• The Colab
  • Posts
  • The Colab Brief - 127: Ding, Dong, the Media is Dead 🧙‍♀️

The Colab Brief - 127: Ding, Dong, the Media is Dead 🧙‍♀️

Welcome to The Colab Brief

Author

Ash + Lizzy
July 20, 2024

In partnership with

Intercom for Startups

Join Intercom’s Early Stage Program to receive a 90% discount.

Get a direct line to your customers. Try the only complete AI-first customer service solution.

It’s been a wild week in media land. 

Let’s be honest; it’s been a wild week, period.

It seems impossible to write a PR and comms newsletter without talking about the media circus that was the Trump assassination attempt. 

Never before has there been so much divisiveness in the US press. Never before has there been so much bias blatantly exposed. Never before have there been SO many unfortunate headlines. Never before has there been so much at stake. 

Let’s dig in. 

Read Time: 4 minutes. 

We wrote just last week about the precarious state of our national media. According to a Gallup poll from 2023 (when things were admittedly less volatile), a record-high 39% responded “none at all” when asked about their level of trust in mainstream media. 

This is nearly four in 10 Americans who completely lack confidence in the media, which is the highest on record by one percentage point.

I’d venture to guess that the sentiment this year is even more extreme. 

A Perception Problem 🔍

When the Trump assassination attempt occurred, the response from the mainstream media was a mixed bag. ABC referred to the shooting as “loud noises,” and the New York Times described Trump being escorted offstage after "what sounded like gunshots." The most widely criticized of outlets, CNN, reported that Trump merely “fell” and was assisted by the Secret Service. 

The public has been very outspoken in their criticism of how the incident was reported. Several news outlets didn't clearly highlight the assassination attempt on Trump, instead focusing on less important details or framing the event in a way that downplayed its seriousness. 

On top of that, some opinion pieces and social media posts escalated the situation even further, suggesting the shooting was staged or making inappropriate comments about the attack, which only further divided public opinion on how the media handled the situation.

And let’s not even touch this actual Forbes article that somehow made it past the lead editorial desk. Shaking our head.

The 24 hours following the incident were the biggest unraveling of the media in modern history. All bets were off, and reporting was a rollercoaster of truths, half-truths, and untruths. The general public was not amused. 

This is one headline that seemed to get it right. 

News Under Duress 🔥

The coverage of the assassination attempt has brought to light the difficulties of reporting in a deeply polarized environment. It’s a challenge to deliver news that is both timely and accurate, that isn’t clickbait, but also doesn’t undermine the seriousness of an assassination attempt on ANY human. Especially when the audience has strong, often conflicting, opinions and beliefs. 

In this polarized landscape, media outlets face the challenge of maintaining journalistic integrity while also meeting the demands of a 24/7 news cycle. Typically, this can result in sensationalism—we’ve all heard the “click bait journalism” trope. What we experienced in this incident, many thought, was the opposite—a deliberate tamping down of the real story to push a specific agenda. 

We aren’t here as political analysts. Our job is quite simply to analyze the media, chat about PR, and maybe we dig into a few issues here and there. But in the same vein, I’d argue that a reporter’s job isn’t to be a political mouthpiece either - for ANY party. 

A reporter’s job is to share news and facts, free from opinion or bias. And it’s really hard to argue that is what occurred for either side during a major, national news event. 

This situation calls for more rigorous standards in journalism, where accuracy and balance are the priority, if we have any hope of salvaging the reputation of our major, national news bodies. 

This includes verifying information before publication when possible, avoiding sensationalism (and also sharing the truth of all situations), and being transparent about the limitations and uncertainties that come with real-time reporting. No one expects a breaking news situation to be 100 percent accurate all of the time, especially when the situation is evolving, but what we DO expect is transparency and a genuine effort to report on the facts, free from political sway. 

Is it possible? It’s yet to be seen. In the meantime, keep your eye on the rising indie news sources. We have a feeling they’re about to have their Cinderella moment. âś¨

Until next time -

Like The Colab Brief?