What is Wrong with the News Media?
Where to begin?
The general public, in the U.S., has a lower opinion of mainstream media than it does almost any of the other “civic institutions” – 31 percent according to U.S. News. Only Congress does worse, with 17 percent approval according to the latest AP/NORC poll.
It would probably be difficult to get broad agreement on what news outlets even qualify as “mainstream”.
Defining mainstream news media outlets as those with wide reach, institutional credibility, and consistent coverage of national and international events, there are very few mainstream outlets in the U.S. In print media – which is practically dead at this point – there are these top five: The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times. You will note that U.S. News, cited above, doesn’t even have a large enough reach to make the list. There remain many city newspapers around the country, but most don’t reach national audiences.
On the broadcast side, there are only these: CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News. There are also digital news platforms with a broad reach: NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, Axios, and The Hill. None of those broadcast media outlets have large audiences, with Fox News being most-watched, but by only 2.48 to 3.3 million viewers. Coming in second place is ABC News, with about 2.54 million viewers, and that’s for a 22-minute nightly news telecast that gives 10 percent of each night’s coverage to human interest (soft news) stories.
While the three newtwork channels attempt to report in an apolitical manner, MSNBC veers strongly “left” and Fox News strongly “right”. CNN purports to present news from the “center” the public seems to feel that CNN is politically left-wing in its leanings.
Given that there is next to no one, in a country of 340 million people, watching any of these mainstream media outlets, it is notable that the public appetite for digital media is huge. Youtube gets 2.7 billion monthly active users to view videos on that platform 45 minutes each day. After that comes TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter).
The mainstream news outlets all claim to be represented by legitimate journalists, defined by education, professional experience, editorial oversight, ethical commitment, verification practices, and public accountability.
It is worth noting that the most popular platforms – that is, YouTube and internet outlets – often check few of those “legitimate journalism” check boxes. It is almost as if the viewing public in the U.S. has turned their backs on professional journalism and journalists, canceling them, as it were.
Why is that?
What is Credible Versus What Entertains?
In the earlier, Post World War II era of broadcast news, there were only three networks and they were watched by everyone inclined to watch broadcast news. Then, the audience profile was irrelevant compared to what it is now as media has fractured into a wide variety of media options. What has happened is that viewing audiences began to separate, in large part due to various levels of education.
According to Pew Research about 36 percent of Americans are college educated, and those people tend toward discretion in the media consumption. Audiences of outlets like The Atlantic, NPR, Axios, and The New York Times are majority college-educated—with over 50–60 percent holding a bachelor’s degree. In contrast, viewers of Univision, Telemundo, and some cable news outlets like Fox News have lower percentages of college graduates, with Fox News at 27 percent.
Like water, media consumers seem to find their own level. Some thirst for detailed information about issues, while others thirst for emotional response, and in our fractured media, outlets match their presentation style – their news and information ethos – to their audience. They give their public what they want to ensure that they don’t change the channel, or put down their publication and gravitate to another.
This pandering is key to each outlet’s survival, but it contributes to myopic perspectives in the viewing public. Consumers tend to consume that which confirms their own biases and points of view. And, conversely, it tends to promote the notion that outlets other than those they watch, read, or listen to, are invalid in one way or another. Those other outlets don’t comport with the worldviews of their devoted audiences. Moreover, the creation of rival outlets tends to create “us versus them” dynamics. We have all become accustomed to people challenging our information or points of view based on its source – or even on the ownership of their source outlets. Those challenges may be valid, but more than often are unqualified, like toss-off debate lines.
Gone is the Paper of Record
For much of America’s existence, The New York Times has been thought of as “the newspaper of record”. This speaks to the founding of that publication early in the nation’s history. It was initially the publication authorized to publish public or legal notices, making it a literal record of civic activity.
Founded in 1851 by Henry Jarvis Raymond and George Jones, the Times set out to provide non-partisan, fact-based journalism—a contrast to the sensationalist press of the era. By the early 20th century, it had developed a reputation for meticulous fact-checking, comprehensive coverage of national and international events, and archival permanence—its articles were often cited in legal cases, academic research, and government record. The Times became known for publishing full transcripts of speeches, official documents, and proceedings, making it a reliable source for historians and policymakers. Its indexing and archiving practices further cemented its role as a historical record—many libraries and scholars relied on it as a primary source.