Public trust in the American press has been collapsing for decades, and new data suggests the decline has reached a historic low. According to Gallup, which has tracked attitudes toward mass media since 1972, only 28 percent of Americans now say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television, and radio to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Seventy percent say they have little or no trust at all.
But Gallup’s polling does not capture the views of Americans under 18. A new study indicates that teenagers may be even more skeptical than their elders—and with good reason.
Last month, the News Literacy Project (NLP) released a study titled “Biased,” “Boring,” and “Bad” (2025), examining how Americans aged 13 to 18 view journalists and news organizations. The findings are striking. When asked to describe today’s news media in a single word, 84 percent of teens used negative terms such as “biased,” “fake,” “crazy,” “false,” “scary,” or simply “bad.” Only 9 percent chose a positive descriptor.
Their assessments of journalistic performance were equally bleak. More than one-third of respondents said journalists were good at things like “lying,” “spreading misinformation,” “overexaggerating,” and “gaslighting.” A majority of teens said they do not believe standards-based journalism is the norm. Only 30 percent thought journalists regularly verify facts before publishing. Half believed reporters sometimes make up details, including quotes. Just 6 percent said journalists “always or almost always” correct errors, and six in ten believe photos and videos are frequently taken out of context.
Perhaps most revealing were responses about investigative or “watchdog” reporting—journalism meant to hold powerful institutions accountable. Only 30 percent of teens believed professional journalists frequently cover stories that protect the public interest.
The study’s authors speculate that this cynicism may stem from a lack of news literacy, suggesting that teens struggle to distinguish journalism from opinion, commentary, or social media content. But there is a more straightforward explanation: many young people have simply watched mainstream media fail, repeatedly, in real time.
Unlike previous generations, today’s teens did not grow up in a gate-kept media environment. They have access to raw footage, long-form interviews, documents, and competing narratives. They can compare claims against observable reality. When coverage diverges sharply from what they see with their own eyes, trust erodes.
The media’s handling of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline during the run-up to the 2024 election is a clear example. For months, major outlets either minimized or dismissed visible signs of impairment. One of the most notorious moments came in March 2024, when MSNBC host Joe Scarborough aggressively rejected Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report documenting Biden’s memory lapses, insisting on air that Biden was “better than he’s ever been” intellectually and analytically. Scarborough later conceded—long after Biden had been forced out of the race—that his assessment was wrong.
Similar distortions appear routinely in coverage of firearms and the Second Amendment. Mainstream reporting on guns often reflects ideological advocacy rather than factual analysis, marked by sensationalism, selective framing, and basic errors. In one egregious instance, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk during a campus debate, an MSNBC contributor baselessly speculated that the shooting may have been an accidental act of celebration by a supporter.
Advocacy outlets masquerading as journalism further compound the problem. The Trace, a publication funded by Michael Bloomberg’s gun control network, claims to promote public safety through journalism. Yet it has published assertions linking support for the NRA to political violence without presenting evidence, including referencing a deadly Dallas shooting while offering no proof that the perpetrator had any connection to the NRA whatsoever.
Against this backdrop, teenage distrust of the media appears less like ignorance and more like pattern recognition. Young people are not rejecting journalism because they cannot tell fact from fiction; they are rejecting institutions that too often substitute narrative protection, ideological alignment, or moral lecturing for honest reporting.
In today’s information environment, skepticism is not cynicism—it is a survival skill. Learning to question the press, verify claims, and resist emotional framing is no longer optional. If teens approach the media with distrust, it may be because they have learned, earlier than most, that trust must be earned.
