Who do you trust? The crisis of media credibility

Media credibility is under renewed scrutiny in the US and South Africa.

US President Donald Trump has long alleged media bias. Although the term “fake news” predates his first term, he popularised it during the 2016 campaign.

Who can validly claim to be objective? Is objectivity possible?

An online US publication, The Hill, self-described as non-partisan, says a recent study showed that media coverage of the Trump administration has been 92% negative.

How did this come about? George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, writing in The Hill, says the undoing of US journalism began in training institutions “where young reporters were taught that the touchstones of neutrality and objectivity were no longer viable.

“At schools like the University of Texas, students are told to ‘leave neutrality behind’. Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insists ‘journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity’.

“Editors soon picked up on the change and declared ‘objectivity has got to go’ in hiring reporters committed to advocacy journalism”.

ALSO READ: Journalism is under attack

When I started as a Natal Witness reporter in 1971, advocacy journalism was forbidden. We debated enough to appreciate that absolute objectivity was not possible.

Yet journalists were encouraged to refrain from obvious bias. We aimed for fairness, balance and accuracy.

News and opinion were ideally kept separate. As the anti-apartheid struggle intensified, and areas around Pietermaritzburg became known as the killing fields, reporting factually was an act of defiance against media clampdowns.

Ever-changing regulations and states of emergency sought to restrict writing and publishing about what was euphemistically called “unrest”.

Accusations of bias abounded. Much has changed, including the nature of threats to media freedom.

The advent of newer forms of media has coincided with an intermingling of facts and opinions. Facts don’t speak for themselves.

The way they are selected and presented involves choices where critics detect bias. For example, News24’s “fact-check” team is facing criticism for perceived partiality.

ALSO READ: Journalism’s battle for survival starts with readers who care

In similar vein, Daily Maverick was recently censured by the press ombud for publishing untruths about AfriForum.

At the heart of this debate is trust. Who can you trust as a reliable source of news or opinion?

While there is a shift towards social media, this does not necessarily mean more people trust social media.

Trust in social media may be further undermined by a Daily Maverick report with the subheading: “It’s all fake – nano-influencers and their paid campaigns to stroke political egos.”

ActionSA is singled out for X posts claiming credit for the reversal of the proposed VAT hike.

“Although it seemed clear that the DA and EFF’s court action was really the death-knell for the tax increase, in the days that followed you might never have guessed that from social media. X was flooded with posts thanking ActionSA for having stopped the VAT increase,” the publication said.

This would not be the first time ActionSA’s founder bought positive coverage. Two years ago, a princely R12.5 million was paid for a supposedly unauthorised biography.

To modify a TV series title: Trust me, I’m a (spin) doctor. Stay alert.

NOW READ: ActionSA either naive or simply malicious