https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.
Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.
Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased.
Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.
Depending on who wins, only the title changes. One title says "I knew this was going to happen, here's why", the other says "I didn't expect that! Here's why"
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right.
By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.
@YoungBlood
Simple.
This hard truth is the only truth they recognize.
I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement.
I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false……
@YoungBlood —If Bezos wants this to work, the first thing he needs to do is get rid of the notion that anyone other than a journalist is incapable of doing research and gathering information.
Granted, there’s a lot of information out there that is questionable, but there are also newspapers and magazines that publish questionable information, too.
It’s ultimately up to the individual to discern, not to have some sanctimonious scold lead him around by the nose.
"By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction."
Assuming that is genuine.
The next step should be to stop hiring odious people who hate conservatives just because they might draw an audience. After that, stop mimicking other newspapers whenever a story that, presumably, makes conservatives look bad without verifying, pops up somewhere.