Question of the day
Thursday, Oct 2, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Gallup…
Americans’ confidence in the mass media has edged down to a new low, with just 28% expressing a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. This is down from 31% last year and 40% five years ago.
Meanwhile, seven in 10 U.S. adults now say they have “not very much” confidence (36%) or “none at all” (34%).
When Gallup began measuring trust in the news media in the 1970s, between 68% and 72% of Americans expressed confidence in reporting. However, by the next reading in 1997, public confidence had fallen to 53%. Media trust remained just above 50% until it dropped to 44% in 2004, and it has not risen to the majority level since. The highest reading in the past decade was 45% in 2018, which came just two years after confidence had collapsed amid the divisive 2016 presidential campaign.
The latest 28% confidence reading, from a Sept. 2-16 poll, marks the first time the measure has fallen below 30%.
Full results are here.
I’m assuming that trust is higher here because most of y’all are news junkies. But, let’s see how this goes.
* The Question: In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio — when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly — a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Concerned Observer - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:26 pm:
Corporations have cut so much staff, and kept salaries so low that they can’t (or don’t want to) retain experienced people, that the quality has greatly suffered. This is hard to dispute.
Where it gets tricky is the assumption that there is a motivation or intentional bias among the rank-and-file. Or even from the increasingly overworked manager class. More often than not, the prevailing ethic is “Do anything you can, just with less”.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:29 pm:
I voted a fair amount. In my experience, reporters never really flat out lie, but man can they play favorites and pull punches. They can be as conspiratorial as anyone too. Often just a giant waste of time. I’d probably vote for a more neutral option if there was one.
- Give Us Barabbas - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:35 pm:
There are specific practitioners out there I respect. That said, local TV news has been execrable ever since the consolidation and deregulation of ownership. Once the obligation to a public good was off the table, the commercial nature of ownership slashed reporting and coverage, cutting local beats, government beats, and putting the emphasis on whatever is cheap to cover and easy to pretend to cover. Weather and traffic stories live from a highway overpass. Live shots from now-closed locations hours after the actual event, replaying the earlier report and giving a live “update “ that adds nothing. All of this and more applies to local papers- what they have devolved into is tragic. There’s good reporters out there, nobody will pay for them.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:36 pm:
I choose my news sources carefully, and so that gives me a bit more confidence in the news. For example, if Rich reports something, I know I can take that to the bank. That was often true of the Tribune, but not anymore.
I’m sure there are plenty of people that trust Fox, and other infotainment options. But discerning news consumers don’t have much confidence in those outlets. For good reason.
- Larry Bowa Jr. - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:36 pm:
None. I learned a lot from newspapers when I was young but that is not possible anymore. Televised “news” is worse than useless. Mass media’s lies by omission are constant and obvious once you begin to see them. You literally cannot understand the world you live in if that’s all you consume.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:37 pm:
None at all.
Not in a pejorative way though.
More in a “oh, that’s interesting. I’ll use this as a starting point to look more into this”.
Meaning I don’t trust a single source on anything, no matter who it is. If it can be verified by another source, then it begins to gain credibility. More so if it’s verified by an original source.
But that’s much different from trust.
Trust is just faith, without the religion part. It’s a shortcut for thinking, and will usually cause big problems.
- Huh? - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:44 pm:
Fair. Like 47th, I pick and choose the media which i consider to be trustworthy.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:47 pm:
I said Not very much because I just don’t see the media doing a good job any more of reporting what’s happening, with context and background, or pointing out lies when they’re said.
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:52 pm:
I have higher trust of this blog than I do of other sources. Rich actually does leg work to make sure the reporting here is accurate.
Other sources, I check from the opposite end of the politics and figure the truth lies somewhere in the middle of what each reports. Left and Right sources seem to love taking what is said out of context to fit thier view.
- All Aboard - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:53 pm:
Not very much. A huge majority of coverage now is an infomercial for a point of view. AI will make it much worse.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
A fair amount, as an average. I have lot of confidence in some outlets (esp. NPR) but not much at all in others (esp. Fox”News” which claims in court filings to be entertainment).
- Trinity - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 12:58 pm:
Anyone else watch international media? Done it for years just to stay on top of global events. Now you can see the DRASTIC difference. They are already heavily censoring us.
- Matty - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:00 pm:
I have great trust in the sources I consume, which is primarily local: Tribune, Sun Times, Block Club, ABC 7, WGN, WCIA, PBS, NPR.
You’ll notice I did not include any cable or streaming entities, and almost entirely discounted Nexstar and Sinclair. You can’t pay me to consume that content, and most people should be able to recognize their biases and what I equate to a push-poll in delivering of the “news.”
- Dotnonymous x - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:03 pm:
A conglomerate media wholly owned by our ultra rich overlords…what’s not to trust?
- Big Tom - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:08 pm:
A fair amount, with some consideration for facts, sources and objectivity I feel I can still find accurate news sources. Reagan’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine reshaped the information ecosystem, accelerating the shift from “public service journalism” to partisan, audience-driven media.
- Harrison - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:26 pm:
ABC News trots out George Stephanopoulos as an unbiased journalist instead of a partisan former Clinton White House communications director.
His bias forced ABC News to pay 15 million dollars to settle a defamation case.
25% of Americans self identify as liberal
Interesting 28% have a great deal of confidence in mainstream media
- CA-HOON! - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:31 pm:
Over 40 years I have watched the major media outlets transform from relatively reliable, sober reporting to what it has become today. Reporting is based on emotional engagement, not accuracy. Ragebait is common even among those formerly reliable outlets, waaaaay beyond the old “if it bleeds it ledes” mantra. Then there are the outright bad actors who make nothing but agitprop and try to normalize the abnormal. And it’s not just national outlets because these corporate interests have gobbled up nearly all the local outlets across the nation.
The normalization of the abnormal is probably the worst, and yeah we all know FOX is the worst but remember when the Tribune editorial board suggested that perhaps it might be “good” for Chicago to suffer from a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy or Katrina? That was only a few years ago and now we have some people in high places seriously suggesting in news outlets that Trump’s military takeover might be “good” for Chicago as well. And barely any of these outlets actually challenge that blatantly abnormal behavior, they just shrug and move on to another distraction.
Thank goodness for outlets like ProPublica and for individual journalists like Rich and Isabel still walking-the-walk with their responsible reporting.
- Benjamin - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:31 pm:
I voted “not very much,” although this time last year I would have been more charitable. Most local news–both TV and print–is withering away, and the national news is slowly being bought up by oligarchs who are either aligned with Trump or trying to avoid his wrath.
Unlike some others here, I trust the reporters and (mostly) their editors. It’s the publishers and CEOs who are ruining things.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:33 pm:
It varies by type and by issue, but overall not very much. I tend to trust newspapers more than radio and way more than television.
I only watch television news for live coverage.
For international news I only trust independent journalists. For national I still trust several journalists at major paper. I trust state and local journalists the most.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:35 pm:
===That was only a few years ago===
Ten years ago.
- Distant Viewer - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:38 pm:
I trust newspaper reporters mostly and public radio/tv nearly 100%. I don’t really have familiarity with any actual newscasts (not including PBS/NPR/BBC) that are televised or on radio. That seems to mostly be commentary, which has almost no value anymore. I think the totally self-serving (rather than analytical) commentary is what causes people to have mistrust. We all believe that talking heads ( which are way more visible than reporters) are just playing a role, not actually providing insight.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
I said not very much and I think that is sad. Most media do not have money or desire to cover events thoroughly. What I find disturbing is the lack of disclosures. Work for an administration then report on your friends or even worse have spouses working for a party. Finally I hat local news that tease with a story that is from thousands of miles away and they put it in like it is local
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:42 pm:
I voted “Not Very Much.”
I review several news papers of record but usually avoid cable news and often just avoid local news.
We have reached a point where a lot of our news media just allows our elected leaders and politicians to say whatever they want and have it remained unchallenged.
What happened to the Watch Dogs of Democracy? Seems like there’s a lot more hand licking coming from folks who have the opportunity and what I would consider the obligation to not allow an elected official to openly lie to the public, to completely make things up, to threaten and bully the press corps for asking questions.
Being a “news junkie” is different than trust in the media.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:42 pm:
Voted a fair amount. Quoting a famous Potter line - it’s complicated. Some media platforms, I trust but verify. Others, I don’t trust therefore I don’t need to verify. The more the reporter delves into “analysis” the more careful I am before trusting it. Nowadays, news is like picking beans in a weed-filled field. Pick carefully to avoid a handful of weeds.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:44 pm:
Voted Not Very Much. SMall market local news is just the result of facebook. Network and cable is all infotainment based pandering to the right or left. WGN stands out though. They seem to be interested in just reporting the news and not taking sides.
=ABC News trots out George Stephanopoulos=
LOL. FOX trots out…of wait, most of them now work for the current administration now. But maybe you missed that.
- olddog - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:46 pm:
Retired newspaper reporter and journalism/ mass comms teacher here. Voted “fair amount.” Like others, I’m selective about my sources, get most of my state and local news from Capitol Fax. Changes in the industry’s business model make it all but impossible to do the kind of public affairs reporting that used to be the standard. We’ve always had fluff, but financial pressures require more clickbait to keep the lights on. More troubling: Attacks on the media have been part of the story in recent years, and that affects coverage in subtle ways I find troubling. More and more, I like to get my national news from European media that maintain robust Washington and New York bureaus.
- CA-HOON! - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:48 pm:
==Ten years ago. ==
Jeez, it feels like that Trib editorial was more recent, but then I also still sometimes feel like Rauner was in office just yesterday. The temporal whiplash is real.
- Formerly Unemployed - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:52 pm:
Voted “Fair Amount”. The corporate overlords have damaged so many once-great companies (Chicago Tribune, Washington Post) and most of the outlets doing good work can’t afford to do more of it (Block Club, Sun Times/WBEZ). The New York Times is mostly good but occasionally loopy. I started paying for the BBC.
- Harrison - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:52 pm:
So you trust WGN but won’t watch anything from Nexstar or Sinclair because they are biased
WGN has been owned by Nexstar since 2019 Matty
- Stix Hix - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:55 pm:
Not very much.
The key words in the question “in general” are the reason for my choice.
I read, hear, and see so many reports that are so wrong and incomplete.
- levivoted4judy - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 1:59 pm:
I voted not very much because a lot of what is categorized as journalism now isn’t. I am a Northwestern Medill alum and my profs were old, grizzled city desk editors. I like to think they taught us the right way. I trust my AP News app and local tv news a lot. I read Block Club too because it provides neighborhood info.
- Steve - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:05 pm:
A fair amount.
With video everywhere, it helps verify things. Some of the legacy media forget they are reporters not political activists.
- Morty - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:06 pm:
The news has gone from a public trust into a cash grab/propaganda tool. Even the entities that want to show some independence have been co-opted by the need for revenue concerns.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:14 pm:
=WGN has been owned by Nexstar since 2019 Matty=
Matty? I know who owns WGN, they joke about it on air often. I also never made mention of sinclair or nextstar. You are working pretty hard at reading things into other statements. I did mention fox though.
Take a nap.
- just here for the fun - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:17 pm:
I choose my news sources carefully, and so that gives me a bit more confidence in the news. For example, if Rich reports something, I know I can take that to the bank. That was often true of the Tribune, but not anymore.
CWB and Second City Cop touches things Rich refuses to do ……….. Rich is very biased i.e. The Eastern Bloc) . But he own this and I get it.
- Pundent - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:17 pm:
A fair amount. News is news particularly if you get it from reputable and unbiased outlets. Infotainment never has been or will be news even though it may masquerade as such. I think the distrust stems from people not accepting news that contradicts their opinions and beliefs. At the end of the day news, much like facts, should not be subjective.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:18 pm:
Voted ‘not very much’. As a former newspaper reporter, I remember how it was when I was on the city government/police desk 50 years ago.
Whenever we pointed out corruption or questioned a government/police official’s decision, their supporters accused us of picking on them. When we called out someone of the other party, THEIR supporters thought we were unfair.
In other words, we were unfair to everybody, depending on their point of view (My party’s bad behavior is excusable; theirs, not so much.)
FOX and the other right wing networks deliberately slant their “news” and are considered gospel by MAGA. MSNBC does the same thing on the other side.
Now CBS has a Trump-ordered censor making sure there’s no “bias” in its coverage. How can you trust that?
The news media landscape has changed, as people are looking for confirmation of their bias instead of facts.
I don’t like the direction it’s going.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:18 pm:
===CWB and Second City Cop touches things Rich refuses to do===
Correct. Those are crime blogs. This is not a crime blog, except when it comes to politicians.
Bite me.
- Harrison - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:20 pm:
The difference is that Fox News is on cable and is clearly the conservative alternative to NPR, CNN, MSNBC etc.
Their niche audience is 50% of the country
ABC News is on the public airways and is supposed to be non biased and serve the public interest
Can you picture Karl Rove hosting This Week every Sunday morning there? Me neither
Does anyone believe they are straight shooters especially after watching the Trump Harris debate?
- Harrison - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:24 pm:
I was replying Matty’s comment at 1 PM about trusting WGN not Nexstar JS Mill
Sounds like you are the one who needs a nap
As Paul Harvey used to say - Good Day
- Stark - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:25 pm:
Voted “not at all”. They did it to themselves carrying water for every military intervention this country has undertaken in my lifetime - whether it was called for or not. I think Iraq was the final straw for most folks now aged 30-40.
- Linus - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:27 pm:
“A great deal.” The reason is, I know the difference between the actual news and opinion and outright baloney portions of the mass media, so I act accordingly. I have a high amount of trust in straight up, hardworking news sources, and I ignore the rest.
- Next Level - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:29 pm:
I was torn between “Not Very Much” and “None At All”.
=I don’t trust a single source on anything, no matter who it is. If it can be verified by another source, then it begins to gain credibility.=
Agree with -Invisible Man- 100% on this. I always check for multiple sources before believing anything. Some sources are better/worse than others, but there is WAY too much spin and bias going on these days. I don’t see that changing either, unfortunately.
- Retired SURS Employee - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:38 pm:
Depends upon the media. If Fox News, then no trust at all. Little trust in the major TV networks. A great deal of trust in local news papers and local TV news.
- Pundent - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:40 pm:
=The difference is that Fox News is on cable and is clearly the conservative alternative to NPR, CNN, MSNBC etc.=
Fox News should not be included in any discussion on news. They’ve said quite clearly that they’re entertainment and they’ve paid quite dearly for spreading false information. The fact that 50% of the country (if true) would choose to get their information from an entertainment source is quite sad.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:48 pm:
Lots of good comments. I voted a great deal because I believe that for the news sources I watch and read. Others like Fox, not at all. I would echo 47th Ward, Huh?, and Norseman comments.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:51 pm:
=Sounds like you are the one who needs a nap=
LOL, you might be right.
- Harrison - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 2:59 pm:
Fox News actual news broadcasts like Special Report with Brett Baier skew right but are not strong, hyperpartisan or extreme
They are basically the mirror image of the PBS News Hour which skews left but not hard left
Both are serious newscasts
Interesting the Wall Street Journal is literally right down the middle
https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink
- The Front Page - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 3:06 pm:
The Chicago Tribune once styled itself as “The World’s Greatest Newspaper.” It barely continues to function. The Tribune Tower has been emptied out and repurposed for expensive apartments and condominiums. The Chicago Sun-Times is a weird amalgamation of WBEZ, a union, and a handful of columnists. It no longer publishes editorials or makes political endorsements. On a good day, the paper may consist of forty pages.
Print media is virtually dead in Chicago.
- H-W - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 3:09 pm:
I voted, a great deal.
In the 1970s, there were only a handful of televised media outlets, and a boat load of newspapers. Then in the 1980s and early 1990s, everything started flipping with the rise of cable news and internet access to laypeople.
At that time, we also see a pronounced decline in trust in the media. I would say for good reason. Prior, there were guardrails in place. If you screwed up, there were very few other opportunities, save local news channels. As those guardrails loosened, we also saw the idea that 22 minutes on daily national news needed to be expanded to 1400 minutes per day.
In sports, you may recall seeing Austrailian rules rugby broadcast. Soccer too.
In news, you started seeing a great deal of commentary on the news events; not necessarily more news events.
I still trust my sources of news a great deal. I start with AP News. I go from there. I trust AP News implicitly.
So I voted I have a great deal of trust in the media available, if only because some news sources are still very good sources.
- Mike Sorensen - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 3:17 pm:
The most fascinating part of reading these comments is how many responders don’t really seem to see that they’re doing what they so often accuse others of.
A lot of these responses are along the lines of “I trust the news that I hand-pick to read and don’t read anything else.”
You trust it because you selected it yourself because they say things you like. You trust it because you WANT to trust it, which is why you hand-picked it.
This isn’t a criticism, btw, simply observation. Confirmation bias is human nature. I’m just as guilty of it as anyone, but I try to be aware of it and, in my writing, I’ll ask others outside my immediate circle to try and see if I’m letting it show in my work.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 3:51 pm:
=Fox News actual news broadcasts like Special Report with Brett Baier skew right but are not strong, hyperpartisan or extreme
They are basically the mirror image of the PBS News Hour which skews left but not hard left=
You may have that opinion. I disagree. They often do not cover or barely cover major events not in sync with their doctrine. More right than than ABC/CBS/NBC news broadcasts.
George Stephanopoulos is not part of the regular news broadcasts. GMA is more along the same lines a Fox and Friends. He is a commentator not a news anchor.
And then there is Hannity and Waters and Fox and Friends. Their emails from the lawsuit tell us all we need to know about their credibility.
The fact that FOX is ion cable and ABC is over the air is irrelevant to honesty and integrity. Fox referred to themselves as “fair and balanced”. To say that was false advertising is an understatement.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 3:51 pm:
==Both are serious newscasts==
When you’re suggesting anything on Fox is a “serious newscast” you’re not to be taken seriously.
As to the question - I voted “A fair amount” based on the news I consume. I read a variety of news sources both US based and international. The breadth of reporting gives me some confidence. I don’t watch cable news at all unless it’s for breaking news. Cable “news” isn’t news anymore. It’s infotainment.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 4:03 pm:
MS, I get what you’re saying but I have 6-7 sources I regularly go to. I also click on other sources from time to time and I start out trusting their reporting unless I later discover my trust was misplaced. Then they are dead to me. That’s pretty much what happened to Fox news.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 4:10 pm:
- Those are crime blogs. -
That’s very generous when it comes to SCC.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 4:18 pm:
In terms of cable news and the major networks, I do not trust them. “The Newsroom” was eerily prescient in describing how profits and access to politicians have been put ahead of informing the citizenry and holding people to account for their words and actions.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Oct 2, 25 @ 4:21 pm:
And it’s a running joke between my boss and I that the news of Pritzker signing legislation that dramatically affected our unit’s operations (and still is years later) was broken to us by Rich. Not by our Director or their deputies, but by Rich.