Trust in media is undergoing a significant transformation, with Republicans and young adults now showing nearly equal levels of trust in social media compared to national news outlets. This episode delves into the implications of this shift, revealing a striking decline in trust among Democrats as well, who have seen their faith in mainstream media drop from nearly 80% in the 1970s to just 54% today. As James Brown explores the evolving media landscape, he highlights how technological advancements and changing relationships with information are influencing public perception. The conversation also touches on the role of bias in mainstream media, the fragmentation of media sources, and the challenges of finding common ground in a society where diverse perspectives shape our understanding of news. Ultimately, Brown prompts listeners to consider whether this diversity of voices can lead to richer insights or if it signals a deeper societal divide.

The podcast delves into the evolving landscape of media trust, particularly highlighting the significant shifts in public perception over recent years. James Brown discusses a Pew Research survey that reveals a concerning trend: trust in national news outlets is waning, with a notable rise in trust for social media platforms among Republicans and young adults. Brown emphasizes the implications of these statistics, pointing out that 37% of Republicans now trust social media, which closely rivals the 40% who trust national news. This shift represents a staggering 30-point drop in trust since the 2016 presidential election, underscoring the profound impact of political events on media credibility.

As the conversation unfolds, Brown reflects on the historical context of media evolution, tracing the journey from traditional formats like books and radio to the contemporary dominance of social media and podcasts. He argues that the mainstream media's increasing transparency regarding its biases contributes to a growing disconnect between the media and the public. This disconnect is not only a symptom of political polarization but also signals a broader transformation in how information is consumed and trusted. The episode highlights the need for media outlets to adapt to this new reality, suggesting that honesty about biases could potentially restore some level of public trust.

The discussion culminates in a contemplation of the implications of this media evolution for society at large. Brown raises critical questions about the impact of diverse media sources on our collective understanding of truth and reality. He challenges listeners to consider whether this fragmentation of perspectives leads to richer dialogues or exacerbates divisions. Ultimately, the episode serves as a thought-provoking exploration of trust, technology, and the future of media in a rapidly changing world.

Takeaways:

• Trust in social media has significantly increased among Republicans and young adults, indicating a shift.
• The erosion of trust in mainstream media reflects a broader evolution in our media landscape.
• The decline in trust among Democrats shows that media bias affects all political affiliations.
• A more diverse and fragmented media landscape may lead to richer and nuanced understandings of the world.
• The ongoing evolution of media consumption is not merely a symptom but a significant change in society.
• The challenge remains in finding common ground when different perspectives dominate our information sources.

Links referenced in this episode:

• jamesbrowntv.substack.com

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Fox News
• Daily Wire

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.