Big Media is Distrusted. So What?

Given the clickbaity title, I’ll remind you that when it comes to political journalism — especially since Donald Trump’s election — I’m more pessimistic than The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who spends much of her time giving the media grief.

She has plenty of advice for how journalists could do their job better and often advocates that they should listen more to people who voted differently than their newsrooms.  OTOH, I have seen the establishment media try putting people on “the conservative beat” enough times to have given up much hope that works.  Until Big Media hires enough people with non-Left viewpoints as both reporters and editors to constantly challenge newsroom groupthink, the basic problems will persist.

So why the clickbaity title?  Mostly to distinguish between two types of media analysis or criticism.

Let’s call the first, more common type academic or institutional.  These pieces examine whether a story is accurate or well-supported, whether columnists are contradicting themselves, whether journalism — or America — would function better if the media adopted certain practices, and so on.

Another type of media analysis is more practical or political.  Presuming — as conservatives (and most voters) have concluded — that Big Media has been biased against Trump (as it generally is against Republicans year after year), what does that mean as a matter of politics?

The “So what?” question has different answers, depending on the analysis applied.

It’s one thing to point out — as I have to at least one establishment journalist —  that according to Gallup, only 32% of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media, which should concern journalists in the academic or institutional sense.   Gallup even records numbers as low as 20-21% for those who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in TV news and newspapers.

These are generally conservatives’ go-to stats on trust in Big Media, but the result depends on the pollster and the questions asked.  The American Press Institute reported that 58% have some confidence in the press as an institution.  Pew reported that 76% of adults have at least some trust in national news organizations, with an even higher number for local news.  People presuming the public has simply tuned out the media as untrustworthy should consider Gallup arguably is presenting the worst-case scenario for the media.

Moreover, the worst-case numbers from Gallup also show that trust in TV and newspapers has been in the low-to-mid-20s for almost a decade.  The steeper decline in trust among GOPers in this cycle does not much affect what has been a long-running trend of declining trust in the media.

Numbers like these matter primarily in the institutional sense.  They matter less directly in a political sense, insofar as you might use them to rate the job approval of some other collective body, like Congress.  From that perspective, there may be an analogy to the “I hate Congress, but like my Member of Congress” dynamic.

Indeed, liberals tend to trust establishment and more overtly liberal news sources, while generally distrusting conservative sources.  And vice versa.  People of “mixed” ideology tend to trust the liberal/establishment sources, though (unlike liberals) they also tend to trust Fox News.  And everyone tends to trust the Wall Street Journal (though one might argue its news coverage historically skews more to the left than its editorials might suggest).

When judging political fights between Pres. Obama and the GOP Congress, Big Media often liked to cite polls showing that people favored Obama, while not addressing the fact that Obama: (a) was elected nationally, while legislators are not; (b) Obama needed to be popular nationally, while legislators need only appeal to their constituents; and (c) the machinery of government and the media frames the President, not Congress, as the focus of political stories daily.

Similarly, when assessing the media as a political actor, it may be useful to remember that the media does not have the same demands as a president or a legislator, ratings are not the same as popularity, and criticism of the media is usually not as high-profile to the average viewer as media criticism of politicians.

In this political moment, however, Pres. Trump currently is in a very high-profile, heated battle with the media.  So how’s he doing?

In early February, Quinnipiac found that 57% of voters were at least somewhat concerned that Trump will try to limit the freedom of the press, while 42% are not so concerned.

A more recent Fox News poll found, on a 45-42% split (within the margin of error), more voters trust the Trump administration to “tell the public the truth” than the White House press corps.  The same poll found 55% percent say it’s better for the country if the media covers the president aggressively, while 38% say it would be better if reporters gave the president the benefit of the doubt.

The Fox poll also found that 71% think Trump should be more careful when he speaks, while only 28% like that he speaks his mind.

Keep in mind that the internal numbers on these questions generally have the partisan and ideological splits that you might expect.  I will say that the Fox numbers are better for Trump among independents than the toplines suggest, favoring Trump over the media by a 2-1 margin and split on whether the media should be aggressive.

OTOH, the internals also reflect the split between college-educated whites and whites without a degree that we saw in the election cycle and may be relevant to GOP officeholders who won with a different electoral map than Trump.

If you think the media coverage of Trump has been as bad as I do — and as unlikely to change in its fundamental bias, even if the media calms down somewhat — Trump basically matching the media for trustworthiness, the Trump numbers resting where you would expect for a base of GOP support (not much beyond that), and the lopsided majority who think Trump should speak more carefully should be concerning to Trump supporters.

The Trump White House seems to want Big Media to stand in as the opposition party (or make that status overt, if you will).  Fair enough.  But if Big Media even comes close to cleaning up its act, it may offer more formidable opposition than Hillary Clinton.

PS: Consider subscribing to WHRPT in the sidebar (the posts come straight to your inbox; no muss no fuss). And following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing!

Is That How We Got Trump?

For many, “That’s How You Got Trump” has become the standard reply to dismiss criticism of the President from the left or the anti-Trump right.  Indeed, any skepticism of the idea that harsh criticism of Trump is How You Got Trump is also deemed How You Got Trump.

But was a revulsion against condescension from the elites in the MSM, DC or Hollywood or wherever really How We Got Trump?  Is a failure to listen to Trump supporters How We Got Trump?

Salena Zito, noted chronicler of Trump supporters, spoke to thousands on the campaign trail.  But in her dispatches from places like Brooke County, WV, or Charleroi or Youngstown or Moon Township in PA, Trump supporters are rarely quoted as referring to the MSM or elites in DC or Hollywood (a political scientist took issue with National Review’s Kevin Williamson).  Rather, they seem concerned about the economy and jobs (particularly ‘brown energy’ jobs), trade, immigration, and the preservation of their local communities.

During the campaign, an open-ended Pew poll of Trump supporters found the main reasons people backed him were: (a) he wasn’t Hillary Clinton; (b) he was a change agent; (c) his policy positions; (d) his “tell it like it is” personality; and (e) his support for the American people and their values.

And for all the talk about the MSM not seeking out the opinions of Trump supporters, outlets like The Atlantic (more than once), the Washington Post, The Guardian, the BBC, and the New York Times did.  The NYT also solicited comments from Trump supporters on a few occasions after the election.  And the portrait of Trump voters and their reasons remains pretty consistent.

To be sure, some of Trump’s supporters booed the press at his rallies when he encouraged them to do so.  But in general, they seem more interested in the fate of the local metal fabrication shop, the burden of filling out paperwork to operate their small businesses, or a general sense of stagnation than they care about what Katy Tur, Don Lemon or Joss Whedon are saying about them.

When you consider How We Got Trump, consider that he flipped a swath of voters who previously voted for Obama once or twice.  That’s a voter profile which is not particularly ideological and thus not particularly motivated by a revulsion for Glenn Thrush or Meryl Streep.

These crucial Trump voters seem far more concerned with the perceived (lack of) performance of elites than the condescension of elites.

Of course, there are Trump voters who are bothered by the bias of Acela media and Hollywood blather.  But most of them are likely conservatives who would have voted for the GOP nominee in any event.

And herein lies a risk for conservatives.  Many on the right were blindsided by the Trump phenomenon because they did not understand that the core Trump supporter is really not like them in a number of ways.  They projected their own strong ideological bent onto rank-and-file Republicans beyond what years of data supported. (I say “they” here because it’s been depressingly clear to me for some time.)

Now that Trump is President, the danger is that conservatives seeking common ground to support him will again project their biases onto core Trump supporters, while ironically lecturing his skeptics and critics about being in a bubble.  They also ironically feed the stereotype that Trump supporters whine and wallow in victimhood at the hands of Ben Smith and Samantha Bee.

PS: Consider subscribing to WHRPT in the sidebar (the posts come straight to your inbox; no muss no fuss). And following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading!

PPS: On Feb. 13, Margaret Sullivan of the WaPo visited Trump-friendly Luzerne County in PA.  During the campaign, Trump led supporters in razzing the media in Wilkes-Barre.  It does not seem to have affected the media consumption habits of the locals.  Moreover, the middle-aged folks interviewed seem to have the same basic media habits as Gen Xers and Boomers generally.