If Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Gwen Ifill, Peter Jennings, or even Barbara Walters came back today and started doing the news, would you believe them? If you had to stop and think about your answer, you’re not alone—and that’s exactly the problem.

According to Gallup’s October 2025 report on Media Use and Evaluation, only 28 percent of Americans say they have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of trust that a report on the news is accurate and fair. That is the lowest level Gallup has ever recorded.

In their tracking, they’ve shown a massive decline from 68 percent in the 1970s in Americans’ trust in news on television, in newspapers, or on the radio. That’s over 40 percent loss of confidence in 5 decades.

Those numbers should frighten us.

Recently, I asked a twenty-one-year-old college student where she gets her news. Her answer was funny, honest, and revealing:

“Basically, it’s kind of crazy that I’ll learn about very important things on TikTok or some other goofy social media platform before an actual news source. Then I go to an actual reputable news source to find out if it’s true or not. Shout-out to NPR. I like to tune in to that radio now. That’s my new news source because the other ones stress me out.”

I do not want to date myself, but I remember when there was a man named Walter Cronkite on the evening news. He spoke with a serious voice, and people believed that what he said had been checked and checked again. Viewers trusted him to tell them about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They trusted him to tell them about the war in Vietnam and the first human steps on the moon.

I’m not quite old enough to have watched all of that live. Thank you, YouTube, for the things I’ve missed. Still, those recordings remind me that there was once a widespread belief that when we saw something on the news, we were seeing something true.

Of course, television news was never perfect. There were ridiculous moments, too. Geraldo Rivera once opened Al Capone’s supposed secret vault on live television, promising the possibility of buried treasure, bodies, or historical secrets. After all that anticipation, the vault contained almost nothing.

We have also spent decades wondering whether missing labor leader Jimmy Hoffa was buried beneath some stadium, driveway, or patch of concrete. Even MythBusters got involved in the search.

The news has always contained spectacle. But spectacle used to be easier to recognize.

Now, spectacle often arrives dressed in a nice suit, a sweet smile, and banter. This is called reporting.

I do not know what we are going to do. We are headed toward no longer trusting the news. I find it incredible that journalists and political insiders sometimes save damaging information for books that will be published months or years later. These revelations may involve conversations with politicians that could have changed the outcome of an election, influenced an investigation, or helped the public understand a crisis while it was actually unfolding.

But instead of reporting the information when it mattered, someone sat on it until the book release. News reporting seems to be about clicks and money—again, spectacle.

People say journalism is dead. I don’t want to think this.. But much of what is on TV is people catering to an agenda and not telling the truth.

And I am not so altruistic. Money has to be made. The station, equipment, and reporting all cost money. Frivolous lawsuits have shut down or targeted journalists.

In this world of spectacle, some pander to an audience of one person: the autocrat, the executive, the politician, the billionaire, or the power broker whom the journalist believes has the ability to grant access, influence, protection, or money.

Many news organizations have disappointed me. They’ll spend days analyzing one president’s poor debate performance while ignoring another politician’s slurred speech, confused statements, or obvious lies. They’ll hold one person to a nearly impossible standards while lowering those same standards for someone else. Right Jake?

There seems to be no floor to depravity, no ceiling to the hysteria. I still have beef with a network that swore they had some tax returns of a very powerful man, teased it all day, then when it aired, only had the first two pages, the summary pages, which shed very little detail. You knew that, Rachel. But I digress.

Who are we supposed to trust in this society?

I tell people all the time that they should journal, especially women. A journal is personal. It should be original and not filtered through an AI program. Your journal should contain your words, your observations, and what you believe is happening in the world around you.

That record will become even more important as professional truth-tellers become spectacle peddlers. I’m also not willing to pay per click for somebody’s opinion disguised as reporting. There are publications I still support. I pay for a subscription to The New York Times. I have subscriptions to all the old goodies like

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/

and Newspapers.com. Yes, there are biases in these places, but for the moment, they are anchored in truth or at least in true sources.

At the same time, I sometimes find myself watching TikTok updates from Aaron Parnas. I trust this person, who looks like an ordinary guy living next door. He and Under the Desk News seem more trustworthy than highly produced studio broadcasts.

I know how strange that sounds. I’m a fact finder. A Cronkite lover.

Yet my experience reflects the larger change in how people receive information.

According to the Reuters Institute’s 2025 Digital News Report, audiences are increasingly getting news from social media, video platforms, podcasts, and online personalities. Approximately 36 percent of respondents use Facebook for news each week, while 30 percent use YouTube, 19 percent use Instagram, 19 percent use WhatsApp, 16 percent use TikTok, and 12 percent use X.

While this is disappointing, this fragmentation creates opportunity. More voices can participate.

But fragmentation also creates danger.

Algorithms can be manipulated. Platforms can elevate certain stories and bury others. Political forces, corporations, governments, and wealthy individuals may be able to prevent audiences from seeing factual information. They can hide it. And like many major broadcasters, they don’t feel the need to prove that a source is truthful.

I do not have the answers to fix this. This essay is ringing the alarm bell.

New media sources have stepped into this gap. You can jump in too, but I expect you to present facts. I expect you to investigate competing claims. I expect you to show us when someone is lying.

I do not want journalists to “both-sides” every issue, unless it is pointing out right and wrong.

So where do we go from here?

I do not know, but maybe we approach this like I approach historical fiction.

First, look for evidence, not just assertions. Good reporting cites documents, interviews, data, recordings, or firsthand observations.

Second, compare multiple reputable outlets. When a major story is accurate, several independent news organizations will usually report the same essential facts.

Third, check the original source whenever possible. Read the court filing, scientific paper, government report, earnings statement, transcript, or complete speech. Secondary reporting can misunderstand, simplify too much, or omit important context.

Finally, look for bias. Examine the bias of the reporter and the publication, but do not stop there. Consider the broader political and financial situation. Who benefits from this version of the story? Who benefits from the lie? Who gains power if the public becomes confused, exhausted, or unable to distinguish truth from propaganda?

And then examine your own bias. Hey we are all guilty of wanting shortcuts or not watching “the news.”

We can no longer consume the news passively. Unfortunately, every citizen must become a researcher, comparing accounts, tracing claims to their sources, and preserving personal records of what we witness.

That is exhausting. It’s unfair. A functioning democracy should not require every person to become a full-time fact-checker.

But when trust disappears, verification becomes an act of survival.

Can I believe my lying eyes?

Maybe. Maybe not, not immediately.

But I can look again. I can search for evidence. I can compare sources and document what I see. And I can refuse to accept lowering standards when it comes to the news. And I can place my views where they count, on sources that tell the truth.

It’s my job, your job, to keep your eyes clear and wide open. Find the facts. Defend the truth and democracy and encourage the truth-tellers. Their jobs and our lives are on the line.

This week’s booklist focuses on truthful references:

The Death of Truth by Michiko Kakutani – Explores how misinformation, relativism, and the erosion of shared facts have undermined public trust in institutions and each other.

Calling B******t: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World by Carl T. Bergstrom and Je...