Harris’ edited interview reveals why many have lost faith in the media

Contents of the article

Journalists understand that they are losing respect and public attention. However, instead of trying to win back the audience, they rush to a conclusion in which the last news anchor and the last viewer have one last conversation before the lights go out. Consider the CBS news show 60 Minutes, which edited the interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to replace her word salad with something coherent.

Contents of the article

“Well, Bill” Harris replied when asked by host Bill Whitaker whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is listening to the Biden administration. “The work that we have done has led to a number of Israeli movements in the region that have largely been caused or resulted from many things, including our advocacy of what needs to happen in the region.”

At least that’s what Harris responded in the teaser shown before the full interview. On air, the answer to the question was clearer: “We are not going to stop doing what is necessary to make clear to the United States where we stand on the need to end this war.”

“60 Minutes” claims the answer given during the show came from “the other part of the answer.” This may be true. This problem can easily be resolved by publishing the full transcript or video. A full 85 percent of respondents Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll say that “CBS should release the full transcript of Harris’ 60 Minutes interview.” Fifty-three percent say CBS tried to improve her appearance.

Given the public sentiment on this issue, releasing the full transcript is a smart move. It’s also, as former CBS reporter Katherine Herridge noted, the same thing they did when she interviewed Donald Trump in 2020. “It’s about transparency and ensuring the integrity of the final edit.” Herridge said.

Contents of the article

Contents of the article

It was inevitable that publishing two different answers to the same question would backfire in an era of political polarization where news organizations are perceived as like guerrilla players.

“It’s understandable that so many people are angry, especially with the national conversation about whether the media was complicit in covering up President Joe Biden’s physical disabilities,” he said. noted Jennifer Graham from the Deseret News.

Of course, the problems are much deeper. The once famous media outlets have been eroding their reputation among the public for years. Much of this damage was caused by the country being divided into mutually hostile political camps and news organizations choosing sides.

After special counsel Robert Mueller III closed his investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and then-President Trump, writing in a report that the allegations had little merit, former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth took a closer look at the resulting media frenzy for the Columbia Journalism Review.

“Outside the Times’ own bubble, the damage done to the credibility of the Times and its colleagues remains three years later and is likely to take on new energy as the nation faces another election season animated by antagonism toward the press,” Gehrt wrote in the beginning of his detailed analysis of 2023. He added that, while investigating the media frenzy surrounding Russiagate, “not a single major news organization provided a news executive to talk about their coverage.”

Contents of the article

The analysis also did not sit well with Trump and his supporters. But, as Gehrt emphasized, the low respect for politicians is a separate concern from the disdain with which many Americans view the media, which is supposed to inform the public.

“Americans continue to show a record low in trust in the news media,” Gallup reported earlier this month. “For the third year in a row, more American adults don’t trust the news media at all (36 percent) than trust them a lot or a fair amount.” Only 31 percent expressed “a lot” or “fair” confidence.

Much of the mainstream media leans left. Allsides, a media literacy company, publishes media bias chartwhich includes the New York Times, Washington Post, the three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC and CBS news), and CNN and MSNBC on the left. The Wall Street Journal is at the center along with Reuters and Reason magazines. Fox News is on the right flank, along with companies that generally position themselves as outright conservative.

So it’s not surprising that the news media has lost the most ground among Republicans, from 68 percent expressing a lot or some confidence in the early 1970s to 12 percent now. Independents have followed a similar path, falling from 74 percent in 1976 to 27 percent today. But even trust among Democrats fell 22 points in just six years, from 76 percent in 2018 to 54 percent in 2024.

Contents of the article

The audience has shrunk. Newspaper circulation on weekdays fell two-thirds from the peak of 63.3 million in 1984. Net evening news viewership this is about half as much as in 1980. This was followed by cable news. similar trendalthough the three big networks—notably Fox News— regained its position this election year.

Independent online operations compensate for some of this weakness, and many do a very good job. They mostly serve partisan disparate or niche interests, and perhaps this fragmented audience is appropriate for such a divided country.

We’re fortunate that the talented Substackers, podcasters, and talking heads on Rumble and X—like Free Press, Joe Rogan, and Glenn Greenwald—are stepping in where media dinosaurs seem content to silence themselves with rabbit-hole investigations and dubious interviews in front of the dwindling ranks of those interested in what they have to offer.

The future may well belong to a host of relatively small media outlets, many of which openly express their opinions. They can succeed if they avoid the mistakes of their predecessors.

Contents of the article

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

“Being impartial” is a serious challenge without much precedent. The period of “objective” journalism was a brief distraction from history partisan american news activities that have now resumed. As long as journalists are open about their biases, they will find an audience, just as their predecessors did decades ago. That is, they will grow audiences and build trust if they keep transparency and accountability in mind in their reporting.

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

National Post

Contents of the article