The edited Harris interview shows why many have lost trust in the media

Article content

Journalists know that they lose the public's respect and attention. But instead of trying to win back the audience, they strive for a conclusion where the last news anchor and the last viewer have one last conversation before turning out the lights. Consider the CBS news program “60 Minutes,” which edited an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to replace her word salad with something coherent.

Article content

“Well, Bill,” Harris said in response to a question from moderator Bill Whitaker about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is paying attention to the Biden administration. “The work that we have done has led to a number of movements by Israel in this region that were largely triggered by or the result of many things, including our advocacy of what needs to happen in the region. “

At least Harris answered in a teaser that aired before the full interview. On the broadcast, the answer to the question was more understandable: “We will not stop pursuing what is necessary to ensure that the United States is clear about where we stand in terms of the need to end this war.”

“60 Minutes” claims that the answer aired during the show came from “a different part of the answer.” That may be true. The issue can be easily resolved by posting the full transcript or video. Fully 85 percent of respondents to a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll say “CBS should release the full transcript of Harris' '60 Minutes' interview.” 53 percent say CBS tried to make her look better.

Article content

Article content

Given the public opinion on the issue, releasing the full transcript is the smart move. It's also, as former CBS reporter Catherine Herridge pointed out, what they did when she interviewed Donald Trump in 2020. “It’s about transparency and standing behind the integrity of the final version,” Herridge said.

It was inevitable that publishing two different answers to the same question would be poorly received in a politically polarized time when news organizations are viewed as partisan actors.

“It's understandable that so many people are angry, especially after a national discussion about whether the media was complicit in covering up President Joe Biden's physical limitations,” noted Deseret News' Jennifer Graham.

Of course the problems go deeper. Once prominent media companies have been weakening their public image for years. Much of this damage has come as the country splits into warring political camps and news organizations choose sides.

After special counsel Robert Mueller III concluded the investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and then-President Trump with a report that provided little substantiation of the allegations, former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth investigated the media frenzy for the Columbia Journalism Review.

Article content

“Outside the Times' own bubble, the damage to the credibility of the Times and its colleagues remains three years later and will likely gain new energy as the nation faces another election season marked by hostility toward the press,” Gerth wrote at the start of his detailed 2023 analysis. Examining the media frenzy over Russiagate, he added: “Not a single major news organization made an editorial director available to talk about their reporting.”

The analysis wasn't exactly kind to Trump and his supporters either. But, as Gerth pointed out, the low regard shown to politicians is a different concern than the contempt with which many Americans view the media, which is supposed to keep the public informed.

“Americans’ trust in mass media remains at record lows,” Gallup reported earlier this month. “For the third year in a row, more U.S. adults have no trust in the media at all (36 percent) than trust the media a lot or somewhat.” Only 31 percent expressed “a great deal” or “somewhat” confidence.

Much of the branded news media leans left. Allsides, a media literacy company, publishes a media bias chart that shows the New York Times, the Washington Post, the three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC and CBS News), as well as CNN and MSNBC on the left. The Wall Street Journal takes center stage, along with Reuters and Reason Magazine. Fox News is on the right, along with companies that largely describe themselves as openly conservative.

Article content

So it's no surprise that the media has lost the most ground among Republicans: in the early 1970s, 68 percent expressed a great deal or fair degree of trust, down from 12 percent today. Independents followed a similar path, falling from 74 percent in 1976 to 27 percent today. But even Democrats' trust fell 22 percent in just six years – from 76 percent in 2018 to 54 percent in 2024.

The audience has shrunk. Weekday newspaper circulation fell by two-thirds from a peak of 63.3 million in 1984. Viewership of the network's evening news is about half what it was in 1980. Cable news followed a similar trend, although the three major networks—notably Fox News – gained some ground this election year.

Independent and online companies are picking up some of the gap, and many of them are doing very good work. They tend to serve partisan silos or niche interests, and perhaps these fragmented audiences are fitting for a country that is so divided.

We're lucky to have talented substackers, podcasters and talking heads on Rumble and questionable interviews in front of the dwindling number of people interested in what they have to offer.

Article content

The future may well belong to a mass of relatively small media companies, many of which have open opinions. They can do it well – as long as they avoid the mistakes of their predecessors.

“At this time when the media is under extraordinary attack and widely distrusted, a transparent, unbiased and accountable media is needed more than ever,” Gerth wrote in his Russiagate analysis.

“Impartiality” is a tall order without precedent. The era of “objective” journalism was a brief diversion from the history of partisan American news operations that has now resumed. As long as journalists speak openly about their biases, they will find an audience, just as their predecessors did decades ago. This means they will grow their audience and build trust if they are careful to be transparent and accountable in their reporting.

Transparent and accountable. This happens when you show your notes to explain why your work looks like a PR stunt for a political candidate, or when you answer questions about your journalistic failures. The media of the future will be shaped by how “60 Minutes” and other media outlets misbehave now.

National Post

Article content