban areas used to have a multitude of print media competing with one another, all with different editorial bias but most adhering to objective journalism standards. You could pretty much triangulate the truth by reading multiple papers. I used to read 5 on a regular, daily basis; granted, part of it was work related. Cities that used to have 9 now are lucky to have one, and the entire paper has little more pages than just a section used to have. The economics I discussed had far more to do with that than any trust.


Google trust polls and you will find wildly disparate results all over the place. Cherry pick at will.


Well, good luck finding news or journalism anywhere these days. The profession I was trained in has disappeared in the rush to be the first or the trendiest.

And you don't have to be stuck with any of the politicians in the government if you vote and participate. One telling poll shows that local governments actually have one of the highest trust ratings of any institution, and that trust among government institutions drops rapidly the higher you go up the feeding chain. Because the big anonymous PAC money kicks in the higher up you go in the food chain and people are less engaged, feel more disenfranchised, imho.


Talk about your bubble. Everyone should be reading opposing viewpoints to check out their perspectives and facts.

@dancingtongue
You're in denial and talking about the past. I'm referring to the collapse of the MSM news industry right now. This is more than just a few newspapers. The digital versions are experiencing layoffs. Sports Illustrated, Buzz Feed, and National Geographic are not newspapers and they are collapsing as well, in fact I believe Buzz Feed is now gone.


Uh huh. You made the claim, its your responsibility to back it up. I'm assuming you can't based on the cheeky response.


I did! On Substack and Locals. Following multiple journalists including Matt Taibbi, Glen Greenwald, Barry Weis and others. I mentioned this in my original post, I guess you missed that.


Local governments sure. Federal level? You still want to make that claim? Considering the 2 poor choices we get every 4 years?


Not sure why the hostility. You responded to my post and I am responding relevantly to your points. If you don't want to continue the discussion, you are free to move on.

@SumKindaMunster

https://thehill.com/homenews/4083482-gallup-poll-american-confidence-major-institutions/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/polling-public-opinion-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
https://ourworldindata.org/trust

@dancingtongue So, first link. It details the level of trust in multiple American institutions.

18% Trust newspapers
14% Trust Television news

The trust level for these institutions was only greater than Congress in the article you posted. The media was trusted less than the Police, Small Business, Religion, the Medical system, and the Supreme Court. All of these institutions were all trusted more than newspapers and tv.

The second link is an editorial about the importance of polling and public opinion, it does not contain any info backing up your claims.

Finally the 3rd link is reproduced below. As you can see, the news is near the bottom when it comes to trust.


Perhaps you'd like to walk back your comments about the press and media being trusted more than other American institutions?

@SumKindaMunster Does MSM include Fox News?

@LeopoldBloom Ugh, yes. 🙄

@SumKindaMunster You have left out the references to politicians, social media (which I believe would include your online sites), national and state governments. . . .cherry pick all you want. I never extolled their high ratings; simply said they weren't at the bottom; that there were all sorts of polls, even polls questioning polls; and lamented repeatedly how they had diminished.

@dancingtongue I didn't cherry pick anything dude, these were your links. You left out references to social media etc.

And again both relevant charts show news media at the bottom of trust rankings with only Congress getting lower trust ratings.

@SumKindaMunster This closer to what you want?

@dancingtongue Yes thank you. Can't see below lawyers. But I see senators and business execs. No social media.

@SumKindaMunster Below lawyers were Stockbrokers, Advertising, Insurance, HMO managers, and Car Salesmen. I don't think they broke journalists out by print/broadcast/online. But I also see that that particular graphic goes back to Gallup's 2003 poll, so is dated. But we are spinning our wheels on this merry-go-round, because there are lots of polls out there with conflicting data and rankings. None of which really gets to the real point of disagreements we have, imho. You attribute the plummeting trust in news media to it being biased; I believe it has more to do with what the economics of first broadcast media and then social media has done to eradicating true journalism. We seem to agree, the state of journalism has gone down the tubes. We just disagree on the primary cause(s). And, it would seem, whether should only seek news media that confirms one's biases or seek media that presents multiple viewpoints to check our biases.

@dancingtongue HMO managers? Yeah that sounds a little dated.


Yes, and I would say another distinction is I am looking at the current state of journalism right now in 2024 and you seem to be taking a longer view over its decline. But to be clear, I don't disagree with your point, its been a long time coming, and absolutely the things you mentioned contributed to its decline. I just find the recent downturn to be more about poor journalism, as opposed to economic trends that are also contributing to the decline of journalism.


I'd like to believe I do this, however, we all have blind spots that need to be checked. I make a point about challenging people and ideas that I don't agree with to see if they can convince me or if I can successfully and relevantly rebut.

Thank you for your persistence in showing your data and making your point clear without resorting to insults or logical fallacies. I appreciated the discussion.

@SumKindaMunster It's misleading to poll people on trust in the media in general. I would expect that most people trust the specific media they personally follow. A OANN viewer might say he doesn't trust the media, but ask him if he trusts OANN and I'm sure he'll say he trusts them implicitly.

@SumKindaMunster


The term may be out of use, but all the rants about insurance company networks are the same.


My longer view is a product of my experience. I came out of college and the Army ready to pursue my profession in journalism -- and it was truly a profession then -- only to find where there had been 9 daily newspapers there were now 3. Largely because broadcast media had eaten into the market so much it could no longer support that many print outlets. Three dailies and 100s of veteran reporters searching for jobs, so I did what I said I would never do and went into PR -- but for a non-profit health care provider.

My best example of how much the news media changed during my 40 years of dealing with it: in the early 70's we were hit with a major strike. I was dealing with the labor reporters on the status of negotiations, the major issues. Most of the print ones were dedicated solely to labor, were knowledgeable in labor relations laws and the dance that negotiations are, had contacts in both labor and management in various industries. We were also dealing with specialized health care writers devoted solely to that field and therefore knowledgeable as well. I got a call from one of the health care writers asking how many patients we were continuing to see, since part of our message was we were still open and providing care. I had anticipated the question, had had staff feeding me stats on a daily basis, and I told him. His response was, "yeah. I've been sitting here in one of your waiting rooms for the past hour and those figures jibe with my count." Flash forward a decade. Another major strike. The reporters are all general assignment reporters, and not necessarily even in the same ones from day to day. Their knowledge of either labor-management negotiations or health care is zilch -- they are learning on the fly; have no experience; no real contacts to provide context. All part of the continuing shrinkage of staffing due to shrinking revenues. The union threw up a major picket line in front of our administrative offices, which spilled into the streets, blocking traffic. The next day the major regional daily newspaper ran a story about how we had pressured the police to send a SWAT team to break up the picket line. The local daily newspaper ran a more accurate story about how the police had cleared the street and forced the pickets to stay on the sidewalk. Neither had contacted me. The first reporter had bought the union's version hook, line & sinker with no effort to contact us or the police. Doesn't meet basic objective journalism standards. I called the second reporter and thanked him for the more objective report. He said "hell, I could see what was going on from my office window. She (the other reporter) must have confused the couple of motorcycle cops in their leathers and helmets for SWAT". She admitted she hadn't seen a thing, being clear across the other side of the Bay. She had just taken the union's side verbatim without checking because she was on deadline. Sloppy. Product of bias? Perhaps, a little. More a product of short cuts, lack of knowledge and specialization from being stretched too thin, imho. And it only has grown worse.

Thanks for the civil discussion as well.