top of page

Who Controls the News and Why Trust Is Collapsing

By Alicia Raffinengo

Reporter Life News Today


A breaking alert appears on a phone screen. Within seconds, it can influence how someone invests money, views a local school issue or interprets a national event. The speed of information has accelerated dramatically, yet public confidence in news organizations has declined. Gallup surveys show trust in newspapers and television news near historic lows. Gallup data indicate that confidence in mass media began declining in the late 1990s, accelerated in the early 2000s with the rise of internet news distribution, and widened further after 2016 as partisan trust gaps expanded.


Pew Research Center studies report that many Americans have difficulty distinguishing between factual reporting and opinion, especially in digital formats where both appear side by side. Researchers attribute the decline in trust to multiple structural factors, including digital disruption of advertising revenue, newsroom staffing reductions following the 2008 financial crisis, expansion of social media platforms after 2006, growth of commentary-driven cable programming and increasing political polarization. The decline in trust is occurring at the same time the volume of content has expanded.


Understanding that shift requires examining how news organizations operate, how they are regulated and how they are held accountable. Journalists in the United States are not licensed by the government. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press without requiring state approval to publish, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this protection broadly to prevent government licensing of reporters. Courts have consistently treated journalism as an activity rather than a state-certified profession.


Anyone may gather information and distribute it. Broadcast stations operate under a separate framework because they use limited public spectrum, meaning only a finite number of stations can transmit over specific radio frequencies without causing interference. Radio and over-the-air television stations must obtain licenses from the Federal Communications Commission, a requirement which applies to the station itself, not individual reporters. This regulatory system is based on the “scarcity rationale,” a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969). Newspapers, cable networks and digital publications do not require government licenses. Scarcity rationale is a legal principle used to justify why broadcast television and radio can be regulated differently from other forms of media.

Accountability in professional journalism comes from layered systems rather than licensing. News organizations can face defamation and libel claims for false reporting. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the United States Supreme Court established that public officials must prove “actual malice”, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, to prevail in defamation cases. While that ruling protects vigorous reporting, it also reinforces the legal consequences of publishing inaccurate information. Sensitive investigative reports often undergo editorial and legal review before publication.


Editorial oversight is central to professional reporting. Reporters submit stories to editors who evaluate sourcing, confirm documentation and request additional evidence when necessary. Many outlets maintain written standards policies and publish corrections when errors are identified. Public correction logs and transparent updates provide visible accountability. Professional associations such as the Society of Professional Journalists publish voluntary ethical guidelines emphasizing accuracy, independence and transparency.


Ownership structure influences strategic direction and resource allocation. In many organizations, owners or corporate boards appoint publishers or chief executives. Those executives hire senior editors who determine newsroom priorities. Publicly reported leadership changes illustrate this structure. Jill Abramson was removed as executive editor of The New York Times in 2014 by publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. James Bennet resigned as opinion editor in 2020 following controversy over a published essay. CNN experienced executive changes in 2023 after corporate restructuring involving Warner Bros. Discovery. These events were reported as management or strategic decisions, demonstrating executive authority over newsroom leadership rather than documented falsification of reporting.


Economic pressure has reshaped the broadcast landscape. Industry research indicates that ownership consolidation increased following the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Larger media companies expanded station portfolios, while advertising revenue shifted toward digital platforms. Smaller local television stations in several markets reduced investigative units or scaled back locally produced programming because of budget constraints. Financial capacity affects newsroom staffing and reporting depth, particularly in local markets competing with national networks and online platforms.


The Fairness Doctrine operated in a different technological environment. Adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, it required broadcast license holders to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues. The Supreme Court upheld the rule in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), citing the limited availability of broadcast spectrum. The FCC repealed the doctrine in 1987 after concluding that it was no longer necessary in a growing media marketplace and that it discouraged speech. The doctrine applied only to broadcast stations and did not regulate newspapers, cable channels or internet platforms.


Recent Supreme Court rulings reflect modern constitutional interpretation. In 2024, the Court decided Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, cases involving state laws regulating how social media platforms moderate content. The decisions emphasized constitutional protections for editorial discretion by private entities. The rulings did not reinstate broadcast-era regulatory frameworks.


Audience behavior also contributes to the current environment. Pew Research Center studies show that many Americans select news sources aligned with their preferences, a pattern described as selective exposure. When institutions release data emphasizing different aspects of economic or social conditions, coverage emphasis may vary across outlets. Professional reporting typically includes verification and contextual sourcing, though presentation and prioritization can differ.

In 2024, Don Lemon filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk and X Corp. alleging breach of contract related to a canceled content agreement. Reuters coverage and court filings describe the dispute as contractual. Public reporting does not indicate court findings of fabricated news reporting in connection with that case.


News organizations in the United States do not require government licenses to publish. Regulatory requirements apply to broadcast spectrum use rather than to individual journalists. Accountability mechanisms include legal standards, editorial review, corrections policies, ownership governance structures and public scrutiny. Survey data show public confidence varies across demographic and political groups, reflecting both institutional practices and audience perception.


In a media system defined by rapid distribution, corporate consolidation and digital competition, credibility is shaped by verification processes, transparency and consistent editorial standards. Those structural elements, rather than licensing requirements, define how professional journalism operates in the United States.


Sources

Pew Research Center — Distinguishing Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the Newshttps://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/

Federal Communications Commission — Fairness Doctrine Historyhttps://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/fairness-doctrine

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

NetChoice v. Paxton, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-555_d18f.pdf

 

 
 
 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page