Nick Kristof Worries About Media Credibility

Nick Kristof worries about media credibility; I worry about Nick Kristof.  Let's have some comic excerpts:

A recent report from the Pew Research Center, "Trends 2005," is painful to read. The report says that 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing in their daily newspapers, up from 16 percent two decades ago.

...Those of us in the press tend to get defensive about our dwindling credibility. We protest that we've been made scapegoats by partisan demagogues, particularly on the right, and I think that's true. But distrust for the news media, even if it's unfair, is the new reality - and we will have to work much, much harder to win back our credibility with the public.

In any case, it's not just right-wingers who distrust the media these days. The Pew Research Center found that while only 14 percent of Republicans believe all or most of what they read in The New York Times, even among Democrats the figure is only 31 percent. Other major news organizations face the same challenge. The Fox News Channel is considered credible by fewer than one-third of the Republicans - and an even smaller number of Democrats. Indeed, it's a rare news organization that is trusted by more than one-third of the people in either party: the one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that the news media are not trustworthy.

So Fox faces "the same challenge" as the NY Times, yes?  Let's look at the darn study - 14% of Reps and 31% of Dems trust the NY Times; that is a more than 2-1 ratio, a 17% spread, and (we boldly presume) statistically significant.

The numbers for Fox are that is is trusted by 29% of Reps and 24% of Dems, which may well be statistically meaningless.  Or, per Kristof, it may be "the same" as the Times - you make the call.

To compound the comedy, most of data from this media survey, including the figures cited by Kristof, were from the summer of 2004, i.e., pre-RatherGate, pre EasonGate, and (for my lib friends) pre-Guckert.  In fact, since the surveys were from May and June of 2004, they preceded the formal collapse of Joe Wilson, whose media star had been launched in large part by Nick Kristof himself (Mr. Kristof's "defense" is here).

Eventually, Kristof does arrive at the obvious solution, and imagine my embarrassment, since I was shouting at my newspaper while laboring through several silly paragraphs.  What was I shouting?  Roughly, "C'mon, clown, the reason I don't trust the Times or Fox is they are both in the tank for someone."

Mr. Kristof is more stylish:

We also need more diverse newsrooms. When America was struck by race riots in the late 1960's, major news organizations realized too late that their failure to hire black reporters had impaired their ability to cover America. In the same way, our failure to hire more red state evangelicals limits our understanding of and ability to cover America today.

I think we're nuts not to regulate handguns more strictly, but I also think that gun owners have a point when they complain that gun issues often seem to be covered by people who don't know a 12-gauge from an AR-15.

OK, we appreciate his sentiment, but let's dutifully note that there are conservatives  that are neither evangelicals or gun nuts gun rights's enthusiasts.  He's biased even in discussing his biases!  There is work to be done.

MORE:  On media bias, the Pew Study is fascinating:

When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are “liberal” (51%) as say they are “conservative” (26%), while 14% say neither phrase applies. This was also the case in surveys conducted in the mid-to-late 1980s and, not surprisingly, there is a significant partisan cast to these perceptions.

Republicans see the press as more liberal than conservative by nearly three to one (65% to 22%). Among independents, the margin is two to one (50% to 25%). And while a third of Democrats say there is a conservative tilt to the American press, a slight plurality (41%) says the press is more liberal than anything else.

Hmm, lots of honest but off-message Dems wandering loose.

MORE:  Kristof worries that reporters are perceived as "arrogant" - his LOL e-mail defending a silly column shows why that might be.  (We are tossing all of our hats in Michelle Malkin's direction).

Comments

[Gerry]

What I like is how he says that he thinks it is unfair to think of people in his profession as "arrogant" one sentence after saying that it is "nuts" to not think as he does on guns.

[narciso]

I don't know about 'Stones of Karbala', comparing an NRA
influenced America to Somalia, making Hatfill, the No 1
terrorist, Kristof's judgement seems forced.

[VD]

Kristof makes a few mistakes in this piece. First, he conjures up the usual bogey-man of the right-wing demogogue, just as Bertrand Pecquerie of the World Editors Forum recently blamed his failing industry on right-wing bloggers. Second, he doesn't seem to take any stabs at why credibility might be declining, other than to say it is partially a result of right-wing demogogues. Finally, he seems to assume the protected freedoms of the press automatically apply to highly paid employees of for-profit corporations.

I think an appropriate debate of the latter is yet to be had. Remember, it wasn't bloggers that ran Dan Rather (and crew) from CBS, Eason Jordan from CNN, Bill Maher from ABC, and Rush Limbaugh from ESPN. Those were executive decisions made to protect profits, a favorite past-time of for-profit corporations. I think these almost famous columnists are beginning to run into the conflicts between the lifestyle mass synidcation affords them and the stifling effect of the dependancy upon advertising/sponsors, for that lifestyle, has on their work.

However, there are two things that corporate journalists could do to immediately improve their appeal to consumers of news. First, always provide some searchable reference to the subject at hand. If discussing legislation in Congress, include the bill number. If discussing a study, include a reference to the source of the material, and so on. Second, stop the laziness of simply getting unchallenged quotes from partisans. If discussing legislation, don't bother getting a quote from a Republican and a Democrat; we already know what they're going to say. Just give us some objective dissemination of the details, we don't need comments from people who have repeatedly admitted that they don't read most of the legislation on which they vote.

[Jerry]

My email to Kristoff: Nick: At least you seem to at least partly admit there is a problem. Most of the media seem either deeply in denial or scornfully dismissive. I think this suspicion of the media we see is well founded and a necessary corrective to what kindly could be described as unconscious bias in favor of the left position on just about every important issue you can name. I would hate to think it was conscious, but then there was the illumination that was Rathergate. The problem has its roots in the 60s generation which now holds the levers of power in our institutions. It was on the campuses when a prevaricating president afraid to seem weak launched us into a war and then micromanaged it and dragged it out to where the revulsion tipping point was reached and then it was lost on the home front. Those years saw the 60s generation instilled with leftist values and anti-Americanism and these attitudes saturate the media today. Hiring from elite schools where ultra-liberal opinions and hatred for the country are in the very air that is breathed has only compounded the problem and insured it will persist for a very long time. Recruiting journalists at land grant colleges in the red states would over time restore some balance to the media, but it won't happen. Nobody in your line of work thinks that far ahead.

[JonofAtlanta]

my Email to Kristoff alluded to his fear of being on 'the wrong side of history' .. I pointed out that after the unmitigated disaster of his paper's performance in the last few years (both in reporting and editorializing), they were already there.

[Brainster]

The original Pew survey strikes me as flawed; how many intelligent people are going to say they believe "all or most" of what they get from any source? And yet if you parse it carefully, "all or most" could mean anywhere from 50% to 100%, and actually I'd say I trust at least 50% of what appears in the Times (with the obvious exception of the Op-Ed pages). I trust the sports section, I trust the business section, I mostly trust the metro section, and while I'm suspicious of some of the national and international section, they're probably true on basic facts more than 50% of the time.

[Ted]

Yet another example of 'blame someone else'.
Thank goodness that here in the USA the
cultural influence of 'not my fault, man'
is slowly receding.

The reason the LLL is whining about that is
because they are, for the most part, those
incapable of seeing error in themselves.

No wonder the libs and leftists are so fond
of the Arab/Islamifascists who have been
blaming the Israelis/Jews for all the world's
ill.

[TM]

The original Pew survey strikes me as flawed; how many intelligent people are going to say they believe "all or most" of what they get from any source?

Good point.

[Cecil Turner]

"The original Pew survey strikes me as flawed; how many intelligent people are going to say they believe "all or most" of what they get from any source?"

Well, since I cite that study fairly regularly, I suppose I ought to defend it. "All or most" seems reasonable, if the contrasting point is "little or nothing." Especially since (as you pointed out) the former translates to 51-100%, while the latter is 0 to something less than 50%.

I'm also not convinced that "all or most" is an incredibly high standard when it comes to basic facts. I'm sure most editors would insist it was the only reasonable answer. And you'd think intelligent people would be even more reluctant to say "little or nothing," but the numbers suggest otherwise.

[JM Hanes]

The fact that Kristof doesn't know enough about red(Guns!)state(God!) America to know who needs to be included is more than a little telling. But what strikes me even more powerfully here, as it did back when Demcrats were obsessing over the need to talk more religion in the South, is that Kristof seems blissfully unaware that red-state America is listening in!

Democrats defended the Howard Dean scream by saying that it didn't really sound that dreadful if you were actually there. That's precisely the problem. Dean never figured out that he wasn't just talking to the room, and Kristof doesn't really know who's in his audience.

[JM Hanes]

The fact that Kristof doesn't know enough about red(Guns!)state(God!) America to know who needs to be included is more than a little telling. But what strikes me even more powerfully here, as it did back when Demcrats were obsessing over the need to talk more religion in the South, is that Kristof seems blissfully unaware that red-state America is listening in!

Democrats defended the Howard Dean scream by saying that it didn't really sound that dreadful if you were actually there. That's precisely the problem. Dean never figured out that he wasn't just talking to the room, and Kristof doesn't really know who's in his audience.

[thibaud]

As someone who despises the incompetence and dishonesty of most MSM hacks, I'll point out that Kristof is of course biased, as he should be. He's an OpEd writer.

The problem with the MSM is less one of bias than their absurd pretense of objectivity and their refusal to show their sources, provide links, come out clearly and say what they know for fact and what's merely their POV. Were they to do this, the readers could very quickly distinguish the bullshit artists, who are little different than bloggers with expense accounts and high-priced legal counsel, from the really fine journalists, like John Burns of the Times.

In this regard, Nick Kristof is light years ahead of his colleagues. The man should be applauded, even if you find his opinions distasteful. He's on the right side here.

[veryretired]

This never ending discussion always revolves around bias in the media as if that were the only problem. In fact, most adults can detect and screen for bias in what they read or watch on TV.

The real disfunctions in the media are its utterly shallow take on every issue, its preoccupation with the sensational over the substantial, and the lazy cowardice of those who only pick easy targets, never taking any chances with more complex and/or dangerous stories that might require a little courage and effort.

The hotel bar reporters in Iraq who don't dare go out and get any real stories about what's going on, other than how many explosions there were that day, is a good example of the latter. The fascination with the celebrity murder of the month is the most obvious example of the former.

The media's problem is lack of knowledge and triviality, not bias.

[Cecil Turner]

"This never ending discussion always revolves around bias in the media as if that were the only problem. In fact, most adults can detect and screen for bias in what they read or watch on TV . . . The media's problem is lack of knowledge and triviality, not bias."

The media's shallow treatment of most issues is definitely an issue, and no-doubt partially due to the cluelessness you note (and admitted by Kristof--i.e., 12-ga vs AR-15). Or, my pet peeve, their apparently willful ignorance on military matters. But on the question of whether bias or shallowness is the bigger issue, I'd suggest it's a bit of both.

The average adult can indeed detect most of the bias in a story, but it's awfully hard to tell what has been edited out (unless you happen to have access to first-hand information or source documents). I'd also suggest the growing ability to reference source documents and compare the actual statements to MSM treatment is a major contributor to their credibility problem. Moreover, bias and shallowness tend to reinforce each other. A reporter cherry-picking his quotes from a political debate to support his preconceived notions can't delve too deeply into the subject, lest he find inconvenient facts that contradict his meme. Likewise, shallow treatment of an issue will tend to highlight the reporter's bias.

But if we're going to evaluate the Fourth Estate's performance by their own standards, the most important issue is how they perform in the "media watchdog" role. And there, the most disturbing trend is the growing tendency to present a united front to shape public opinion, often indistinguishable from DNC press releases (e.g., Bush National Guard, SwiftVet stories). As the "paper of record," the Times in particular needs a plausible claim of objectivity if they are going to pretend to play that role . . . and they can make no such claim.

[Sisyphus]

The most recent CDC Surveillance Summary on abortion I could find was this one: Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2001

Nothing at Guttmacher with data more recent than 2000.

[Dwight Galster]

I would like to say a bit on the idea of believing the (any) media. I have been at a few functions that were reported in the media. NEVER did the reports accurately reflect what happened at the event. My definition of "accurate" includes that they capture the major spirit or meaning of the event. For example, if a 3 hour meeting occurs, and two of the three hours are spent discussing water supply problems, and the third hour is spent discussing a variety of miscellaneous lesser topics, then the media should report that water supply problems were discussed. However, if the reporter shows up in the third hour, he is likely to report something about the miscellaneous topics, and maybe having seen the agena, make a comment that water problems were also discussed. Thus, the entire "news" of the event is mis-characterized. This sort of thing has been my consistent experience with the media. In some subjects, such as religion, you can always count on them being wrong because they simply don't understand the issues (that applies to nearly all "professional" religion reporters too).

[TM Lutas]

One of the great savers of media opinion is the very human tendency to think that while they completely bollix subjects and events we have personal knowledge of, they must do better on other subjects. In general, they don't.