"The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media"

Jeff Bezos acknowledges the many failures of mainstream media (and makes a few more mistakes)

Are many of your friends running around social media channels trying to get their friends to unsubscribe from the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times? Ah, the cancel culture virtues are alive and well. It almost feels like the 2020 cancellante outrage all over again.

The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have decided not to endorse either main candidate in the US presidential election. While the radical left cusses and spits over some sort of perceived mutiny in their strategy to impose the democratic will, Jeff Bezos wrote a letter to explain why the paper he owns, the Washington Post, did not endorse a US presidential candidate. The title of his letter is blunt: "The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media". He acknowledged something that we at the Firebreak already knew: the mainstream media has become so distrusted that they have no legitimacy left to even consider imposing their bias on the electorate.

Without trust, your views have no value, no respect, no credibility. Jeff Bezos, as owner of the Washington Post has recognized that, admitting “most people believe the media is biased”. But he also realizes that lack of '“credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. … Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions.”

But Jeff, in claiming that the non-mainstream media are “off-the-cuff”, “inaccurate”, “unverified” and “can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions” are you not yourself contributing to the loss of trust? Such blanket attacks on new media sources are but more evidence of the arrogance of the mainstream media. This arrogance is one problem turning people off of you and your “brethren newspapers”. (Still calling it a “paper” doesn’t reassure many either.) See a recent Firebreak post that highlighted their problem of arrogance in the mainstream media. Maybe Bezos should have looked at the causes of this lost trust rather than just muddle through (and further contribute to it via such distasteful rhetoric).

The large news organizations do not listen in their reporting. They come to an issue with their editorial bias and look for the information that will validate it, expecting their readers to passively consume their reports. The owner of the Washington Post has to recognize that humility is actually a trust builder (while the arrogance of the “Big Boys” is not). It could not go unnoticed that almost half of Bezos’ letter was trying to explain that his wealth and network of companies does not influence the Post’s reporting. Talk about being detached from the reality of the issue.

Bezos does, though, share some insight: “The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.” Listening is a valuable first step in trust-building but these media groups have surrounded themselves with purified ideologies that they “talk to”. Even Bezos recognizes the challenge but seems impotent in solving it (unless he opens the Post up to free-flowing dialogue and engagement).

Bezos is a Problem Solver, Right?

Bezos clearly understands that mainstream news groups, like the one he bought, are no longer trusted. They are considered as biased, elitist, and ineffective. His solutions though are limited by the box he comes from - that they need to be innovative and creative. Maybe the solution is closer to home.

Perhaps they should stop insulting the alternative media sources that so many of those “readers” are turning to. Bloggers, online news pages, and social media influencers engage with their communities. Those “readers” have views and have the opportunity to share them. For 15 years, I have engaged with my community, learnt from them and the research I have published has had (often a determining) influence on policy and perception. But the mainstream media rarely consults or references someone who is “just a blogger” (so they cite sources where my work has been reprinted).

The digital revolution, that Bezos obviously contributed to, removed the “us v them” dichotomy. If people could recommend or rate products on Amazon, shouldn’t they also be able to engage with the reporters at the Washington Post or, at the least, contribute to the news cycle? It has been 11 years since Bezos bought the post. What’s he waiting for? He could have turned the Post into a one-stop “Amazon” for information.

The Internet revolution allowed small actors to create markets for their work (whether it is start-ups selling handicrafts on Amazon or bloggers and podcasters selling their ideas). With the socialization of news means people have more choice in how they receive the information they feel they need. They don’t want some elitist reporters trying to impose their bias on them when other opportunities to engage are just a click away. They want to participate with others in their communities. They have views they want to share. And while they may get it wrong in their quest to understand, sorry Jeff, most of them are not doing it to “quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions”.

Our Endorsement

So while Bezos gets the problem, he has not yet got anywhere near to the solution. Perhaps he should pay attention to the reason why we are not endorsing a candidate.

We at the Firebreak will not be endorsing a candidate in the US presidential election. Not because we don’t have our views that we want to impose upon some passive readership, but because we respect that our readers are smart enough to make their minds up for themselves. They have enough information at their fingertips to make a decision and we respect their right to do so.

If the mainstream media are trying to figure out why their news organizations are not trusted, this Firebreak reason is why they should not be endorsing a candidate. And maybe the news media editors should look at the motives of the “cancellantes” trying to organize unsubscription campaigns. Do you really want to continue to “talk only to a certain elite”?