September 21st, 2014
12:52 PM ET

Trust in media at all-time low, according to Gallup

With Americans' trust in media at new lows, according to Gallup, what can journalists do to regain trust? Former Congressman Anthony Weiner, now a columnist for the New York Daily News and Business Insider, discusses that with Brian Stelter.

Filed under: Reliable Sources
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. scJazz

    Wait so for Reliable Sources you give us a Liberal, Democrat, serial sexter arguing that trust in the Media is at an all time low. When you didn't identify this totally useless repeat offender as a democrat, close to Hillary, and being paid by CNN?


    September 23, 2014 at 12:08 am | Reply
  2. Howard48

    Trust in the media is going lower for a number of reasons:
    1. Large media outlets are owned by megacorporations and people are skeptical that the truth will be reported if it goes against those corporate interests. Put another way, the truth is slanted to benefit the megacorps.
    2. Media is entertainment now more than ever. The quest for ratings, the pretty blond anchors, the concentration on lurid stories such as murder trials to the exclusion of far more significant world events. I try to watch half hour BBC World News which informs me more than 24 hours of CNN.
    3. Wealthy media stars. The Sean Hannity's, the Chris Matthew's etc. They make millions, are in the 1%, and their interest in the lower and middle classes is perceived to be phony. They take their orders from Roger Ailes, formerly Jack Welch, and other corporate honchos so they can buy summer homes on Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.
    4. Alternative and social media. Information is available if you seek it out. If you're intelligent and curious you can find other viewpoints that make you cynical about the mainstream corporate media.
    5.The Gaff, the Snark, and the Horse race. Political coverage seems to be concentrated in these three aspects of campaigns rather than issues.
    6. Equivalence and the failure to challenge. When a politician lies or invents facts, they are rarely seriously confronted. Either the media person is too timid, ill-informed, or told not to.Politicians with opposing points of view are often used, but the media will not on its own call out a politician, unless of course it is Fox shouting down a liberal or MSNBC trashing a conservative.
    There's more, but I hope you get the point.
    Thank you.

    September 21, 2014 at 9:26 pm | Reply
  3. EBaly

    I totally agree with Mr. Luhan's comments and would like to add that news outlets are drunk on the GOP's soup that demonizes and disrespects The President. You all seem to feel that doing so absolves you from having failed so miserably during the Bush administration. You claim that his (POTUS) administration has failed while totally disregarding the truculence of the GOP in Congress and ignoring how he has managed to keep the country moving forward from the mess he inherited from the previous administration and the intractable global crises . How about at least giving credit where credit is due?

    September 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Reply
  4. truthinmedia

    So the problem is that CNN is being to tough of Obama????? Really, IRS, Veterans, Bengazi etc..where is your coverage?????

    September 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Reply
    • shadowspirit47

      that was absolutely an uninformed comment full of Fox to the top.

      September 21, 2014 at 8:17 pm | Reply
  5. George J. Lujan

    In the trust segment itself, your guest Anthony Weiner referred to the lack of content in what is alleged as news coverage and you, without a trace of irony or self-awareness, proceeded to ignore it with the blithe comment, "you point about substance was interesting, but...." Your segment about the NFL domestic violence problems illustrated Weiner's point. In that segment, you had LZ Granderson as a guest, and he wrote substantively in his CNN blog about the obsession with the NFL situation to the exclusion of the more troubling failure of public interest about Alabama Judge Mark Fuller in this regard. I wish he had brought it up in this context. If the question is, are we obsessing too much about the NFL's problems? the proper response is, as opposed to what? and the answer is, people like Fuller. Fuller is a public servant with the authority to pass judgment on others and ought to be answerable to the public. Why focus on platforms for entertainment like the NFL when those individuals in the power elite feel so entitled that they can beat their spouses and continue to wield power?
    Your effort to shoehorn the downward trend in the public's trust in what passes for news coverage into your red news/blue news framework was similarly superficial and disappointing. Contrast Weiner's ignored point about substance with your "let's lay off Palin" piece.
    Regarding the Palin story, that was pure fluff. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough is 'stunningly superficial' under the best of circumstances, and Scarborough's co-host Mika Brzezinski tried unsuccessfully to move on to another story even in the clip you ran. Most of the rest of the MSNBC hosts didn't comment at all on that story or mentioned it only in passing. Since Scarborough is fairly conservative, it didn't illustrate a red news/blue news divide at all. (The first I even heard of it was as a joke on Bill Maher's "Real Time" more than a week ago!) What about truly substantive stories that go underreported like the story of Victor White, who was alleged to have shot himself in the chest while he was in custody in the back of a police cruiser and had both hands handcuffed behind him? The coroner ruled it a suicide. Was that story as important as the Palin piece? How many news outlets simply reported the story, including the coroner's ruling, without further comment, let alone analysis? Doesn't that support Weiner's position? (What do you, as a media watchdog, think of that story and its treatment by the press? As an editor, would you have accepted it and run with it without further ado?)
    When the electronic and print press covers fluff to the exclusion of substance, and when the substance they do cover is treated so indifferently, why should we trust them or look to them for either information or enlightenment?

    September 21, 2014 at 2:22 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.