If You Don’t Trust The Media, Read This.
87% of CBS News Staff are Registered Democrats.
I published this 2018 article to provide a possible solution to what I regarded as a massive American journalistic crisis. Six years later, Uri Berliner, a 25 year National Public Radio (NPR) business editor published a very courageous and compelling editorial describing the very scenario I anticipated in my article. I’ve provided a link to his April 8, 2024 editorial later in my article. Here’s my original article and please understand that some of the metrics are dated.
January 24, 2018: SXC Analytics, an Austin, TX based independent watchdog research organization, has just announced the scandalous findings of a 2-year closely guarded proprietary project. Their analysts were able to gather the political affiliation, as well as, the historic voting records of the key employees for all of the major news TV/cable networks; the largest national news radio networks, the largest nationally distributed newspapers and the most read news magazines.
In total, more than 55 of the most influential media organizations were put under their microscope. They accessed public records of 325 employees and conducted hundreds of secondary interviews. In 2017, the combined national market share of just the electronic media companies represented in this study was an astounding 91% of total TV news viewership. The study provides longer-term historic trends regarding the political affiliations of these employees as well. In some cases, the findings go back as far as the 1980’s.
The summary findings are truly stunning and will put some of the most influential news organizations in a very embarrassingly defenseless position. A few examples:
· CBS is 87% Democratic
· FOX is 92% Republican
· CNN is 78% Democratic
· The Wall Street Journal is 67% Republican
· NPR is 97% Democratic ← Author’s Note: Berliner’s editorial states 87 registered Democrats vs. 0 Republicans. I missed by 3%. 100% was the correct answer.
· The New York Times is 89% Democratic
· Time magazine is 68% Democratic
The most worrisome finding — not a single news organization fell into the 40%-60% balanced affiliation range.
The results evidenced a culture of extreme political polarity across all media types. No outlying exceptions were noted.
Equally disturbing, the more senior the employee, the increased likelihood of higher same-party affiliation.
Well, I could continue rolling with this deception for a while longer, but I’m willing to bet that many who have read this article thus far aren’t shocked by my hypothetical presentation. And, I sincerely wish that the scenario I created would inspire someone to consider this as an actual research undertaking. Wouldn’t that be great! Sadly, if this research study were to be actually conducted, I think that the findings would be similar to what I’ve imagined.
According to Gallup research, confidence in the media has declined from 70% in the late 1970’s to the low 30% range today.
Respondents also indicated that their #1 (47%) news source was TV with the internet/social media ranking a distant #2 (26%). So, the credibility of TV news really matters. This erosion in public trust isn’t healthy and appears to be best described as a two-sided standoff with no resolution in sight. Both sides have morphed into a media business model that addresses only their current audience’s single-minded expectations. Telling people only what they want to hear is pandering, not news.
Were older generations of viewer’s just naïve regarding their favorite networks underlying political leanings? I don’t think so. The major differences that I observe in todays media culture are both an absence of 1.) reporting experience/credibility and 2.) editorial discipline. My favorite examples of the latter would include the overuse of anonymous & unnamed sources and the lack of multiple sources. These violations of traditional journalistic standards mark the distinction between proper journalism and tabloid news rags.
Decline in those critically important competencies are further amplified by the massive 20-year explosion in cable news options, which have severely stressed the available supply of truly qualified talent and placed a premium on “news” delivery speed at the expense of accuracy. The list of high profile TV reporters who have been caught intentionally lying or crossing professional ethic lines in connection to politics includes Dan Rather (CBS), Brian Ross (ABC), Donna Brazile (CNN), John Harwood (CNBC), Maggie Haberman (CNN) and Brian Williams (MSNBC). These events are on the increase and imply there’s more to come.
Let me provide an analogous aside. The 42% collapse of the internet-driven stock market in the early 2000’s resulted in a catastrophic credibility crisis.
The investment industry rose to the challenge to recover their loss of trust because they recognized their #1 asset was credibility, not advice. No one listens to someone they don’t trust.
Significant changes were enacted requiring the full disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest that either their firm and/or family members had regarding the securities that they recommended. Misrepresentation is treated seriously. Penalties include losing their industry license, as well, as criminal remedies. And, they have been effectively enforced.
I believe the media trust crisis can and must be fixed. Like the example above, their #1 asset is trust, not news stories. The creation of a committee of veteran media executives should be engaged to develop cross-industry recommendations for recovering their reputation. For instance, requiring all media outlets to fully disclose the long-term political affiliations of key employees would be a good starter. These disclosures could be made public and/or managed by an independent third party.
For instance, if 92% of Fox on-air talent and production staff are long-time registered Republicans, their internal culture will never meet their “fair and balanced” aspiration.
Likewise, the same can be said for all of the mainstream outlets. Balancing the staffs political ideologies will lead to a higher likelihood of true editorial balance.
Imagine this. Your favorite Sunday morning TV news program disclosed the political affiliations of both the moderator and their panel of “experts”. Likewise, the person being interviewed is treated with the same scrutiny. Currently, the only time they practice a working example of clean disclosure as I have proposed is for elected officials. Am I dreaming? Maybe, but it’s an idea with a applicable precedent. The financial industry proved it can work. Think of the difference in credibility if all of the political affiliations were disclosed for CNN’s 5–6 person panel discussions.
Call me cynical, but my gut tells me that those group “debates” are more similar to a beautifully harmonized choir. They exemplify “groupthink”, which prizes only unity of ideology versus respectful and objective debate. We have succumbed to their creation of, virtual groupthink in which we’re passive participants [or victims].
The unfortunate, but implicit assumption is we’ve become addicted to our own self-reinforced opinions.
The explosion of viewing options, I mentioned earlier, is a 1990’s phenomenon and is at the heart of this behavioral dysfunction. Audience segmentation, where a network targets very specific viewer types, is a great marketing strategy. Sports (ESPN), business (CNBC) and kids (Disney) are just a handful of examples of laser-targeted 24/7 programing. They don’t have an underlying political agenda. It’s all about presenting predictable and high quality product.
Conversely, FOX News was founded in 1996 with an overt agenda — to provide conservative viewers with their version of fair and balanced content. Their founder, Rupert Murdoch, strongly argued that the major mainstream media (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) were programming with a liberal agenda. The traditional media business model gradually shifted from properly targeting viewers on basic demographics (i.e. age, gender, race, etc.) to now include political ideology. It’s addition had a profound impact in all of their news content.
Viewers don’t know to what degree political ideology drives the network’s current targeting strategy. But, we do know that the Fox Network eclipsed both ABC and NBC in 2002. Their momentum continued and in 2005, they overtook CBS as well. They are now the #1 American TV network. Meanwhile, primarily due the success of evening host Bill O’Reilly, FOX’s news division was also the leader.
Author Update: According to Yahoo!finance (1/30/24), FOX News just made cable news history as the first network to mark 22 consecutive years at number one.
I believe this competitive shift caused the mainstream networks to resort to an all out attack on FOX and, at the same time, dial up political dogma to lock-in their current viewers. This competitive strategy was essential in their lucrative news divisions. Unfortunately, the more they dialed into the left, the more it worked and worsened their market position. This dynamic eventually resulted in our current media crisis.
Let’s add a few metrics to the mix. According to a 2017 Gallup annual tracking survey, 36% considered themselves conservative and 25% liberal. The conservative response has remains unchanged over the 25 years since the survey began. The liberal response has increased from 17% in 1992. FOX’s firm lock on conservative viewers combined with the mainstream networks lack of credibility with the right makes the targeting decision elementary.
The mainstream networks have no choice but to go after the liberal viewer. But, do the math. A single network (FOX) targeting 36% of the audience compared to at least 6 major networks targeting 25%. This totally explains our dysfunctional bifurcated market structure and FOX’s relative strength. Those major mainstream players must revert to constant vitriol to have any chance of developing a loyal relationship with a piece of that liberal audience.
The investment industry smartly recognized that there would be no winners, as long as their industry was viewed not trustworthy.
They addressed it and gradually succeeded in recovering their reputation. Their industry professional standards are at an all-time high.
Do we really believe only one political ideology has all the right answers?
I’m wishful for the return of uncontested news professionalism. Try consistently to tell the truth, including disclosing your political leanings, and return to a more proportionate non-political news coverage. Regardless of the network, audiences will positively respond to a good and trustworthy product. Maybe we need a forward thinking market-based solution with the introduction of a new non-politically aligned network. Either way, the crisis must be fixed.
Here is the promised NPR article. It’s a great read.
Thanks for reading my article. If you’d like to sign up to become a regular member, it cost you $5 per month and provides unlimited access to all the content on Medium. Here’s a link for you to sign up: https://medium.com/@ric62551/membership
