Confidence in traditional news media has reached record lows among Americans, with only 16% expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in newspapers and just 11% feeling the same about television news according to a Gallup Poll. These figures represent a five-percentage-point decline for both mediums compared to the previous year.
That’s a striking statistic, but not entirely surprising given the polarized landscape we’re in. The drop in confidence likely reflects growing dissatisfaction with perceived bias, sensationalism, or lack of accountability in reporting. Many people feel like traditional media outlets have moved away from their primary mission of delivering fair, factual news and instead focus too heavily on opinion and partisanship.
This lack of trust pushes more people toward alternative media, social media, or independent journalism—though these also come with their own challenges, like misinformation. It raises a critical question: how can legacy media regain public trust? Transparency, fact-focused reporting, and clear distinctions between news and opinion seem like good places to start.
There’s no question that former President Trump faced an unprecedented level of scrutiny and criticism from many corners of the media in his first term. Studies have shown that a significant portion of the coverage during his presidency was negative, often exceeding 90% in some reports. Whether that’s “unfair” depends on how one interprets the role of the media and the context of the coverage.
Critics of the media argue that such overwhelmingly negative reporting reflects bias and an unwillingness to acknowledge any of the administration’s accomplishments. For supporters of Trump, this felt like a coordinated effort to undermine his presidency and discredit his policies, which is understandably frustrating.
On the other hand, some journalists and commentators argue that the tone of the coverage was reflective of the controversies, statements, and policy decisions coming from the administration itself. They might claim that the media’s job is to hold those in power accountable, regardless of the political fallout.
Ultimately, fairness is about balance. If positive achievements were overlooked or dismissed entirely, then yes, that could reasonably be viewed as unfair. What’s important is fostering a media landscape where criticism is balanced with acknowledgment of successes, so the public can form a well-rounded understanding.
The media’s role is to hold all administrations accountable, regardless of who is in power. If the perception—or reality—is that they did not adequately scrutinize President Biden’s administration, particularly regarding his mental and physical fitness, then that reflects a failure to fulfill their watchdog function fully and impartially.
It’s true that some outlets appeared less critical of President Biden, with fewer hard-hitting investigations or reports highlighting his potential shortcomings. For example, the topic of his cognitive health was often dismissed by certain media as a “right-wing talking point,” rather than being explored with the same rigor that might have been applied to other leaders. That perception of running “interference” undermines public trust in the media and reinforces the idea of bias.
On the other hand, there were instances where media outlets did challenge Biden, such as his handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, inflation, and issues at the southern border. However, these moments may not have carried the same sustained intensity of coverage that was directed at Trump during his presidency.
The challenge lies in consistency. When the public perceives a double standard—whether it’s downplaying one administration’s shortcomings while magnifying another’s—it erodes faith in journalism as an institution. Ideally, the media should investigate and report without fear or favor, ensuring that the public receives an accurate and balanced picture of leadership.
Trust in legacy media has taken a serious hit, and a lot of that has to do with the perception (and reality) of bias. When news outlets lean heavily into editorializing or selective reporting, it alienates large segments of the population. People don’t want to feel like they’re being spoon-fed an agenda—they just want the facts so they can form their own opinions.
Restoring trust will require some serious introspection on the part of the media. It would mean going back to basics: presenting balanced reporting, avoiding sensationalism, and separating clear-cut news from opinion pieces. It’s also about accountability—admitting mistakes openly and addressing perceived bias head-on.
The media is supposed to serve as a bridge between the public and power, not another player in the political game. If they focused more on issues that genuinely matter to people—without the partisan spin—it could go a long way toward rebuilding credibility.
Straight reporting, without the unnecessary commentary or the constant “Orange Man Bad” narrative, would certainly help media outlets regain some of the trust they’ve lost. People are smart—they can form their own opinions if given the facts. The relentless attacks and one-sided narratives just feed division and make it clear that objectivity has taken a back seat.
Focusing on the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of a story, while leaving the editorializing to opinion columns, is Journalism 101. But somewhere along the line, a lot of outlets seemed to blur those lines, prioritizing clicks, ratings, or their own biases over the public’s need for fair information.
Do you think there’s still room in today’s media landscape for truly unbiased reporting? Or do you think the 24/7 news cycle and social media have made that nearly impossible?
