David Domke
July 1, 2005

US Press credibility at historic low

Media supply much of the ammunition used against it

In early May, Newsweek magazine reported that some U.S. military had desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The White House responded with withering criticism of Newsweek and news media in general, claiming that they were unscrupulously using anonymous sources “to generate negative attacks” on the administration.

In response, Washington Post political columnist E.J. Dionne wrote: “[T]his particular anti-press campaign is not about Journalism 101. It is about Power 101. It is a sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power.”

Dionne is right. But his words may be too little, too late. As with most matters in American public discourse these days, conservatives are winning this battle — with the help of media themselves.

A Pew Research Center poll released Monday shows U.S. press credibility at historic lows. In early June, 56% of randomly sampled U.S. adults said that “[news] stories and reports are often inaccurate,” an increase from 34% of the public who held this view in 1985. Similarly, 72% of Americans today say news organizations “tend to favor one side” when covering political and social issues, up from 53% two decades ago. And 75% of Americans say news organizations’ reporting is most concerned about “attracting the biggest audience,” while only 19% said it was “keeping the public informed.”

Three factors explain such low media credibility.

First, Internet blogs and media watchdog groups, representing all sides of the political spectrum, have turned the spotlight on journalists’ actions in much the same way that news media cover other social institutions. Journalists are now held to answer for poor reporting and those relatively rare moments when political bias does intentionally enter mainstream news coverage.

In the long run, this scrutiny will be good for news media — but only if they stop making significant, high-profile mistakes in their rush to be the first to publish or broadcast. For example, Newsweek could not verify its reporting of Koran abuses at Guantanamo and was forced to issue a retraction. Two weeks later the military’s own report essentially substantiated the magazine’s claims, but by then it was little more than a footnote to what had become a story about Newsweek.

Second, political conservatives have mounted a concerted assault on news organizations, wielding the epithet of “the liberal media.” While such claims have been around since at least the 1950s, research I undertook with academic colleagues shows that this rhetoric increased markedly beginning in the late 1980s. The accusations are used strategically by Republican Party leaders to discredit and stem critical news coverage.

This was acknowledged in 1992 by Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, who said, “There is some strategy to it. ... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is ‘work the refs.’ Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one.” And GOP strategist William Kristol in 1995 told The New Yorker, “I admit it. The whole idea of the ‘liberal media’ was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”

The strategy has worked well. A Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at a top Midwest newspaper told me not long ago that ideas offered by conservatives are treated with hyper-sensitivity in newsrooms, due to journalists’ fears of accusations of liberal bias. Further, claims of news media as inherently liberal helps Republicans to “inoculate” themselves from press criticism when it does occur, since the source is deemed to be suspect.

Finally, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is apparent that a growing segment of the U.S. public believes the press should be distinctly pro-American. For example, the Pew data show that 40% of U.S. adults think the press is “too critical of America,” up from 17% in November 2001. Put simply, many Americans see no conflict between simultaneous wishes for press independence and a pro-U.S. perspective.

We might call this the “Fox effect.” The Fox News Channel came into existence in 1996 and bills itself as “fair and balanced.” Since September 11 the channel has contained a waving U.S. flag in the television screen’s corner and has unabashedly championed the international and military policies of the Bush administration. The public’s response is clear: Fox surpassed CNN as the ratings leader among cable news channels in late 2001 and has extended its lead in years since.

The desire for pro-American news produces this outcome: when news content is critical of U.S. actions, as has been the case in coverage of the war in Iraq in recent months, many Americans become critical of the press, rather than the government. This is the desired outcome by the Bush administration, of course. It is the worst possible outcome for democracy, however.

The public is shooting the messenger in this case. It would help if the news media stopped providing ammunition.