And They Wonder Why…

...No One Trusts the Media Anymore

Thanks again to the California Globe for running this piece. You can visit the website at: https://californiaglobe.com/

Yesterday, a big newspaper ran a “think piece” about why the public doesn’t trust the media anymore.

The day before, there was an “op-ed” on the subject.

Last week, there was a 2,000-word analysis of the issue.

In fact, over the past few years you could not swing a cat in a newsroom (what’s left of them) without hitting such a story (that’s why the particulars of the above trio are meaningless.)

They do all have a few things in common – woe is us, what’s wrong with everyone, and trusted news gatekeepers are crucial to “our democracy” (whenever that term is used it is always referring to “their” democracy - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/what-protect-our-democracy-really , by the way.)

As to why the public no longer trusts the media, the reasoning tends to go along these lines.  First, people are still clinging to the outdated notion of “objective” journalism and that kind of “both sidesism” is what got us Trump so it’s bad and the reader just has to grow up and change with the times.

Second, the media industry has changed and the internet is making us focus more on direct readership numbers rather than general circulation so if people hadn’t abandoned us it would be much better for everyone.

Third, media consumers have polarized themselves into ideological silos so when they say they don’t trust us they only mean they don’t trust outlets they disagree with so the poll numbers are skewed by the public’s political prejudices.

And fourth, the people don’t trust the media because they don’t trust the media and if they only trusted us more they would see that they should really have trusted us all along.

Despite that reasoning being as circular as Magellan, it is actually quite common, hence the general befuddlement amongst mainstream/legacy/collaborationist media leaders.

Oh – and fifth – you’re stupid or crazy or evil and since you questioned us you’ve already – even if you don’t know it yet - died of COVID or driving your car or using your gas stove or climate change.

Nowhere do you see thoughts along the lines of “maybe we shouldn’t have lied so much,” or “I wonder if our thinking the public is a bunch of chimpchumps colors our coverage?” or “hmm, maybe it was not such a good idea to become the unquestioning propaganda organ for the elites, the powerful, the connected, the government.”

All of this we know, but on occasion it is interesting to look directly at one specific piece of rather generic reporting to see the real reason why the public no longer trusts the media.

Yesterday, Reuters ran a piece entitled “Acting US Labor chief Su opponents undeterred after port worker deal.”

The story was, obviously, about Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su and her quest to get the actual gig and remove the word “acting” from her title.  That process has not gone terribly smoothly - https://californiaglobe.com/articles/julie-su-has-to-wait-until-after-senate-recess/ - with at least four Senate Democrats (ish – one’s now technically an independent) holding out on saying whether or not they will vote for her confirmation.  If Su loses two of them, her nomination is toast (although due to an odd quirk of the law she could remain “acting” – which carries all of the regular powers and duties - until the end of Biden’s term anyway.)

The Reuters piece says her confirmation is at risk “even after she helped negotiate a crucial contract deal.”

It continues on by saying her nomination has been pending for two months, that the opposition is based on her as “California's labor commissioner from 2011 through 2018 to classify gig workers as employees,” and that that law – AB-5 – is “fiercely opposed by gig economy employers such as Uber, Lyft and independent trucking contractors. It is supported by unions and many gig workers because it would guarantee benefits and protections, including a minimum wage.”

The story has one quote from an opponent – Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) – and three supportive quotes from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, and from Su herself.  From the article:

Su told Reuters in her first interview after the June 14 deal covering West Coast seaports that handle roughly 40% of U.S. container import volume that the stakes were high for employers and workers.

"These are workers who helped carry the economy through the worst crisis that we've seen, which was COVID," Su said.

So exactly how does this snippet of media – 380 words long, produced by two reporters in two cities - spotlight why the public doesn’t trust the media?

First, the headline refers to “opponents.”  Only one is referenced.

Second, it actually engages in the dreaded “both sidesism” by noting many gig workers support it because of its “protections.”  Even though this is provably false – overwhelming numbers of freelancers despise the law and, on a national level, it would “protect” millions out of a livelihood – it was added to defend Su.  You see, “both sidesism” is okay if it’s your side that needs the help.

Third, Kiley’s quote is framed rather obliquely, saying he opposes her because “she has ‘refused’ to commit to whether she believes that state law - known as AB 5 – ‘is a model for the nation.’”

It references nothing about why the law is a monster, that Su has – during a single congressional committee – both denied helping craft the law and said she helped write some of the technical language in the law.

Fourth, it gets some basic facts wrong and/or shades them.  Su was nominated four months ago – they story says she has been waiting for two months for a confirmation vote, using her Senate committee appearance date rather than when President Biden actually nominated her for the job.  Why?  Two months waiting doesn’t sound as bad as four.

And the story refers to her as “California's labor commissioner from 2011 through 2018.”  That may be so, but it has little or nothing to do with her assistance with and draconian enforcement of AB-5, which happened in 2019 when she was Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

What did happen while she was commissioner was her barring immigration agents from department offices statewide - https://californiaglobe.com/articles/julie-su-ordered-staff-to-obstruct-immigration-agents/

Oops.

And one more interesting aspect of the story – it makes exactly zero mentions of the $40 billion dollars that was ripped off from the Employment Development Department when she was state labor secretary.

Zip.  Nada.  The null set.

Su’s push to take the crushing, pro-union (more members, you see) strictures of AB-5 nationally is an important issue, but a significant part of the opposition to Su has been based on her preternatural incompetence and sleazy obfuscation in regards to the EDD fraud.  As the state Legislative Analyst’s Office said, she knew it was happening and waited months – and tens of billions of dollars – to do anything about the massive international looting of the EDD.

But it didn’t warrant even a glancing reference.

When trust in the media is discussed, it’s usually in big broad terms focusing more on explicit bias, opinion, straight up lies, etc.  It is rarely about such mundane articles as the Reuters piece.

But when even these small pieces are wrong, slanted, purposefully obtuse, and there merely to both run cover for political allies it builds – brick by little brick – the wall of mistrust the media currently enclosing itself within.

Note - had an interesting subscriber comment emailed to me I thought I’d add here -

And what really gets me is that if I cite some fact gleaned from alternative sources, like The Point, Powerline, Epoch Times, Issues and Insights, Public, etc., I get challenged with a hostile "Where'd you get that?  Some right wing misinformation site?"

Their sources are always beyond question;  anything to the contrary is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  (And, as I've noted before, we are the true liberals, while all the ideologues, of all stripes, are on the extreme right.)

I do wonder sometimes, though, if I might be falling into the same trap -- believing the sources that agree with me, and not the others.  Except that it's hard to avoid the MSM take on anything, and then it's a matter of sifting, applying one's own knowledge, and ultimately, instincts. 

For example,  is it really true that the economy boomed, especially for those left behind the first two decades of this millennium, with Trump's policies, and that we are now suffering more, with Biden's reversal, than we were before?   Do we trust those same media to repost economic conditions accurately?

Thanks Frank for your input and it occurred to me that even when the stories like above are not technically lies (except for which job she had) it can all be add up to being false… if you want it to.