Is it news fatigue? Dwindling trust in the media? Changing habits?

Something else?

Whatever it is, Americans are following the news less closely than they used to. That’s according to analysis from the Pew Research Center published Tuesday.

In 2016, according to Pew, slightly more than half of U.S. adults (51%) said they followed the news all or most of the time.

But when that same question was asked in August 2022, that number dropped to only 38%.

Meanwhile, over that same span, American adults saying they follow the news only now and then rose from 12% to 19%. And those who said they hardly ever follow the news grew from 5% to 9%.

Granted, the results are from a poll taken a little over a year ago, but it does follow the trend of decreasing interest in the news over the past several years. That number today, one would guess, is about the same, if not even smaller.

This analysis was published on the heels of another interesting poll — this one from Gallup — about trust in the media. That poll showed that those who trust the mass media a “great deal” or a “fair amount” to report the news in a full, fair and accurate manner was at only 32% — the lowest it has been since 2016. Although, it’s in the same range as Gallup polls from 2021 (36%) and 2022 (34%).

The same poll showed that 29% of U.S. adults have “not very much” trust in the mass media, while those who said they had “none at all” was an all-time record of 39%.

Gallup’s Megan Brenan notes that Gallup first asked this question in 1972. During the 1970s, trust ranged between 68% and 72%. And even as recent as 2003, the majority of those polled still had trust in news coverage. But since 2005, trust in the media has not risen above 47%.

Brenan wrote, “Although partisans remain sharply divided in their views of the media, Democrats’ trust fell significantly this year. Still, a majority of Democrats but few Republicans continue to have confidence in the mass media. Republicans’ low confidence in the media has little room to worsen, but Democrats’ could still deteriorate and bring the overall national confidence reading down further.”

NYT staff raised internal concerns about headline

(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

On Tuesday, my colleague Ren LaForme wrote how The New York Times put out a rare editors’ note, trying to explain why it rewrote a headline about last week’s bombing at a hospital in Gaza. Many news outlets, including the Times, initially relied on claims from Hamas that Israel was responsible for the attack.

The Times’ note read, “The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.”

The Times changed its early headline and said that within two hours, “the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility.”

It added, “Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified.”

Of course, it’s easy to see that in hindsight.

But now, Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein reports that there was concern in real time inside the Times about its coverage. That’s based on Times Slack messages obtained by Klein.

Klein wrote, “… senior editors appear to have dismissed suggestions from an international editor, along with a junior reporter stationed in Israel who has been contributing to the paper’s coverage of the war, that the paper hedge in its framing of events.”

In the Times’ first online story about the bombing, the headline read, “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say.”

According to Klein’s story, a senior news editor tagged two senior editors on the Times’ live team and wrote in Slack, “I think we can be a bit more direct in the lead: At least 500 people were killed on Tuesday by an Israel airstrike at a hospital in Gaza City, the Palestinian authorities said.”

One of those editors said, “You don’t want to hedge it?”

A junior reporter covering the war from Jerusalem wrote, “Better to hedge.”

The senior news editor replied, “We’re attributing.”

Later, an editor on the international desk said in the same Slack channel, “The (headline) on the (home page) goes way too far.”

When questioned about that, the international editor wrote, “I think we can’t just hang the attribution of something so big on one source without having tried to verify it. And then slap it across the top of the (homepage). Putting the attribution at the end doesn’t give us cover, if we’ve been burned and we’re wrong.”

Klein didn’t identify any of the editors by name and the Times declined to give Klein a comment, but it would appear the international editor was correct.

Meanwhile, New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn spoke with the Times’ Lulu Garcia-Navarro about the editors’ note and how the Times plans to cover the widening conflict between Israel and Hamas

Also, check out the latest from NPR’s David Folkenflik: “News outlets backtrack on Gaza blast after relying on Hamas as key source.”

Gannett takes down Reviewed articles after outcry from staff

For this item, I turn it over to my Poynter colleague, Angela Fu.

Reviewed, Gannett’s product reviews site, took down several affiliate marketing articles that some of its journalists claimed were generated by artificial intelligence.

The articles in question first went up on Friday and included reviews of products that Reviewed does not typically cover, like dietary supplements, according to the Reviewed Union, which represents journalists and lab and operations workers at the outlet. The posts, which were part of a new shopping page, did not have bylines, and union members decried the work as an attempt to replace their labor. By Tuesday morning, the page was gone. Reviewed then republished the stories in the afternoon with a disclaimer that they had not been written by staff before taking the page down again.

As of Tuesday evening, the shopping page was still down, though links to individual stories still worked.

The articles were created by third-party freelancers hired by a marketing agency partner, not AI, Reviewed spokesperson Lark-Marie Anton wrote in an emailed statement: “The pages were deployed without the accurate affiliate disclaimers and did not meet our editorial standards.”

Reviewed follows USA Today’s ethical guidelines regarding AI-generated content, Anton added. Those guidelines stipulate that journalists disclose the use of AI and its limitations when publishing AI-assisted content.

One of the freelancers credited on the shopping page wrote on his LinkedIn profile that he has experience in “(d)etail-oriented and eloquent copywriting and editing focused on polishing AI generative text.”

On Tuesday, the Reviewed Union, part of the NewsGuild of New York, publicly blasted the company, claiming that the articles had been made using AI tools. They pointed to “a mechanical tone and repetitive phrases” within the reviews.

The union also suggested that several of the freelancers listed on Reviewed’s page were not real. They identified “nondescript” and “stilted” biographies and said that Google searches had failed to uncover past work or LinkedIn profiles.

The dispute comes a few weeks after unionized staff at Reviewed staged a one-day strike. Workers there went public with their union drive in December and will soon begin negotiating a first contract.

“The timing of it is no accident,” said senior editor Alex Kane. “It’s an ugly card for them to play because it goes against everything we’ve heard for the years that I’ve been at Reviewed about how authorities, expertise, quality and helping readers are what matters.”

Unionized journalists at other Gannett newsrooms are currently trying to negotiate protections against the use of AI. They seek to ensure that their work will not be replaced by AI and that any content produced with the help of AI meets journalistic standards. Gannett faced heavy criticism in August after it partnered with Lede AI to generate high school sports recaps that contained awkward phrasing and errors.

33 states sue Meta

(AP Photo/Tony Avelar, File)

More than three dozen states are suing Meta, claiming the company used tactics on its social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram to addict children.

The suit, which includes 33 states, was filed in federal court in California, where Meta is based. In addition, attorneys general from nine more states are filing lawsuits against Meta.

The suit filed Tuesday claims Meta collects data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent. The New York Times’ Cecilia Kang and Natasha Singer wrote, “The states said Meta’s algorithms were designed to push children and teenagers into rabbit holes of toxic and harmful content. Features like ‘infinite scroll’ and persistent alerts were used to hook young users, the states said. The attorneys general also charged the company with violating federal privacy laws for children.”

The complaint filed Tuesday said, “Meta has harnessed powerful and unprecedented technologies to entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens. Its motive is profit, and in seeking to maximize its financial gains, Meta has repeatedly misled the public about the substantial dangers of its social media platforms. It has concealed the ways in which these platforms exploit and manipulate its most vulnerable consumers: teenagers and children.”

In response, Meta said it shares “the attorneys general’s commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online, and have already introduced over 30 tools to support teens and their families. … We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path.”

Kang and Singer wrote, “It’s unusual for so many states to come together to sue a tech giant for consumer harms. The coordination shows states are prioritizing the issue of children and online safety and combining legal resources to fight Meta, just as states have previously done for cases against Big Tobacco and Big Pharma companies.”

Profiling Jesse Watters

Washington Post media writer Jeremy Barr profiled Fox News’ Jesse Watters in “Jesse Watters smirked his way to the top. Fox needs him to stay there.”

Barr superbly writes, “Watters, 45, who got his start doing ambush interviews and comic relief, has cultivated a loose, irreverent frat-bro persona — forever dancing on the line of acceptable commentary while occasionally crossing it.”

Interestingly, Barr reports that Watters declined to be interviewed for the story and that Fox News “did not make his superiors or colleagues available.”

Still, Barr tweeted that he spent the past few months “talking to his current/former colleagues, associates and industry folks to better understand how he got here, what he’s actually doing on TV, and what may happen in the future.”

It’s an excellent feature, and worthy of your attention.

Tucker Carlson’s new deal

Tucker Carlson started his own media company after being fired by Fox News back in May. Now that new company has officially landed its first major advertising deal.

Public Square, which has been described as a conservative-friendly shopping app, has agreed to a deal worth at least $1 million, according to CNBC’s Brian Schwartz. This deal has been in the works for a while. Schwartz first reported on this in July, and the deal became official last week.

Schwartz wrote, “PublicSq. is the first of likely several other advertisers moving to partner with Carlson at a pivotal time in national politics, as the 2024 presidential election is just over a year away. The PublicSq. ads are set to air on Carlson’s show, which runs on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, starting in November and through the final months of next year’s campaign, according to (PublicSq. CEO Michael) Seifert.”

Ads also will appear on Carlson’s website.

Schwartz wrote, “​​The app and its leaders have pushed against environmental, social and governance investment policies in business. The product’s pitches will be woven into Carlson’s show, Seifert said.”

NFL > MLB

A scene from Monday night’s NFL game between the Minnesota Vikings and San Francisco 49ers. (AP Photo/Bruce Kluckhohn)

Not that this comes as a surprise at all, but put the National Football League up against Major League Baseball and the NFL will win, and win handily, pretty much every time.

On Monday night, there was a “Monday Night Football” game between the San Francisco 49ers and Minnesota Vikings. There also was a Game 7 in the American League Championship Series between the Texas Rangers and Houston Astros.

The NFL game was close (Vikings won 22-17) and the baseball playoff game was not (Rangers won 11-4). Still, the NFL dominated the TV ratings. According to SportsTVRatings’ Robert Seidman, the NFL game averaged 18.6 million viewers across ABC, ESPN and ESPN2, while Rangers/Astros averaged 6.8 million viewers across Fox and FS1.

Media tidbits

• Vanity Fair’s Charlotte Klein talked with Trey Yingst, the Fox News reporter who is covering the war between Israel and Hamas, for her story, “Fox News’ Trey Yingst on Trying to Get the Israel-Hamas Story Right: ‘There Is No Room for the Fog of War.’”
• Politico’s Kelly Garrity with “White House press secretary says she misheard question on antisemitism during briefing.”
• The Daily Beast’s William Vaillancourt with “Anderson Cooper Helps Family Spot Missing Hostage Son in Israel.”
• Also from The Daily Beast, Dan Ladden-Hall and Justin Baragona with “Academic Journal Editor Fired for Sharing Onion Article on Gaza.”
• My two favorite headlines of the day. First, from The Washington Post: “Rock star Bret Michaels adopts hero stray dog also named Bret Michaels.” Then there’s this from The Daily Beast: “Kurt Cobain’s Daughter Marries Tony Hawk’s Son.” Can you get any more ’90s than this?
• Is Pat McAfee going to last at ESPN? Washington Post sports media reporter Ben Strauss looks at that in: “Pat McAfee hates rules (and sleeves). Can he fit in at ESPN?”

Hot type

• This is from the New York Times Opinion. It’s video from Roland Kielman and Ryan Mercer, communications specialists with the University of Vermont Health Network, and text from Dr. Helen Ouyang, an emergency room physician and a professor at Columbia University: “Stabbed. Kicked. Spit On.Violence in American Hospitals Is Out of Control.”
• For The Atlantic, David Brooks with “A Humanist Manifesto. The world feels like an awful place right now. Here’s how to make it better.”

More resources for journalists

• Subscribe to Poynter’s Friday newsletter, Open Tabs with Poynter managing editor Ren LaForme, and get behind-the-scenes stories only available to subscribers.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing (Online) — Enroll now.
• How to Improve Your Coverage of LGBTQ+ Communities (Webinar) — Start anytime.
• Got a story you’d like to write for Poynter? Email pitch@poynter.org with your idea, approximate timeline and word count.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.