Author: Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

Mike Breslin has more than 30 years of journalism, public relations and strategic communications experience in agency, government, nonprofit and academic environments. His teaching focus is introductory public relations and media research (and writing, as the opportunity permits). His focus as a researcher is the media, particularly news media literacy. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership and Policy (Higher Education) from Oklahoma State University and a Master of Arts in Mass Communications from Texas Tech University.

ChapGPT wrote most of this post, and…Holy crap!!

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

Except for this first paragraph in italics, ChapGPT wrote this entire post. It did so in response to the following prompt: “Write a 300- to 500-word blog post about why the US news media is not trusted.” And this (below) is what it came up with. The fact that it did this well in describing the problem should terrify any journalist, good or bad. As well as any of us who don’t want to see Skynet take over. (The second and fourth paragraph are the most damning for our dysfunctional and corrupt news media.)

The United States news media is a vital component of democracy, providing citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions about their government and society. However, in recent years, trust in the news media has been on the decline, with many Americans expressing skepticism about the accuracy and impartiality of the information they receive.

One reason for this decline in trust is the increasing polarization of the news media. Many news outlets have become overtly partisan, with a clear bias towards one political party or ideology. This has led to a situation where people are only exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs, rather than being challenged to consider alternative perspectives. As a result, they become more entrenched in their views, and less likely to trust any information that contradicts them.

Another reason for the decline in trust is the proliferation of fake news and misinformation. With the rise of social media, it has become easier than ever to spread false or misleading information, and this has led to a situation where people are unsure of what to believe. This is particularly problematic when it comes to important issues such as elections, where false information can have a significant impact on the outcome.

The rise of clickbait and sensationalism in the news media is another reason why people are losing trust in the news media. Many news outlets are more focused on generating clicks and views than on providing accurate and unbiased information. This has led to a situation where news is often presented in a way that is designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than to inform. This type of reporting can be misleading and not reliable.

Finally, the decline in trust in the news media is also related to the economic challenges facing the industry. The decline of traditional newspapers and the rise of digital media have led to a situation where news outlets are under increasing pressure to generate revenue. This has led to a situation where news is often sensationalized and exaggerated in order to generate views and clicks, which in turn undermines the credibility of the news media.

In conclusion, the decline in trust in the news media is a complex and multifaceted problem. It is rooted in a variety of factors, including polarization, misinformation, sensationalism, and economic challenges. To rebuild trust in the news media, it is essential that news outlets focus on providing accurate and unbiased information, and that they strive to be transparent and accountable to their audiences. Additionally, media literacy is important so that individuals can better evaluate the information they consume. Only then can we have a healthy and informed democracy.Regenerate response

Same as the old boss?

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

Anyone who pays attention to the American news media, Twitter, or both has seen some interesting developments on Twitter over the last several days.

After claiming that he and his child were doxxed by @elonjet on Twitter late last week, CEO and Owner Elon Musk went on a suspension spree, suspending that account and left-leaning journalists who were sharing @elonjet’s post. To be clear, Musk’s “doxxing” characterization is hotly debated as the information that was posted is publicly available. (Candidly, I am conflicted on this point but do lean towards the “wasn’t doxxing” side.) To some extent, Musk’s initial reaction is understandable. If you feel like someone is doing something that could endanger one of your children, you are likely to have a visceral reaction.

A day or so later, Musk started suspending accounts – again left leaning – for actions they took prior to his acquisition of Twitter unrelated to the @elonjet incident.

After years of being targeted by old Twitter management for questionable suspensions and bans that predominantly affected accounts on the right, many conservatives started mainlining schadenfreude. Turnabout and all.

But here’s the problem: Musk bought Twitter with a pledge that he was going to restore free speech, free expression and fairness on the site. But what he has done in recent days is contrary to these for the most part, particularly the fairness principle. Yes, some of the people caught in these suspensions are among the worst, most dishonest actors in the media and on Twitter. They include Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post and independent journalist Aaron Rupar. Even I will admit to taking a bit of spiteful pleasure in seeing them get a taste of what they have for years ignored – or even encouraged – when it was being primarily targeted at right-wing figures and organizations they didn’t like.

So, I get why many conservatives who previously said they want non-partisan enforcement of Twitter rules have reveled in Musk’s moves. But in the end, principles matter…or at least they should. As people smarter than me like Twitter Files co-author Bari Weiss have noted, engaging in capricious suspensions like these were bad under the old management, and they are bad under new management.

If behavior from Musk like this continues, it will mean that Twitter is the epitome of that old line: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Michael Powell shines again, this time on the trans sports issue

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

Michael Powell continues to be one of the best NYT reporters on sensitive sociopolitical issues.

If only the rest of the Times’ domestic coverage was as good as his.

Some hopeful signs on the NY Times’ editorial pages

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

As often as I lambaste the NY Times editorial section, two recent pieces suggest there is cause for guarded optimism.

The first – an op-ed by college student Emma Camp – decried the illiberal culture on her campus whereby dissenting opinions are discouraged and free inquiry is suppressed. The second piece – from the editorial board itself – offered a thorough analysis and commentary on cancel culture and free speech.

While the many negative reactions to the pieces – including more than a few from prominent news media figures – are troubling to First Amendment aficionados, they underscore the legitimacy of the concerns expressed in both commentaries. The Times deserves for kudos for publishing them in light of the predictable blowback.

Let’s hope this is the start of a trend.

Media bias hurting dems (really)

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

Excellent article by Charles Cooke of National Review that echoes something I have noticed in recent years.

When the press largely becomes becomes subservient to one side of the political aisle, the intended beneficiary of their support becomes intellectually lazy and sloppy in their messaging.

CNN’s Clarissa Ward distinguishes herself among her CNN colleagues

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

As often as I and others rightfully lambaste CNN, it should be noted that CNN’s Clarissa Ward deserves everyone’s respect and praise for her reporting from Afghanistan right now.

Despite the risks to everyone there – particularly women – she is reporting every day on developments on the ground including some information that is less than favorable to the Taliban or the Biden administration.

Some of Clarissa Ward’s CNN colleagues cosplay as journalists who put themselves at risk with their reporting – looking at you, Jim Acosta. Based on what we are seeing right now, Clarissa is the real deal.

The NY Times has officially lost its way

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

One of the more disgraceful actors in last year’s NY Times Cotton op-ed debacle – Jeannie Choi (see first image) – has been put in charge of NY Times Magazine (second image).

If ever you needed proof that The Old Gray Lady has utterly lost its way, this is it. The Times is lost for at least a generation.

Another great piece by Michael Powell

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

Michael Powell scores again with some thorough reporting about the ongoing identity crisis at the ACLU. As with the Smith College article, writing this article in a narrative-driven newsroom like the NY Times is especially commendable.

Kudos to Michael Powell of the NYT for his piece on Smith College

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

This is an incredibly powerful piece by Michael Powell of the New York Times involving Smith College and the employees there who had their lives turned upside down by baseless charges of racism. The article unsparingly notes how Smith President Kathleen McCartney tolerated and even enabled the mistreatment of said employees.

In the current environment of the New York Times newsroom, where woke Millennials have increasing sway in promoting their illiberal points of view, it took courage for Powell to write this article. It’s quality journalism.

PRINCIPLES AND SELECTIVE MEDIA OUTRAGE

Posted on by Mike Breslin, Ph.D.

NOTE: THIS BLOG POST WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN MAY 2019 ON A DIFFERENT SITE. IT IS REPUBLISHED HERE FOR ARCHIVING PURPOSES.

On May 10, San Francisco police raided the home of a freelance journalist who had provided information to several local TV stations regarding the death of an area public defender. The journalist, Brian Carmody, apparently had obtained and distributed a copy of the police report on the public defender’s death. Citing the need to identify the source of the leak within the police department, police officers raided Carmody’s home. Although they had a warrant, the raid still caused outrage among many (myself included) who saw this as an egregious violation of First Amendment protections vis a vis freedom of the press, to say nothing of a reporter’s right to protect his or her sources. 

Since then, the San Francisco Chronicle has done an outstanding job of covering this troubling incident. Anyone interested in reading their coverage can follow this link. That said, looking at this matter from my perspective outside the Bay Area, what struck me was the near dearth of coverage at the national level. Shamefully (and self-defeatingly), far too many of the national media dragged their heels noticeably on this story before begrudgingly (and minimally) acknowledging that this travesty even happened. Among the more flagrant examples were CNN, which has made a business model out of criticizing President Trump 24/7 for, among other things, his verbal abuse of the news media. Mind you, a great many of those criticisms of the president’s rhetoric concerning journalists are well founded. But where was the outrage from Brian Stelter, Chris Cuomo et al in this case where actual government force was misapplied to a journalist?

This incident provides legitimate fodder to those who argue that press outrage over government abuse is selective. Consider the media coverage and trends at the national level on this subject. 

  • Obama abuses of the press: Covered, but mostly “Meh. Oooh, btw, did you see him slow jam the news with Fallon?!?”
  • Police in Democrat-run San Francisco raid a reporters home and seize files: “New phone, who dis?”
  • Trump says mean things re press: “THE REPUBLIC IS FALLING!!!”

To be sure, the above analysis is exaggerated for effect…but not THAT exaggerated. If a local unit of ICE – a federal agency under the Trump administration – led the exact same raid on on the exact same journalist on the exact same day – does anyone want to suggest that the reaction from the national media would have been anywhere as muted as it was in this case?

If we want news media to be more trusted and held in higher esteem by the public – and we DO if we care about democracy – then journalists and media figures at the highest and most-visible levels (i.e., the national media, particularly broadcasters) need to stop being selectively outraged and cherry picking coverage like this. This is especially true regarding the way they report on government…and themselves. 

Ultimately, principles like freedom of the press are NOT principles if they are only applied when it’s convenient or supportive of one’s sociopolitical narrative.