Back to blog

Trust me, I’m a journalist

See blog

Readers' comments

Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.


Tropicana312 in reply to guest-ijessnl

German media is extremely conformist with Government's stand. Bertelsmann have repeatedly been accused of collusion. German pre-election Political debates are so staged they look like FAQ sessions.
Additionally, most of the German news sites have pre-moderated comments section. Only British equivalent on this regard would be Daily Mail.


TE: "Republican voters are now more likely to disagree with Democratic voters about whether news reporting is biased."
This isn't a new development. Pollsters like Pew have noted a large and growing trust gap for many years. Attributing the phenomenon to Trump or increasing partisanship of the part of Republicans is too facile. As the Republican (but never-Trump) NYT columnist David Brooks put it recently: "this [perception] is partly a media problem. We made ourselves vulnerable to this loss of faith among Republicans by not hiring Republicans. This used to be a working-class profession in which people in both parties — it has increasingly become an Ivy League profession for people with progressive political views. And if you do that after a number of time, you are just going to lose touch with part of the country and they are going to lose touch with you."


A positive and good correlation between trust in media and belief in their government. However, the stark difference between Greece and Tanzania is something to be noted. Verily, would one trust anybody when their country's economic condition continues to be stressful?
Not all journalists are sincere or reliable, some keep churning up questionable facts or fake news. Beware.


Readers of "journalism" ought not and need not be passive receptables of what journalists write, any more than eaters of fast food (if you are the type) should drive by any fast food joint on the way from one town to the next and stuff their stomachs with the stuff they pay money for, sugar, fat, additives, and bulk-enhancers and all.
It really is that simple, IMHO. In the domain of journalism as a source of information, consumer bears half the burden in knowing what to accept and what to reject. If a consumer is stupid (and willfully so - see consumer of Roger Ailes magnificent creation and its progeny) , he/she deserves what's going in his/her stomach.
Life doesn't get more complicated than that. And it is eminently fair - you are what you eat.


We deserve both an independent, fair minded and objective press, and something other than a dolt for President. We have neither, and its only been getting unceasingly worse for the last 30 years.

ashbird in reply to ashbird

It should also be noted that of all the recognized "professions" - medicine, law, accounting, real estate agent, contractors in construction, etc. etc. - "journalism" is the only "profession" that does not require a professional "License to Practice", so that a self-imposed and self-policing " Ethics Board" does not exist that is charged with the establishment and oversight of a Standard of Care for the profession, the breach of which results in disciplinary actions in the form of suspension or "excommunaction".
What this means is *Integrity* in guarding the standard of truth and honesty in reporting is voluntary, not compulsory. Therefore it is completely at the mercy of the individual or team of individuals who report/relay the information disseminated. Sometimes the individual or team of individuals invent, not just distort, information and get away literally with very very very bad things - like "the inauguration crowd in 2017 was the biggest in American history", or the President did not tweet his button is "bigger" (like his hand is bigger).
As a consumer of news, how do you tell "true or false" in reading journalistic reporting?
Again, it is not that complicated. Just get some education. That is all.
Education always helps. It helps a consumer select a better tomato and avacado in the supermarket, or knowing which winery makes the best Cabernet.
The more education the better when it comes to acquiring the art and science of how to judge the quality of something. Reading requires a judicious mind. Not to be one of the suckers who are born every day is the purpose of education. When things get awful confusing, the *record * of what is is always there. All you have to do is pay attention.


I bet very few actually understand the first graph, so here is my help:
1) a positive correlation of 0.87 means medias world over, are 90% of government's mouth pieces...
2) except US, at (0.5,0.5). That point can also be on a negative correlation line of -1.0, meaning, US media is the opposition.

Angus Cunningham in reply to ashbird

Does education equal valuing truth? In theory, yes. In practice, do professional (or for that matter, religious) educations inculcate devotion to truth? If not, then is it true that "The more education the better when it comes to acquiring the art and science of how to judge the quality of something"? I'd like that your opinion "It is not that complicated: just get some education. That is all" be true. But it seems to me that professional and religious educations are devoted only to logicality, i.e. only what sounds 'right'.


Fake news is now any news which is critical of Trump. It was previously fake news that got Trump elected. The right has no problem with fake when it promotes their world view. Or perhaps you really believe that the Muslim from Kenya was going to invade Texas, put all white Christians in FEMA camps, allow Ebola to effect everyone and take all our guns.

ashbird in reply to CaptainRon

An Ethics Board is internal. Members are elected by members of the profession. Independence of the profession is intact. Like in science, all research papers need to be peer-reviewed. Some are rejected.
I am surprised by your question.


Making the story of the media losing a large section of people’s trust in the United States into a story on how it will eventually hurt those very people who distrust the media: well, that seems unlikely to restore faith in journalistic judgement and fairness!


Trusting TE is like trusting Weinstein.
Weinstein tried to manipulate fiction into a "Truth" or "Pravda" as Putin will say.
Singular,Trump has entered the Oxford Dictionary to call this falsification of honesty "fake news".
"Trust me" and TE will lead you to beyond a literal dimension into Realty 3.0 with manipulated facts,
an out of touch Realism of common man -- yes, to a Land of untouchable "Hope" as preached
by Messiah Obama the manipulator of GPS Fusion dossier--the real story---the real Truth !!!!!!!!!


"Distrust of news organisations is likely to erode trust in government, too. That bodes ill for America’s president"
The above headline is exactly why I distrust The Economist and the media. This is twisted amoralism. The media (including The Economist) keeps lying about Trump, gets called out for their lies about Trump, then turn around and say that mission nonetheless accomplished (that they have hurt Trump despite being exposed as willful and habitual liars).
The Western mass media is not much better than China's People Daily.


Why WOULD you trust a journalist? You know what they're going to say before they say it:
Liberal Journalist: Trump is a jerk; Trump's voters are racists; somebody discriminated against a {woman, minority, gay person}; life stinks; here's the crisis du jour.
Conservative Journalist: The mainstream press isn't giving Trump a fair hearing. Life is good. Every able-bodied person in the USA can become a millionaire in two years if they learn how to work, refrain from strong drink, and invest wisely. People who take welfare should be sterilized.
Then if a Democrat gets elected President in 2020 there will be a role-reversal. Life will become perfect overnight, while Conservatives moan and groan.
That's all you need to know about journalists.



Mexico is NOT in south america.

I realize that dividing the world into continents is not as clear as it might seem at first sight, and that both geographical or cultural divisions of the planet result in anything from 3 to 8 continents, but no matter how you slice it, Mexico is not in southern hemisphere. The country is usually considered to be in North America when we take a geographical division or in Latin America, when we take a cultural division.