Established, conventional Western media remains an important source of information for people around the world today, and this has not changed significantly. The problem, however, is that the credibility of such media is now declining at an astonishing rate, causing much confusion. During the 2024 U.S. presidential election and the Gaza War, these media outlets almost openly abandoned the neutrality and objectivity they once upheld, blatantly revealing their biases and selective news reporting. Suppose we use the 2024 U.S. presidential election and the Gaza War as a window to assess the credibility of Western traditional media through actual observation. In that case, one can draw an unsettling conclusion.
The credibility of conventional Western media, when tested, can only be rated at 55% to 60%, meaning its reliability is only around half or slightly higher, and this is during normal periods. During elections, however, this credibility drops even further, possibly to only 30% to 40%. It's worth noting that for these media, there is not much difference in credibility between left-wing and right-wing outlets. The impact of political stance on credibility is less significant than the effect of political maneuvering. The way media positions itself in political battles can more effectively encourage a focus on quality management, which is why outlets in opposition often have 5% to 10% higher credibility. During the U.S. elections, FOX News' credibility was far higher than CNN’s because FOX, supporting Trump, was positioned in opposition to the so-called mainstream "political correctness".
As for regional differences, conventional Western media tends to have high credibility when it comes to local news, similar to "weather forecasts", which are usually fairly accurate. However, for global news or major U.S. news, the regional differences are minimal, and most European countries' media often rely on news from U.S. media outlets. Additionally, these outlets have inherent biases, and their sense of involvement is quite obvious. For example, The Guardian in the UK continues to use "anti-Trump" rhetoric as a fundraising and mobilization tool, and the editor-in-chief has openly called for this. Therefore, in such media, erroneous news often spreads like a virus, with noticeable virality. For instance, the news about "700 killed in a Gaza hospital bombing by Israel", sourced from CNN's reference to the "health ministry” in Gaza quickly spread across the Western world, and this remains a typical example of fake news that no one has yet acknowledged.
Recently, a terrorist attack occurred in Louisiana, and initially, established news media insisted that it "was not a terrorist attack", likely out of concern for impacting their long-standing stance of "supporting immigration". It wasn't until later, as more and more evidence emerged showing that the attack was carried out by an immigrant, resulting in numerous deaths, that these news reports were corrected. During the 2024 U.S. presidential election, conventional Western media almost unanimously portrayed Trump as a "criminal", conducting a media trial and completely disregarding the fundamental principle in Western law that only courts can judge and convict. Such dramatic portrayals continue to play out today in outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Here, “conventional Western media” refers to well-established, renowned outlets such as CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the Times, BBC, and others. These media organizations are typically highly respected in public opinion circles, with long operational histories and experiences covering many major events. Today, they still invest heavily in self-promotion and maintain certain "principled stances". Therefore, despite their credibility being clearly challenged today, they remain important sources of information. However, it is evident that, due to their diminished credibility, their position in the information landscape has shifted from being an unquestionable authority to a supplementary source of information.
We believe that this will manifest in various areas in the future, including White House news, the work of journalists, and investments in media outlets. Going forward, these established media, whose credibility has already been questioned, will no longer be able to maintain their authoritative position.
Conventional Western media now faces two major challenges: first, the intense competition from the internet; and second, the political stance and attitudes of editors, journalists, and media owners.
The internet has significantly and visibly lowered the professional standards of traditional media, as the intense competition forces media outlets to prioritize speed over quality control. They must deliver news quickly to compete with the efficiency of the internet. Additionally, attracting traffic and attention has become essential, which has led to the inclusion of sensationalism, exaggeration, distortion, and selective quoting in the editorial process of traditional media. The open "alignment" of these conventional media, whether in support of or opposition to certain figures, is no longer considered newsworthy. After Trump's successful election, a number of traditional news outlets began to reassess the positions of their editorial and journalistic teams and started demanding that some heavily politicized journalists leave, as the Washington Post did. Furthermore, Trump's legal team has begun to win the media battle, with ABC being forced to pay USD 15 million in damages to Trump, and CNN starting to lay off a significant number of employees. It appears that Trump has shown some restraint toward the media, or else many more Western media outlets would likely have to pay the price for their past deeds.
It is worth noting that many conventional Western media outlets have promoted "fact-checking" as a way to position themselves as objective and independent, prominently displaying their so-called fact-checking on their websites or in their media. However, in practice, these are often highly dramatic and ineffective, frequently being used to attack specific individuals, spread rumors, or distort the truth under the guise of fact-checking. All in all this type of "fact-checking" is largely influenced by the political stance of the media’s own fact-checkers.
Interestingly, the online world also has its own form of "fact-checking", but this is also gradually being abandoned. Elon Musk was the first to introduce the "Community Notes" fact-checking feature on X, which essentially moves away from human-based fact-checking and instead uses artificial intelligence algorithms to perform the task. This approach involves debunking claims by annotating them with "different opinions" to provide alternative perspectives.
Mark Zuckerberg recently gave a speech in which he discussed the extensive debates within American society about the potential harms of online content. At the same time, both the government and traditional media have intensified their efforts to regulate content. Many of these actions are clearly politically motivated, but there are also genuinely harmful things, such as drugs, terrorism, and child exploitation. As a result, there are many complex systems and processes to review content. “We removed millions of pieces of content every day. While these actions account for less than 1% of content produced every day, we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes”, he remarked. Zuckerberg cited the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election as the underlying reason for the decision, calling it a "cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritizing speech”.
“Therefore, we will return to our core principles, focusing on reducing errors, simplifying policies, and restoring freedom of speech on the platform”, he announced. Here, Zuckerberg basically openly acknowledged that fact-checkers exhibit significant political bias, and that the trust they have eroded surpasses the trust they have established, particularly in the U.S. This suggests that, in the current world, the concept of "authoritative media" no longer exists.
Everyone in the media is eager to express their own views in various ways. Editors filter out news they dislike; reporters engage in selective reporting; and commentators only say what they are willing to say. The entire media landscape has become like an individual rather than a collective entity. Media was originally a platform for information, news, and facts, but now it has turned into a platform for stances and ideologies, with a strong belief that they have the privilege to do so. This marks a trend of media personalization, where the media has shifted from being a "platform for facts" to becoming a collection of "individual opinions and biases". However, it is clear that this leads to a lack of credibility, as people are prone to mistakes, especially amateurs who only occasionally care about the world for specific reasons. A powerful illustration of this authority issue can be seen in the case of the New York Times' famous commentator, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who misjudged Trump during the U.S. election and had to leave the paper. Perhaps no one could be considered more "authoritative" than him, yet he still made a mistake.
In today's world, and perhaps in the future as well, the only reliable sources for discovering true and objective facts are one's own mind, judgment, and the assistance of AI. For both traditional media and online information, everything must begin with an awareness of the source. The first step is to consider where the information is coming from before examining its content. Next, all information must undergo a process of filtering. It is crucial to apply critical thinking and make decisions based on one's own judgment, taking personal responsibility for the facts. There is simply no other way forward.
In fact, the same information dilemma exists in China as well. Take the Chinese news platform Jinri Toutiao as an example. They claim to have intercepted and deleted over 5 million pieces of fake information, but in reality, the fake, inaccurate, and deliberately distorted information on the platform now accounts for an alarmingly huge portion of all content. With the increasing use of AI technology, it can be imagined that this problem will only become more severe in the future. While reading is a casual activity, creating fake content is a specialized skill. In the realm of fabrication, AI technology will be particularly outstanding. As the technology continues to develop, it will ultimately lead to an uncontrollable situation.
Final analysis conclusion:
Established, conventional Western media remains an important source of information for people in today's world, and this has not changed significantly. However, its credibility is now declining at an astonishing rate. It faces two major challenges: first, intense competition from the internet, and second, the political stances and attitudes of editors, journalists, and media owners. Therefore, now, and possibly in the future, the only reliable means for obtaining true and objective facts are one's own mind, judgment, and the assistance of AI.
