The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media
A note from our owner.
In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.
Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.
Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.
Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.
I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.
When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post. Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials. I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post.
You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests. Only my own principles can tip the balance from one to the other. I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.
Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves. (It wasn’t always this way — in the 1990s we achieved 80 percent household penetration in the D.C. metro area.)
While I do not and will not push my personal interest, I will also not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance — overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs — not without a fight. It’s too important. The stakes are too high. Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice, and where better for that voice to originate than the capital city of the most important country in the world? To win this fight, we will have to exercise new muscles. Some changes will be a return to the past, and some will be new inventions. Criticism will be part and parcel of anything new, of course. This is the way of the world. None of this will be easy, but it will be worth it. I am so grateful to be part of this endeavor. Many of the finest journalists you’ll find anywhere work at The Washington Post, and they work painstakingly every day to get to the truth. They deserve to be believed.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
(no message)
(no message)
If not, we'd be 100% living in 1984/.Brave New World.
(no message)
(no message)
It's mostly nonsense but from both sides.
(no message)
But it doesn't end there: The same can be said for the major TV networks, CNN and MSNBC, Big Tech, the music industry, Hollywood, and sports.
Mainstream America is crushed by Mainstream Media. It is wrong and un-American.
You are absolutely right, Jeff Bezos: Americans don't trust the news media!
And why should they?
slanted is still pretty reliable. For those that want full blown partisan, there is cable news.
well honored. So what has he really accomplished? He loses readership and trust. Injured one of the great informative papers known globally relegating it to marginally better than the NY POST
or to any other R. Murdoch gutter gossip print.
(no message)
In this case with djt, it's just pointing out the facts - He's completely unfit to be the leader of this nation.
Age, Criminality, siding with Russia against the US (treasonous), stealing classified documents in order
to monetize them, and just being stupider than fuck, writing about it is in no way against neutrality -
it's just being factual. Basos is just setting himself up (businesses) in case djt is elected - he knows if djt isn't elected
Harris and the d's won't do anything and nothing will change for him other than, he'll still be making
gazzillions of dollars.
I believe I heard yesterday that WAPO has only endorsed D presidential nominees since 1976 (Carter) ... and again I believe that was when WAPO started endorsements. 12 in a row all D.
So, do you believe that there is a bias within the organization? If so, why nothing nefarious, different views? different interests? organizational bias? industry bias? and if not, do you see why someone who leans R sees this as less than objective/ neutral?
it would make sense. I wouldn't agree with it as it is important to get strong views from a factual news source.
However, to do it this close to the election is an endorsement especially when it's known
a ranking official at WaPo had a meeting with djt the hours before the decision was made. And the opinion had already been
written and was on its way to the presses.
WaPo has been endorsing candidates since Watergate and their reasoning then was to tell the truth of what was happening in
Washington politics.
The fact that they have been endorsing D candidates is reasoned that the better and more seasoned choice would be the
democrat and not the republican. So far, history has proved them correct.
You have no issue with FOX TV endorsing a candidate? How about Sinclair media group?
WaPo with its decision has eroded one of the great and most respected news outlets on the planet with this action.
The one thing basos got right is that WaPo isn't going to alter many, if any votes -
I would say that 20 years ago would have been a better time to stop endorsing.... and likely wont influence many/any.
I would also say FOX, MSNBC even NPR... I think most people already know what they are getting so whether they endorse anyone or not is even less important. Similar to oil and gas industry, teachers unions, teamsters etc. they usually have a position and pretty much know what you are getting.
I do think a reasoned/factual voice is important and not sure where you get that anymore. I would contend that if none of the R candidates over the past 40+ years has aligned with WAPO it might speak to the target audience but there is some level of bias.
From my end, I primarily get my news from WSJ but I realize (or at least assume) there is a R bias associated with the readership and the paper in general.
Thanks for your thoughts
although they obviously select what they write about. I read it every day. Also read NYT which is the same just the other way.
and I agree that is a combo of what you say and what you cover. In WSJ, when it is Biz, Economy, Marketing... feels like areas that are more down the middle, but again I know I have my bias.
I think NPR is the best example of a source that is led by "what they cover." Also good call on 2 sources... important to look for balance,
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Newspaper subscribers and readers are dying as podcast and other alternative media consumers are being born. And no words about principles from a billionaire that most of these folks mistrust at minimum and despise at maximum are going to change that.
What percentage of WaPo hanger ons do you think hung around because of their anti-Trump bias? The editorials and slanted stories that told them what they wanted to hear? My guess is it's a lot.
AND it's subscribers want it to be. One way or the other, they are doomed.
That's what this is all about. They like where they have been and they don't want to lose that.