1.4 The Importance, Impact, and Significance of Journalism on Society

“Knowledge is power,” as the old saying goes. Most societies could benefit from more knowledge and education, and unethical or sloppy journalism can lead to less understanding or fractured communities. Indeed, journalism has the power to educate, but more information does not necessarily mean that audiences are more informed. There are certainly more opportunities to gain knowledge with more information at our fingertips, but perhaps too often, more information can be used to polarize audiences and support personal and cultural bias.

For example, following the end of World War II and the Holocaust, Nazism hit its lowest point and was near extinction. Through forming obscure splinter groups, some maintained fascist beliefs but remained on the fringes of society, with little means of overt recruitment for new membership. With the dawn of the digital age, these fringe groups are able to peddle their ideology to larger audiences, preying on individuals who may feel marginalized by modern sociopolitical norms. On the other hand, socially constructive movements may use the same technology and vast informational resources to achieve positive results, like crowdsourcing for raising money and awareness for charitable causes. Journalism can help frame information to unite people for positive change or to drive people apart by sowing the seeds of conflict.

The impact and significance of journalism on society seem to be in constant flux as new technology develops and a wider array of information becomes available. Prior to and during the 20th century, news providers were often considered the official word on current events and were an integral part of recorded history. While most news sources can be used as references for historical data, increased access to all sorts of information has led contemporary historians (and the public) to be a little more skeptical of information printed in newspapers. If there is “fake news” now, couldn’t there have been “fake news” 100 or 200 years ago? As a regular practice, many historians check older news reports against personal journals or written accounts of the same era.

Another historical reality is the effect of cultural change on news coverage prior to the digital age. For example, news agencies did little to report on marginalized groups before the civil rights movements of the 1950s and ’60s. Even when news agencies reported on minorities, they often did so with bias, condescension, or stereotypes.

Government Trust

One of the guiding principles of the U.S. Constitution is the concept of separation of powers, which allocates authority between three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial). This idea keeps one branch from making unilateral decisions that can lead to destabilization, mob rule, and sometimes tragic reprisals that may affect the public in adverse ways. Beyond the three branches, journalism has been referred to as the “fourth estate” (or branch) of government, providing an additional check against governmental authority. The degree to which news providers can supply objective information to the masses varies, especially since the dawn of the information age. As the news consumer audience becomes more segmented and polarized, the role of mainstream journalism in providing context and uncompromised evidence has changed as well.

For example, since the early 20th century, the New York Times has been referred to as the “paper of record” in the U.S., thanks to its high standards for reporting over the years. Similarly, CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite was considered the “most trusted man in America,” having reported many major events of the era, including the civil rights movement, JFK’s assassination, the Vietnam War, and the Apollo 11 moon landing.1 Cronkite’s replacement, Dan Rather, enjoyed similar popularity until a series of events including “Rathergate” (see section 1.2) eroded that trust. Similarly, the New York Times has lost credibility over a number of instances of falsified or incorrect reporting. Perhaps ironically, public trust in government has also eroded since the mid-1900s, falling from a high of 77 percent to less than 20 percent in 2019.2

The irony may be that this trend coincided with a more skeptical approach from journalists toward government officials, especially with respect to coverage of the Vietnam War, Watergate, and other scandals that came to light.

One might conclude that with more information comes an increase in scrutiny toward the sources of information, including elected officials and other official bureaucracies. Journalism plays a role in the way the public perceives the government, which may influence the way officials govern.

Polarization

According to a 2020 Gallup poll, only 40 percent of Americans have confidence that news agencies report the news accurately and fairly, down from 68–72 percent in the 1970s.3 Since 2005, media trust has not risen above 47 percent. A 2020 Pew study showed that, among an electorate that is evenly divided between conservatives and progressives, trust in election coverage was sharply divided along party lines.4 Whether news agencies or reporters themselves are actually moving away from objectivity may not be as significant as the perception that new information being shared is compromised by agendas that favor one side over the other. Perception is probably more meaningful than reality when the public considers whom they can trust.

Polarization has also proven to be profitable for news agencies that rely on market forces and capitalism in order to thrive. Since the Fox News Channel launched in 1996 and slowly began to dominate cable ratings throughout the early 21st century, more news outlets have taken to catering content around a particular political ideology. Such segmentation has allowed audiences to choose between news or editorial programming that suits their own political preferences. Being one of the only “conservative” news channels available gave Fox News the bigger share of the conservative audience, able to deliver a wider share of profitable demographics to advertisers. Being the only conservative choice on the market also allowed Fox News to demean all other sources as not-to-be-trusted “liberal news.” With conservative viewers flocking to Fox, other outlets began to cater their content toward progressive audiences. The top-rated shows on Fox News are hosted by conservative pundits Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, while MSNBC and CNN’s top-rated shows are hosted by progressive pundits such as Rachel Maddow and Chris Cuomo.5 Such shows feature commentary and selective coverage that favors one side of the political spectrum over the other, which allows their loyal audiences to see and listen to content that aligns almost exclusively with their political beliefs. Some call this phenomenon an echo chamber, or a form of informational myopia that moves people away from collaboration, civility, and understanding. No matter what political leanings one may have, the role of news media in widening the distance between either side of the ideological spectrum cannot be denied.