America Last: Good News And Bad News At The Same Time


As you can see in the chart above, a report released by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford and the University of Oxford found that out of 46 nations surveyed the US public ranks last in its trust of the news media at 29%. The study surveyed 92,000 news consumers in those countries. Finland finished first with a trust rate of 65%.

I doubt that Finland’s journalists deserve that much more trust, which is one reason the report is good news for the United States. I think it is highly likely that the journalists everywhere else suffer from the same arrogance, relative lack of intellectual depth, and hive-mind leanings as U.S. journalists. I think that the U.S. public’s lack of trust shows growing and essential understanding of the true nature of what has become a corrupt and dangerous false profession that does not serve the interests of the people as it is pledged to according to journalistic ethics, but its own. Nor do I believe the U.S. has the worst and most unethical journalists in the world—far from it, I suspect. The U.S. has the journalists with the most freedom, making it especially easy to do their job as dishonestly as they do; yet unlike in many of those nations, their government isn’t forcing American journalists to substitute spin, distortion and propaganda for the truth.

The U.S. public has, finally, had its blinders ripped off, and is no longer under the delusion that they are being informed by altruistic and dedicated pros who only seek to reveal the facts necessary for us to live our lives as we choose to. Knowledge is power, and while our news media is wielding their control over knowledge to transfer power to their political allies, the public, at least most of it, has acquired crucial knowledge to neutralize it: the knowledge that that are not trustworthy.

Unfortunately, the bad news aspect of the study’s finding is arguably worse than the good news is encouraging. Democracy cannot function without a trustworthy news media, or as the Founders called it, “press.” Journalism rot is an existential threat.

The report’s executive summary contains some howlers that reveal either stunning naivete or, ironically, a lack of trustworthiness. For example, commenting on how the U.S. is seeing a trend in people rejecting mainstream media is the U.S., we read,

“Decline in interest in mainstream news remains a huge challenge at a time when societies are facing such a set of existential threats to health and prosperity. The challenge for media companies is how to re-engage that interest without dumbing down or resorting to sensationalism, which in turn can damage trust.

Oh, by all means, not sensationalism, like how the pandemic was weaponized to terrify the public into submitting to draconian restrictions on the lives, or how a riot at the Capitol by 300 idiots was painted as n “insurrection.” And certainly no “dumbing down,” when TV news pundits consist of such towering intellects as Chris Cuomo, Brian Stelter, Sean Hannity…


“Political divides fuel much of this mistrust in the United States, with those who self-identify on the right being more than twice as likely to distrust the news compared with those on the left. Resentment and anger are stoked by polarised TV networks such as right-leaning Fox News, One America News, and Newsmax and left-leaning CNN and MSNBC.”

No, you boobs, the reason conservatives are more likely to distrust the news is because the news panders to the Left, and its harder to objectively criticize those who distort facts to please you and serve your interests. Moreover, all the other major news networks other than Fox—that’s ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS—are “left-leaning” (just like Reuters.) MSNBC and CNN are just extreme about it.


“The growth of online and social media has encouraged news organisations and individuals that take more overtly partisan positions than in the past….All of this is putting new pressure on notions of impartiality and objectivity, which describe journalists’ attempts to represent all sides fairly and without biases.”

Oh, please! “Journalists’ attempts to represent all sides fairly and without biases” can only be described as “rare and weak.”

Zack Beauchamp, a “senior correspondent” at one of the most egregiously left-biased political websites, Vox, had a reaction on Twitter that verges on parody: “The partisan numbers suggest that anything unique about the US is explained by the right’s decades-old war on media.”

Glenn Greenwald comments,

Any other industry failing like this would engage in self-critique, asking why. They never do…Like some kind of pathological narcissist, when you show corporate media stars these facts — you inspire more distrust than every media in **46 countries** surveyed — they will insist it’s the fault of those who distrust them: they’re dumb, manipulated, primitive, racist, etc.

But at least they are fooling fewer and fewer Americans.

10 thoughts on “America Last: Good News And Bad News At The Same Time

  1. Jack, you aren’t seriously suggesting that OAN and Newsmax are left-leaning, are you? Because if they are, I’m somewhere so far to the left that I barely see Karl Marx off to the right.

    • Oh GOD no! I don’t consider either OAN or Newsmax part of the conversation—if they don’t make the standard cable package, then they aren’t major networks. Sloppy: I was referring to the report only citing CNN and MSNBC as left-leaning. I’ll fix that. Thanks.

      • Cable is dying. Making the standard criteria for being a major news outlet whether or not it’s included in standard cable packages is still probably a pretty good metric, but I doubt that standard will hold for long. My parents don’t even have cable any longer. Streaming is in the process of replacing cable entirely.

        I wouldn’t call Newsmax or OAN major networks because they don’t match up in quality to the major networks in any way. Their cameras, audio quality, and talent are less polished than a local news channel, much less the major news networks. Reporters on those networks stumble over their words, and often look like a deer in the headlights. I cannot trust a reporter that cannot even sound like a reporter, so I don’t watch either network. I would suggest quality may be the differentiating factor in the future.

  2. The foreign numbers are interesting.

    Anecdotally, I live in a community with a very large Filipino population, and I’ve had a couple of conversations about civics. They come up in different ways; talking about Covid restrictions, talking about differences between Canada and the Philippines, complaining about traffic tickets… But my Filipino friends have all told me the same thing: When Stephen Harper was in power, they voted for Stephen Harper, and while Justin Trudeau is in power, they’ll vote for Trudeau.

    They do this because the Filipino government is deeply corrupt. I’ve also been told stories about how everyone keeps a certain amount of money in their wallet behind their driver’s license for bribes. Their fear is that the people in power will find out that they voted for the wrong person, and take it out on them.

    So…. I’m not sure how to feel about their number. It’s relatively low, which probably means they they recognize that their media is under the same, if not more, pressure from their corrupt government and spouts garbage. I’m surprised they were willing to say so. Maybe the impression is that there’s enough space between the government and the media that they can speak freely.

    Or maybe my anecdotal impression is completely out to lunch.

    • The foreign numbers are definitely interesting. I see a trend with countries that have populations with anti-globalist leanings distrusting the news far more than countries that are globalist agenda friendly.

  3. I think the countries with very low numbers are interesting. Look at Western Europe. France is at 30%, about the same as the US. In the last election, the option was between Marine LePen and Macron. The press called LePen a racist and ‘far right’. Macron said that LePen was focusing on many legitimate issues, but that these could be dealt with by mainstream means. He was a ‘moderate’ candidate that would represent and ‘unify’ all of France. The French people were afraid of being seen as racist, so voted for Macron. Macron ignored his ‘moderate’ and nationalist campaign views and became a leftist globalist. After he defunded the police and used the money to renovate housing for Muslim migrants, the people started the yellow-vest protest. These protests have been going on almost every weekend (except during a 3-month lockdown of the country) since 2018. France has been under martial law since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, with the government in charge of the press and warrantless police searches. Many of these ’emergency’ powers have now been made permanent because they got tired of renewing them.

    Look at Eastern Europe. These are countries used to Communist news agencies. I am surprised the trust is that high in Poland. The trust falls apart when new sources of news become available. In Canada, their trust is probably higher because their media is almost entirely run by the state. What Canadian media isn’t funded by the state other than Rebel News?

    The UK has rather low numbers as well. I would attribute that to the smear campaign the official media made against the British people during Brexit. I would think to a lesser extent, their war on Tommy Robinson, the press support for Muslim rape gangs, and the Jimmy Saville revelations made people question the press. More (probably many more) than 20,000 teenage British girls were forced into sex slavery by Muslims in Britain, often with the help of British authorities. Girls who tried to escape or resist had their houses burned, families killed, etc. Girls who went to the police were returned to their captors. Opponents to this phenomenon were labelled as “Islamophobes’ and racist. Then we have Jimmy Saville, the ‘Dick Clark’ of Britain. The 40+-year long molestation of young children at BBC (literally) by Jimmy Saville and others hit after being suppressed for decades by the press. The fact that Johhny Rotten talked about Jimmy Saville’s child molesting in 1978 and got banned by BBC didn’t help them a lot. All these things probably made people a little wary about their press.

    The existence of alternative media is what made us realize how untrustworthy our news is. If it weren’t for alternative sources, we would be soaking up CNN and the New York Times as the truth still. Remember, the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for intentionally covering up the Holodomor. They smeared any hint of its existence as ‘Republican propoganda’. That Pulitzer Prize has not been revoked. How is this different from the ‘1619 Project’? The same mainstream media we have today conspired to write a false narrative about the Tet Offensive to help defeat the US in Vietnam. BBC talent had been molesting children in their offices for decades. Remember, ‘1984’ was based on the BBC in the 1940’s. The press hasn’t changed. We have just seen glimpses behind the curtain now.

  4. If 29% of Americans trust the media, that means that if you meet three people, statistically, at least one of them is a complete fucking imbecile.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.