Distrusting Media: Big stuff vs Little Stuff
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/open-thread-263/comment/12818147
So Scott recommended a Matt Yglesias post (1) and you can't comment there without paying so here I am.
Most of the article is pretty bad and I'm wondering why Scott recommended this and then you get to the section "the problem of the audience" and stuff gets good. Basically, Matt makes the argument that we don't actually pay for accuracy in news, we pay for entertainment. This gets really clear if you read, say, Bloomberg or the Financial Times where people have serious skin in the game and really will pay a premium for accurate information. And he points to FiveThirtyEight, which apparently is in financial trouble, and points out that it pretty consistently beats the prediction markets and if there's was no cap on prediction markets, you could make a lot of money. And, while I think he overstates it, I've absolutely wagered money on PredictIt based on 538 and you can make a little money.
This is all good. This is all true and bravo. I myself certainly, functionally, consume the majority of news as entertainment or a curiosity. But I think it's blinded a bit by Matt's place in the news ecosystem. And I don't mean, like, financially, I mean in terms of daily writing.
Because there are a few news stories where I, and virtually every other reader in the US, do deeply care about the truth. There aren't many, maybe one or two a decade, but when they hit they absolutely grab the world's attention. Think the Iraq War. Everyone followed that, everyone knew what was happening. Russiagate was another. It was always kind of wild but...those were wild times. To a lesser extent, Covid, although it's hard to critique journalists too much when so much of the medical and scientific community seemed confused. These were big, bombshell stories that demanded everyone's attention and people followed for years afterwards and...they certainly did not inspire more trust in the media.
So if I look at it from Matt's perspective, every day working on content, it's very easy to feel that the audience doesn't care that much about truth, because they don't. That's not what they or I pay for, just being honest. But, from the reader or consumer's perspective, the writer or agency's trustworthiness isn't established by the daily reporting that's done, it's established in those rare, rare big events where every American has to stop worrying about the bills, put the kids to bed, and watch the news, because something big is happening, something that will really affect them, or at least millions of real people.
And I'm genuinely curious that Matt doesn't know or acknowledge this, because he's been towards the top of his industry for awhile. I would assume he'd have a "nose" for this, a sense for few, rare stories that really matter. Maybe I'm wrong but, as a consumer, it doesn't feel like me or other people (2) distrust media because of daily faults and quibbles of reporting, it's because when the big things happen, when it really mattered, the media got it wrong.
(1) https://substack.com/inbox/rec/102656721. The one on why you can't trust the media.
(2)