Why no one trusts the media anymore – and what to do about it
People are defending Russell Brand because they don't even understand how journalism works. Reporters should fight back. Here's how...
"You guys have been saying in the comments for a while, 'Watch out Russell, they're coming for you. You're getting too close to the truth," said Russell Brand in his preemptive counterattack “nothing to see here/please disperse” video.
Because, y’know, there’s a scene like this happening under the Denver Airport:
INT. UNDERGROUND BUNKER
Jeff Bezos, the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, Bill Gates, & the CEO of Pfizer are in a heated meeting: "But what do we do about Russell Brand? He's getting too close to the truth...and he talks so FAST. We must do something NOW."
Riiiiight. As if the secret cabal who runs the world really cares that much about a narcissistic, ex-heroin junkie comedian who keeps trying to make people figure out what Rumble is. C’mon, we all know the Elders of Zion are too busy putting microchips on everything bagels. (Be suspicious of unusually shaped sesame seeds!)
Nonetheless, Brand has “quickly found support by harnessing a deep skepticism of the media.”
The top search results for “Russell Brand” on X suggested Brand is “‘being attacked’” for his views about Covid-19 and Ukraine. Many of the posts also criticize the mainstream and legacy media at large, claiming that the media has referred to Brand as “guilty” and provided no evidence for the allegations against him.
Sigh. It’d be one thing if these dudes were merely arguing for due process or waiting to examine the evidence depthfully. But nah, red flag make bull mad/must charge now.
Would love to see one of these guys explain just how this supposed setup took place though. Here's how The Times and The Sunday Times investigated Russell Brand: A team of journalists contacted hundreds of people, all of his accusers provided substantial information to corroborate their allegations, none of the women knew each other, and all of their claims required corroboration. For example, here’s the evidence they tracked for one of the accuser’s claims:
These included therapy notes from a rape treatment centre, text messages, details of call records, photographs and a version of a letter she says she sent to Brand about the impact of the alleged rape on her life.
Also, all these accusations seem to have been substantiated contemporaneously during a time period before Brand was spouting political views. How exactly did the Illuminati pull that off? Did they somehow know he’d eventually be a thorn in their side? Or does the Mossad have a time machine now? Man, they’re clever.
How legitimate journalism works
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding about how legitimate journalism works. I’m talking about real journalism, the kind you see in All The President’s Men or Spotlight. The kind that uncovers hidden truths and holds the powerful to account. It’s the sort of thing that involves reporting, not just spouting opinions. It involves people making calls, knocking on doors, and peeling away layers.
Also, there’s an institution involved with a reputation to uphold (and that’s liable for publishing lies). There’s an editor guiding the story and making sure the reporter is getting it right. There’s a fact checker confirming that, well, facts are checked. Multiple sources must corroborate a story. Sources are kept anonymous rarely and only in order to protect them (because it can be harmful to speak up when you’re a whistleblower, sexual assault victim, or someone else who fears the repercussions of speaking up). And if a source is anonymous, others at the publication must verify what they said and why they should be allowed to remain hidden.
What’s not journalism: Anything that begins with “People are saying…” or "It feels to me…”
If you think this is all obvious, you haven’t met America. The result: Journalists wind up in the crosshairs of supposed truth seekers. Kinda ridiculous that. If you’re someone who hates the elites, there’s no one you should like more than journalists. They do the legwork that “I’ve got a hunch” people refuse to do.
Nonetheless, we’ve gotten to a place where a big swath of Americans now refuse to believe anything published by places like the Guardian, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. “It’s just more mainstream media BS,” they argue. I get that inclination, but then who do you trust to report on stuff? And I’m not asking which political pundit(s) or podcaster(s) you agree with. I’m asking who do you trust that does actual reporting? Because otherwise you’re destined to wind up in a world of information anarchy.
I’m not saying to blindly believe whatever hit piece comes out of these publications. Some certainly seem overblown. But if your knee-jerk reaction is just to dismiss any negative story about someone you like, you’re not that different from a cult member.
“But the Bidens are corrupt and the mainstream media…” Sure, Hunter pretending to understand Ukrainian energy is absurd. We all know that. But what is the actual story you want reported? What leads should reporters follow they haven’t tried already? And perhaps more importantly, do you really think the NYT or WaPo wouldn’t love to break a story like that? You think reporters are sitting on a massive corruption scoop because “the elites” pooh-poohed it? If so, you fundamentally misunderstand how journalists think and live. They’d rat out their own mother for a Pulitzer. Their allegiance is to themselves and their own careers, not the DNC or some invisible puppetmaster.
The mainstream media ick
It’s easy to chuckle at yokels because they don’t subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review or whatever, but the journalism establishment needs to look in the mirror too. People rightfully get the ick from the mainstream media for plenty of good reasons too:
The death of local reporting. Technology screwed up everything. Craigslist cannibalized classifieds leading to the downfall of newspapers. And as newspapers died, so did local reporting. (Cable/streaming has had a similar impact on local TV news.) Now, people in much of the country don’t even know a single journalist – and that makes it much easier to label media folks as “the other” and see them as a tool of the elites rather than watchdogs who keep them in check. It also means people never get to see close-to-home reporting wins. If there was a strong local paper around to dig into George Santos, he never would have gotten into office.
It all seems like one big club “and you ain’t in it.” Reporters in the mainstream media frequently come out of the same elite private schools and colleges as the people they cover so it all seems trés chummy. All those black-tie dinners where reporters and politicians hob-knob together ain’t helping either.
No one trusts TV news. Real journalism happens almost exclusively at newspapers. TV news is worse than it’s ever been – just a bunch of talking heads preaching to the partisan choir. Also, how come there’s never a TV reporter with a southern accent? Diversity is essential, right? So how about including some of the geographic kind. We all get why, say, Asian people want to be represented in Hollywood. Well, guess what, southern people might also like to hear a drawl on a newscast once in a while. If you want people to trust you, it helps to at least occasionally look and sound like they do.
Objectivity is a good thing. Once you present as outwardly biased, it’s much easier to dismiss your output. Yet more and more news outlets have given up on objectivity, with some journalists even arguing it’s an archaic way to approach their profession. But there’s power in trying to tell both sides. Even if it’s a mere performance, it’s a worthwhile goal. When you squash objectivity, you birth the appearance of impropriety. So, y’know, at least pretend.
Everything looks the same. Online, news and opinion pieces look almost exactly the same. When people can’t clearly differentiate rigorous journalism from some rando spouting a take, the line between facts and opinions gets hazy – and that’s when people lose faith.
We’re buried under an avalanche of opinions. Opinions are like a–holes: I’m having a tough time monetizing mine on OnlyFans. But seriously, we used to get a newspaper delivered with hundreds of pages of news – and just two pages of opinion/editorial pieces. Now, it feels like it’s 50/50 because Clicks Rule Everything Around Me. Follow the incentives: If the opinion business is more profitable than the news business, publications keep putting out more opinion pieces, and then no one trusts the news because “whatever, it’s all just someone’s opinion.”
No one’s watching the watchdogs. It builds trust when publications have an ombudsman or Public Editor – someone who critiques the institution and fields readers’ questions. It’s like having an internal affairs department for journalism. NPR still has one, but I’m pretty sure ESPN, WaPo, and the NYT have all eliminated their’s. The last one at the Times wrote this: The Public Editor Signs Off.
I don’t worry that The Times, or The Washington Post or others with the most resources will fail to pursue ripe investigative targets. And I hope they do. But in their effort to hold Trump accountable, will they play their hands wisely and fairly? Or will they make reckless decisions and draw premature conclusions?…
It’s about having an institution that is willing to seriously listen to that criticism, willing to doubt its impulses and challenge the wisdom of the inner sanctum. Having the role was a sign of institutional integrity, and losing it sends an ambiguous signal: Is the leadership growing weary of such advice or simply searching for a new model?
Y’know, sunshine/transparency. “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” eh? Well, so does trust in reporting.
There’s too little nuance. Publications too often do the Lump-Together™️. They need a trend piece so they pile a bunch of disparate people/stories together as if they’re the same thing (see: any photo montage or story where Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, and Al Franken are treated as equally abhorrent). That flavor of reduction makes people suspicious since there’s a matter of degree that inevitably gets ignored.
Big mistakes were made (but at least they were addressed). WMD’s in Iraq, Hillary will win easily, the Lab Leak theory is racist, etc. There are plenty of examples of the media getting stuff wrong at first. But sometimes the real test isn’t in getting it right out of the gate (“first draft of history” and all that), it’s how you respond, clean up the mess, and get the facts straight eventually. And legit news outlets tend to be pretty good at correcting fabricated stories and removing those who’ve gone rogue (e.g. Jayson Blair, Brian Williams, Rolling Stone’s UVa assault story, etc.). If people who work at a newspaper publish lies, they can lose their reputation/career. That’s way more accountability than we see from the hecklers who make bank criticizing them. The media should lean into a “we get it right eventually” narrative.
Show your work
Some of this can’t be solved. But journalists do control how they present their work. And for a bunch of professional communicators, they sure do a crappy job explaining their jobs. I know, they’re not supposed to be the story. But it’s too late for that.
Reporters should strive to do a better job at explaining how journalism works, what they do, and why they’re more trustworthy than some “do your research” guy on YouTube. Tell readers how a story was reported. Whenever there’s an anonymous source, link to something that explains why. Refute good faith arguments in advance.
David Fahrenthold showed the right way to do this when he was investigating Donald Trump’s charitable giving for the Washington Post. Here’s a video where he explained his process, including his notebook with a list of charities to which Trump might have donated and explaining how he contacted them one at a time.
He went even deeper about it all here, including how many charities he had to call to get his scoop: “When I reached No. 325 on my list, I yanked on a window, and it gave.” It’s like watching Hard Knocks for reporting; it’s tough not to root for the guy after hearing what he went through to get the scoop. Basically, journalists would be wise to follow the advice of third grade math teachers: Show your work.
Then again, the Times did just that with the Brand story and many folks couldn’t seem to care less. So be it. You can’t win over the crazies who refuse to engage. But if you can at least reach the mindful middle, that’s a start.
Subscribe
Don’t even ask me how long it took to write this week’s Rubesletter. If you appreciate it, please subscribe and/or share it with a friend. You’ll get bonus content and make me feel less crazy for what I pour into this thing. Thanks.
Quickies
🎯 Every morning, I write a note to myself that says, "I am so thankful I don't keep a gratitude journal."
🎯 If we spell it Philippines (with a "ph") then why is someone from there "Filipino" (starting with an f)? Seems cruel considering Americans are already confused enough. F that!
🎯 The old version of freezing your eggs was compromising.
🎯 Bummer about Jimmy Buffett dying. But hey, finally his fans have a reason to drink.
🎯 Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Um, have you met a failed artist?
🎯 Drew Barrymore apologized AGAIN…
🎯 Shoutout to all the ugly people who have a ton of followers on Instagram or TikTok. Y’all are doing it the hard way. Respect.
🎯 Uber has made it way easier to be a functional alcoholic. If you have disposable income AND a DUI, you're doing life wrong.
🎯 All that is necessary for the forces of tacky to win in this world is for enough people with good taste to say nothing.
🎯 I talk about one “Friends” episode all the time…
🎯 Maybe academia leans left because students are 17-22 year olds, a group who ain’t exactly known for their conservatism. Free market’s gonna free market, y’know? The customer is always right…even when they’re left.
🎯 Join my online conference where we all log off our computers and go out and live our lives! It's FREE! And it's happening NOW!
Comedy
🃏 I post clips of my standup (and more) at Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and YouTube.
🃏 MOOD BOARD
A standup comedy show
NYC • 9.28.23 • 8pm at Gospel in Soho
Discount code: GOODNEWS
🎟 Tickets
🃏 My other newsletter, Funny How: Letters to a Young Comedian, is all about the art of doing standup. Go there to check out the man who Sascha Baron Cohen called “the greatest living teacher of clown and the funniest man I’ve ever met.”
🃏 Thanks to everyone who came out to MISGUIDED MEDITATION last Thursday. It was a great show at The Psychedelic Assembly.
5-spotted
🗯 Jungian analyst and author James Hollis is a wise elder who argues the first half of life is often a big mistake.
The first half of life is often a big mistake, but it’s unavoidable. I say that with no judgement whatsoever. I’m just saying, “Alright, you leave home, learn how to support yourself, form friendships and relationships. That’s what you should be doing. That builds your sense of conscious self, creates ego strength. That’s good. But is that the right path for you? We don’t know yet. I had achieved all my goals by my 30s and all I knew as I began to feel the energy slip away from me, all I knew to do is ramp ’em up. And that’s when the depression hit. Now, I didn’t know that the depression was my friend. That’s kind of a peculiar sentence, but I didn’t know that was my encounter with my own soul. My soul was speaking. I thought like everybody, “How quickly do I get rid of this?” Rather than ask this very fundamental question: “Why has it come? What is it wanting from me?” That’s a different question…[Carl] Jung said, “We all have to find what supports us when nothing supports us.” So sometimes you really have to have the courage, or the desperation, to set off on your own and say, “This is what I’m gonna risk.”
🗯 How a Gay Republican Sees the Rise in Anti-L.G.B.T.Q. Rhetoric on the Right. Political commentator Brad Polumbo is a podcaster who leans Republican and is gay. He says, “I think there’s a third way on these issues between the old school, homophobic, religious way and the way that simply adopts the progressive views.”
That other way is a politician who says, I’m for equality under the law, that means gay marriage is the law of the land. Whether or not I personally religiously agree with it or not. I’m for transgender people, adults having the right to live their lives, how they see fit and being treated equally under the law. However, I support restrictions that ensure fairness in sports based on biological sex. And I support evidence-based restrictions that ensure minors aren’t accessing care they can’t fully understand.
I believe in the gay couples’ right to be legally married. And I also believe in the Christian baker’s right to not have to celebrate their wedding. I think there is a middle-ground approach here that a center-right politics could embody where a lot of gay people are capitalists. A lot of gay people aren’t on board with Sanders-style socialism.
Would be nice to see some politician who actually advocated for the above. It’s kinda crazy this p.o.v. isn’t even on the menu in American politics.
🗯 Latina Mom Walks In on Sisters Cutting Their Own Hair. If you’ve got siblings (or bangs), this video will resonate. It’s also masterful filmmaking with stakes and a legit narrative arc. If it was all accidental, that’s amazing. If it was staged, it’s even more impressive.
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
🗯 Why You Vomit on Ayahuasca. In ayahuasca traditions from South America, purging is considered as a spiritual cleansing and it is not understood as an undesirable side effect.”
In cultures with rituals around ayahuasca, physical and mental purging are often not even viewed as separate phenomena. “You won’t find that separation between body and emotion in native cultures,” Fotiou says. “The body is where emotion and even knowledge lives.”
We did it. Thanks for reading.
-Matt
P.S. Check out my podcast:
Now that you've covered Russell Brand, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Hasan Minhaj
Why is it only a comedian understands journalism?