Angry at “the Media”? 4 Reasons To Cut Them Some Slack

Donald Trump will be inaugurated in a few days. In his second term, just as in his first, he’ll likely spark passionate disagreements about news media: what is “fake news” and what isn’t; which media sources should be trusted or doubted. 

We know we have a media trust problem; trust in news media recently hit an all-time low. It’s important to see that this distrust isn’t just about the quality of the news: it’s related to our toxic political divides. Many are frustrated with news outlets they associate with the “other side,” but it’s not just that. People are also upset with media sources they largely agree with when they think those outlets aren’t doing enough to fight for their side or against their adversaries. Our polarization leads to widespread frustration — and “the media” is caught in the middle of it.  

This raises an important question: Are we sometimes too angry at “the media”? There’s plenty to criticize modern news media for, and we must demand they do better. But there might be value in tempering our criticism with empathy and understanding. 

Here are three reasons to reconsider our outrage — and thoughts on how that might help heal our divides.

Reason #1: “The media” is just people 

One reason for anger at “the media” is the perception it’s a powerful, centralized institution pulling the strings of society. However, as media scholar Elizaveta Friesem points out: “Media is just us; it’s just people communicating with each other.” 

Journalists are people like everyone else, navigating our confusing and stressful divides as well as a fractured and competitive information landscape. Like us, they’re dealing with conscious and unconscious biases. And combatting our own biases is difficult — especially when we have such divergent political narratives. 

Reason #2: Bias is more likely than purposeful deception

Some of our frustration with the news is due to us simply not understanding our political opponents. As our narratives diverge more and more, our opponents’ beliefs seem increasingly alien, inexplicable — even downright scary. This difficulty is what leads to so many people accusing the “other side” of being brainwashed, of being in a cult, of creating or believing propaganda. 

Take a common conservative grievance: the perception that mainstream media unfairly interprets Trump’s statements. Many conservatives see this as part of a deliberate smear campaign. But there’s another explanation: bias, not malice. It’s just easy for people to arrive at very different stances, especially for issues associated with our divides. People’s views about Trump’s statements can vary depending on how they interpret his words and intentions, or how they connect his words to what he’s said in the past on the same issue. This kind of dynamic isn’t unique to one side; it happens across all serious conflicts.

Of course, some people do share information they know is false. The perceived high stakes of our divides lead to some people seeing the ends as justifying the means. But we should see that often bias is a much simpler explanation than deception. We aren’t good at distinguishing true belief from deception; this means we’ll often make mistakes about the people around us.

Reason #3: The “Golden Age” of journalism may be a mirage 

Some talk nostalgically about the “golden age” of journalism in the 20th century as if it was a time of high-quality reporting and strong consensus. But we should recognize our rosy perceptions of that time may be largely an illusion, influenced by there being only a handful of powerful news outlets at that time. Some argue our current media fragmentation represents a return to a pre-golden-age environment where a multitude of competing narratives were found across many small newspapers and pamphlets. 

Reason #4: Journalists have a hard job 

We should recognize that our political divides create a stressful and often confusing environment. Just as you probably often feel conflicted on what information and interpretations to trust and how to proceed in such an environment, journalists do, too. (Just as we doing this work sometimes do, too.)

Let’s look at the New York Times: they’re accused by many of having a strong liberal bias — but some on the left criticize it for “enabling right-wing spin”, or even for being pro-Trump. No matter your opinion of the New York Times, this helps us see that no matter how a news outlet operates, it will inevitably frustrate people across the political spectrum. Recognizing this can help us better understand the pressures journalists face in our polarized society.

We can temper criticism with understanding

No matter how we got here, today’s media reflects our society — its strengths, weaknesses, and divides. To reduce political toxicity, we need to hold news outlets accountable and demand they do better. But if we temper our criticisms with empathy and understanding, we’ll be more persuasive — more likely to be heard and listened to. Perhaps, by doing so, we’ll find our way to a new era of trusted and respected news.

Want to help overcome our toxic divides? Sign up for our newsletter.