Trust in media is undergoing a significant transformation, as recent findings reveal that Republicans and younger adults now place nearly equal trust in social media compared to traditional national news outlets. This shift, highlighted by a Pew Research survey, indicates a dramatic decline in trust among various demographic groups, including a drop from nearly 80% for Democrats in the 1970s to just 54% today. James Brown explores the implications of this erosion of trust, suggesting it's symptomatic of broader technological changes and evolving relationships with information. He emphasizes the importance of diverse media voices and perspectives in shaping our understanding of the world, questioning whether this fragmentation ultimately leads to richer insights or further divides society. As the media landscape continues to evolve, he invites listeners to consider whether this shift is a natural progression or a cause for concern.

The podcast delves into the shifting landscape of trust in media, particularly focusing on a recent Pew Research survey that reveals a notable decline in trust among Republicans and young adults towards traditional news outlets. James Brown articulates a striking statistic: 37% of Republicans now trust social media, which is alarmingly close to the 40% trust in national news, representing a dramatic 30-point drop since 2016. This trend is not isolated to political affiliation; it extends to younger demographics, where 52% of individuals under 30 express trust in social media, almost paralleling their confidence in national news. Brown underscores that this erosion of trust is not merely a byproduct of political polarization but rather a reflection of a broader evolution in how society consumes and interprets information. He suggests that the media's transparent biases and overt expressions of opinion have contributed to this disconnect, making it increasingly difficult for audiences to discern reliable sources of information. The discussion raises critical questions about the implications of this trust gap, urging listeners to consider whether the fragmentation of media is beneficial or detrimental to societal discourse.

The episode further explores the historical context of media evolution, tracing the journey from traditional print to the modern digital landscape, where diverse voices compete for attention. Brown posits that as mainstream media loses its gatekeeping role, smaller outlets that cater to specific perspectives gain traction. This democratization of media has both positive and negative consequences; while it allows for a richer tapestry of narratives, it also risks creating echo chambers where consensus is difficult to achieve. Brown reflects on the complexities of this transition, suggesting that the challenge lies not in finding common ground but in understanding how the multiplicity of narratives can coexist and enrich public discourse. Ultimately, he invites listeners to engage with these shifts thoughtfully, pondering whether the current media landscape will lead to a more informed society or exacerbate divisions.

Takeaways:

• Trust in media has significantly declined, with Republicans and young adults increasingly trusting social media.
• The erosion of trust in mainstream media is a consequence of technological evolution and transparency.
• Democrats have seen their trust in mainstream media drop from nearly 80% to 54% today.
• Smaller media outlets often cover overlooked issues, resonating with audiences' lived experiences and perspectives.
• This shift in media trust raises questions about how diverse sources influence our understanding of news.
• The challenge lies in fostering common ground when facts come from vastly different sources.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Fox News
• Daily Wire

Links referenced in this episode:

• jamesbrowntv.substack.com

Trusting what you see.

This is commentary from James Brown.

When we talk about trust in media today, we're witnessing something profound, even if it's not a total shock.

A recent Pew Research survey reveals a transformation that should make us all pause.

Republicans and young adults now trust social media almost as much as national news outlets.

Let that sink in.

Thanks, Elon.

The numbers tell a striking story.

Meanwhile, 52% of under 30s trust social media, nearly matching their total trust in national news.

About 56% of them trusted.

But here's what's crucial.

This isn't just another story about political polarization, although that's clearly part of the story.

This clearly isn't just about Donald Trump, Fox News, or the Daily Wire, though they've certainly benefited.

But they're players in a much longer game, one driven by technological evolution and changing relationships with information itself.

Throughout history, our media landscape has evolved from books to telegraphs, radio to television, cable news to social media to podcasts like this one.

Each transition fundamentally altered how we consume and trust information.

What we're seeing now isn't the disease, it's a symptom of an ongoing evolution.

The mainstream media's increasingly transparent bias has created a disconnect.

On top of that, their wants, their decisions, their feelings, they're more obvious about it all now.

And that could be okay.

Honestly, I think it fits the coming landscape if they were honest about it.

But they're not.

And trust, once broken, is hard to repair.

Some say it's necessary.

It's what Keith Olbermann and Wesley Lowry called moral force, reporting for the greater good.

As they see it, right or wrong, there are consequences for every action.

Those who agree with your assessment expect more of it and nothing but it.

And those who disagree with it don't trust you anymore.

It's a trap.

These days, I often think of one of my favorite misquotes.

There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happened.

Reporters made this choice in an era with easy and widely spread democratization of media platforms.

It's one of the reasons why people naturally gravitated to outlets that reflected their perspective, their values, their point of view, and the issues that they want to see challenged.

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

These smaller venues often cover issues that major media overlooks, speaking to audiences in ways that resonate with their lived experiences.

Is this good for society?

Well, it's complicated.

There are trade offs, just as there were with the old paradigm, but personally I lean towards seeing this as a positive development.

I prefer distributed power over top down control, no matter the consequences.

But then again, I'm a crazy guy publishing podcasts and newsletters for a few thousand people monthly.

What matters here isn't just about what stories get covered, but how different perspectives shape our understanding of them.

As traditional gatekeepers lose their grip, we're seeing a more diverse, fragmented mediascape emerge.

This transition isn't just about changing preferences, it's about how we as a society form our worldviews.

If we're getting our facts from drastically different sources, how can we hope to have common ground?

The truth is, throughout history, we never really have until recently.

Yet maybe that's not the right question at all.

Perhaps we should ask how can this diversity of voices and choices by the consumer and news outlets lead to richer, more nuanced understandings of our world?

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.

What do you think?

Am I far off base here?

Is this shift a cause for concern or natural evolution?

Let me know in the comments and support my work@jamesbrowntv.substack.com on that note, I'm James Brown and as always, be well.