confidence in newspapers is in purple or the blue color. you can see it is very low, 16%. and those who say they have quite a lot of confidence in television news is 11%. wide matters, axios says, is political party affiliation has become the primary driver of opinions about the media's trustworthiness. this is according to gallup's pole. this coincides with a conversation that was happening in washington, d.c. yesterday that we covered here on c-span. it was a discussion on public trust in media. fox news's taco carlsen -- tucker carlsen participated in the conversation and here is him talking about reducing political division. >> is there anything you can do and it is every journalist's job to tell the truth. is there anything that we or you ought to be doing to diminish this false information? >> and not just us. >> d racialized things -- deracialise things. that's a cul-de-sac, we know where that ends and identity politics is the root. >> people left and right, your friends and enemies, see her doing that. >> i me just answer your first question. the most important thing we can do and we should do, people of an audience is deracialise a conversation. everyone says it is white men versus everyone else. that is not true. i despise the republican party. i do not ever want to defend the republican party. what i want to do is point out the divisions are not fundamentally racial. look at biden's approval numbers among self-described hispanics. i think it is 24%. you can see that is -- say that is good news for the republicans. it is good news for america. what is not happening is white people over 50 versus everyone else. you do not want that. that is an unsolvable divide. you see people lining up on the basis of their actual interest, not racial interest, actual interest, mostly economic interest, against the people who are hurting them, the people in charge. i believe that. host: tucker carlsen at a discussion yesterday on a discussion on public trust in the news media and political divisions. which media sources do you trust for your news? that is our conversation. dial in. we want to hear from you. where'd you go in the morning or throughout the day to get your news? a little more from the axios breakdown of the gallup survey. a 2021 pole from pew research center found republicans are far less likely to trust media sources that are considered mainstream. television news is today considered the second least trusted institution in the country following congress according to the poll. while other institutions have also experienced precipitous decline including banks and the medical system, others like small business and the military help to steady over the past few decades. the trust in the news media has been driven mostly by republicans. 5% of republicans say they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in newspapers compared to 35% of democrats. only 8% of republicans say they had a great deal or confidence -- great deal of confidence in tv news compared to 20% of democrats. independent views are generally closer to republicans. that is how we have divided the lines, democrats, republicans, independents. what media sources do you trust for your news? john in brooklyn, you are up first. good morning. caller: i trust cnn, msnbc. they are pretty much -- the media is pretty much truthful. you can compare one media with the other. the only news i have a problem with is fox five. lord have mercy. they don't seem to care what they say. i don't know why people analyze what they say and check it out. to see if it's true. it started with trump. media, to some extent, will always -- you can always find some untruth in it but overall i would say 90% of it is true. i compare with other news, but -- host: give us an example of a headline you have seen or store you saw you said i will check that out, i will look at other sources. caller: like this investigation into this january investigation about -- host: january 6? caller: breaching the capitol. yeah. this is news out of people's mouths, this is a paper trail. some people still don't believe it. i compare. when channels 2, 4, 6 says something, you curate on other stations as well. you compare the news and you can tell, mostly, about the truth in the story. but this thing for the investigation into the white house, it's on tape, they're showing it, and fox five, oh no, that's wrong. they say that what they're doing is not just. i remember when it first started. trumped in one investigations so he said do not cooperate with it. host: before we go too far down that path, we will go to kevin in new jersey, an independent. when you get your news? caller: well, there is a new station on my tv, 63, it is called ntb. most of the time the station just as and selling things, but about one third of the time they have news and they have a china section, they have so much else you do not learn in regular news. let me give you an example of why people don't trust the news. the other day, i was washing dishes and i heard on the news, bombshell by david mmurr -- murr to channel seven. immediately i ran to the remote control and turn the tv off. the next morning, i found this woman claimed trump was in the front of the secret service thing and reached over to the wheel and everything. what media would believe something like that? they print it like it is true. i honestly believe the espionage from china controls these heads of all of these major news stations, including fox. so the trust there is not there. i will keep watching ntb. thank you, c-span, for finally addressing this. host: all right, kevin. yesterday at this discussion on public trust in the media, there were also other reporters and we showed you tucker carlsen. i want to show you this discussion between how people engage in politics and how the media is integral to that. >> a lot of people do engage with politics the same way they engage with sports and they throw in stuff -- they are throwing stuff at the screen and we do not to drug metaphors anymore. our advertisers did not like it. [laughter] but to be honest, if you watch modern political culture, it obviously is some sort of an almost narcotic reaction that gets people so consumed and spending 12 to 15 hours a day on the phone and popping off about this or that. your previous conversation with taylor, i think she can speak to that scum of the mania people bring to this, in my view, is not a great way to live. i think maybe we were reflecting market opportunities, i don't think he excepted the very margins we would -- i don't really feel culpability about contributing to the decline of the culture. >> we had a lot of people accusing us of contributing to its, who i fought with on twitter all day, but now sometimes -- >> they condescend about political or obama would talk about cable-tv chatter. i don't pay attention to cable-tv chatter. his whole team lived on it day by day and now the so-called cable-tv chatter for better or worse basically is not the chatter, it is like the arena for one of the principal arenas for our politics. host: from yesterday's discussion in washington on public trust in the media. we turn to you now this morning to tell us which media sources do you trust. tom in new mexico, republican. hi, tom. caller: hello and good morning. as far as what i listen to, i listen to a "washington journal" and c-span for sure. i also listen to msnbc, cnn, i read my local newspaper in new mexico, and i also use the main paper here, the albuquerque journal, and i was told years ago when i was in school, middle school, a teacher said read your paper every day, every day. get all of the information you can. the only thing i do not listen to is fox. there is an interview with george will talking to hannity. i got the impression that hannity did not care for it. that is why i don't listen to fox news. when i talk to people that know this, i can tell when they're listening to fox news, there is something in their voice. to me, it is pretty scary and i do not expect a lot of people take the time and effort to reach a newspaper. make sure you vote. make sure everybody is voting in the new midterms. host: are you a republican because you called on the republican line? caller: yes, i am a registered republican but the only problem is -- the problem i see with the republican party is it is not the same party anymore. i have a quote here from president eisenhower and i think he had a good idea of what was going on and what happens a couple decades later is watergate. let me read this particular quote from eisenhower. this is back march 6, 1956. "if a political party does not have in its foundation a determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, that is not the equivocal party. it is merely to seize power. -- power." that is what donald trump has done. the republican party needs to itself and its original roots and be a party like it should be. host: some other breaking news this morning, the white house has sent out this statement, the ap with the story, facing pressure, the president is a spec to design an abortion access executive order -- is expected to sign an abortion access executive order. he will take action to protect abortion as the white house faces mounting pressure from fellow democrats to be more forceful on the subject as the supreme court ended the right to the procedure two weeks ago. biden will speak friday morning on protecting access to reproductive health services, the actions he is expected to outline our expected to mitigate potential penalties women seeking abortion may face after the ruling and in their ability to safeguard access to abortion nationwide. look for that coming from the white house. today, you can respond to this later on in our last half-hour of today's "washington journal," 9:30 a.m. eastern time we will be an open form then. you can save your thoughts for that. in our first hour this morning, we are getting your media sources that you trust. calvin in new york, democratic caller, your next. caller: good morning. i trust you and i trust c-span, period. i trust the raw unedited footage of the event itself. i'm a filmmaker and i think what is crucial in our society is not a lack of understanding of politics or history but a lack of media grammar, media language, videotape editing, what the camera shows, and what it does not show. i do not understand why anybody would watch anything else but the live event where you see all of the other reporters from all of the other new sources getting that information the same time you are who are going to chop it up into whatever it is they want to chop it into. it does not make sense to watch anything else. also i wanted -- i was dying to call in when you are on to thank you specifically in the c-span crew for what happens on january 6, the way you covered it. i was of course watching anyway the house as they certify the election when everything started to fall apart and i had no interest at all to turn any other network into -- and to listen to any other block, blah, blah -- blah, blah, blah. i thought how cronkite kept it cool when kennedy was murdered. you are clear and informative and bringing in the aspect of all the other networks. there are no other reasons to watch anybody else other than you folks. host: we appreciate that. thank you. victor in texas, republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i watch all networks. then i weigh what i hear here and there and everywhere else and align it with what i live -- with the way i live. i've been in the military, traveled around the world several times. i think it is wrong today with the smartphone trap. i do not own one but it is ridiculous, people walking around holding that machine. a lot of people say [indiscernible] i meet a lot of people, over 100 people per day i would average, and i talked to them. i love to talk, i'm 81 years old. i asked questions and see what they think. some people --majority of the people -- not some, the majority of people have no idea what is going on in the world today. what's happening in ukraine. we were saturated with it for 30 days. nothing today. a little divot here or there. we have no idea what is going on anymore. nor could we care less. i think our president is out of his mind really. he has no idea what he is doing. host: ok, victor. bill in georgia, democratic caller. a lot, bill, good morning. -- hi, bill, good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say i'm 72 years old, so i'm kind of an old walter cronkite guy. i do get a lot of my news from reading. i am subscribed to the nation for a long time. there are other publications. i like to come on television, get my news from the pbs newshour, that sort of thing. rupert murdoch products are relatively new to me. i do not pay much attention to them. i will occasionally look over to be like spock on the old star trek, my reply is just fascinating. but i do not pay that much attention to it. the truth is i get from the older sources, cbs, nbc, abc was the news station to me, so that is kind of where i get my news and get my knowledge of what is going on in the world today. i am blessed. i have my daughter, her husband, live in japan. i have my son who has traveled all over europe and has good friends that are still in cigars oh. i learned a lot about what is going on in the world because of getting that information and hearing and talking to people. they go. that is pretty much where i get my news. host: bill, what about local newspapers? what is it like? what is access like an there in georgia -- like there in georgia? caller: the newspapers are small. they have little editorial content. the one newspaper i used to get -- and i cannot buy it anymor here, was the atlanta journal-constitution. -- anymore here, was the olanta journal-constitution. for the most part as far as news goes and what is happening day-to-day and so on and so forth, i can see that reported as it turns out i get jacksonville, florida news stations, tv stations here at waycross. they report on local things so on and so forth. we had a train wreck up. and a few things like that. with regard to editorial commentary, i pretty much try to go online and see what is being reported by the new york times and washington post. some of the other newer publications. host: so listen to this conversation yesterday here in washington about public trust in media. you had wesley lowery, two journalists, and jerry side talking about the local newspapers, the decline of the local newspapers and impact that has on people consumption in view of media. [video clip] >> what i will say is this becomes politically nationalized . speaking of some of the stuff jim mentioned earlier that the knight foundation has done, i think we have to rebuild our trust in our communities by having media in these communities, re-engaging the public. i think it matters more if there's a local newspaper in champaign, illinois than if the washington post calls donald trump's racism racism. i think it should call its racism, but i think is the fact that, for so many americans, they no longer have a direct, local, or communal relationship with the news or institution of news or media. i think that is important. beyond that, again, the best thing we can do to earn trust is to be trustworthy. when we write something down, have it be true and cover all communities the way we say we want to. i was suggest even in the best organizations we do a much worse job than we are willing to admit and a lot of our distrust is learned. i say that as some communities who have never been in these communities first single day in the history of the community. >> there are a lot of people who live in communities, every type across this country, and we are talking about urban, rural, flyover, who don't have local journalism. so they don't have any sense >> u.s.a., time magazine, msnbc, fox news, wright bart -- those are all in the negative numbers. the weather channel, bbc, and pbs top the list. diane, ann arbor, michigan, democratic caller, good morning to you. who do you trust? caller: thank you. just a question -- negative numbers? you mean they watch those sources or do not watch those sources? what does the negative mean? host: how do you wait the news reported by the following media organization? i will have to find what the negative means. why don't you tell us who you trust? caller: i trust a source -- i kind of look around and see, does it inflame me? if it works me up and makes me mad like fox news does, making you mad at this person, mad at that person, i'm thinking, do they put the facts out? no, it is commentary. they want to seek you on somebody, -- sic you on somebody, make you mad, so you will watch again. when i watch a source, do they make me mad, or do they inform me, make me aware of what is going on? put the original source in front of me so i can do it and say i think that is true or i don't. if you trust a source, they can inform you. there is the electoral college. msnbc explained how the electoral college, how the supreme court can manipulate our -- our elections. there is not the intellect to investigate consequences of what the supreme decision is going to be. the sources i go to do that. mehdi has sung, -- hassan, ari felder, he looks at things from the perspective of a lawyer. i don't get the deal that he is trying to manipulate me. host: you mentioned tucker carlsen. back to this poll, i will explain the negative numbers. among americans who are familiar with news personalities. the most trusted people all are with fox news -- tucker carlsen, 65% of republicans familiar with carlsen trust him. laura ingraham, 61%. sean hannity, 59%. among democrats who are familiar with news personalities, the most trusted people are anderson cooper, rachel maddow, george stephanopoulos, and wolf blitzer. those last three are in the 60's. anderson cooper, 75%. you mentioned people who make you angry, because you don't feel like they are telling you the other side. active discussion yesterday in washington about the news media and trust. tucker carlsen responded to questions about whether he could speak against president trump at fox news. take a look. [video clip] tucker: could you go negative on trump in a sustained way? could you support someone without your audience turning off? tucker: when you and everybody else in american media were cheering on the war with syria or iran or some other insane neocon quagmire, and trump kind of fell for it, and i went after him direct leak, multiple times. >> you don't have to clear that? tucker: i don't clear anybody -- anything with anybody. the truth is it's just so interesting to me. you may hate my politics. obviously you do. when with me. but the fact that there is only one tv channel in the entire country of 350 million people that allows actual free speech, and that is the one that the new york times, the washington post, or any of these other absurd -- >> i am not trying to silence you. i am talking to you. you can watch the show every night and here it. -- hear it. i am curious about your ambitions. there are people in washington talking about you running for president in 2024. i'm curious your thoughts on that. tucker: i have zero ambition, not just politically, but in life. my goal is to read my script by 8:00 p.m. i don't want power. i have never wanted our. -- power. i am wanted things to change but i have never been motivated by a desire to change people. i despise libertarians, but my viewers are libertarians. >> you are not running? tucker: i'm not running. i'm a talkshow host. [laughter] what a blessing it is. host: -- [and video clip] host: that was a conversation in washington. if you want to watch more, you can find it on our website. the conversation with you this morning -- your media sources that you trust. north carolina, republican -- we will hear from you next. caller: good morning. i get my news from the internet. why should i get my news from people who are 95% democrat, both journalists and media? it is a known fact 95% of our democrat -- 95% support the democratic party. democratic policies. i get mine from the internet and i do my own analysis. liberals tell me how to think. let me prove how hypocritical these people are. say for example if eric trump or don trump junior, if they were in a bronco, smoking crack, waving a gun around with a whore, the news would cover it. well, i have not heard a darn thing about crackhead hunter biden. you guys did not even cover it. i'm waiting for you guys to cover it. and look at the journalists who covered the russian collusion hoax. most of them got killed. we know it was a hoax. have you apologized trump for spewing the collusion? i don't think so, c-span. host: when you go to the internet, where do you go? are you talking about social media websites, facebook? caller: all the websites. i go to reuters. i go to daily mail. i go to fox. i go to cnn. msnbc, that is not a real website, so i don't go there. why should i get my news from people that are 95% democrat? host: baltimore, independent. caller: good morning. i find among the news channels on tv, the bbc is by far the best. there are two reasons for that. first, they have a very sober way of presenting the news. i find increasing sarcasm in american news, the sort of "kill your enemy" criticism and dismissal. it's very disturbing. especially as a teacher, as a college professor -- it is a way of dialoguing with people who have a different opinion than we do. this has a very international focus. i have recently seen stories about the economic isis in sri lanka, the persecution of christians in nigeria. contemporary slavery still exists in parts of asia and africa. and i sit there as a teacher, saying, this is a teachable moment. but in the world today, this is a very serious problem we need to document. i admire the bbc for that, and i do not wind that on the major american news networks and cable news networks. another comment -- we talked about daily news. -- newspapers. when i came to baltimore, i was disappointed with the baltimore sun. it seemed to be mostly from associated press, not original reporting. but in recent years, the investigative journalism on baltimore politics managed to pressure very corrupt mayors to resign, to deal with issues of corruption in our police department. this is a city with serious social problems and violence. and the writers, the investigative team at the baltimore sun, rightly received the pulitzer prize for their local investigative coverage that was not being done by big national networks or national press groups. that is the real contribution. professional journalists were hungry for a story, and committed to fighting corruption . and still do right now. host: you mentioned the bbc. the new story that him and yesterday was the resignation of the british prime minister boris johnson after a series of scandals and a mass revolt from his own party. today's washington post -- here are the members of the conservative party. members of the conservative party will choose britain's next prime minister. here is the picture of some of the contenders. let's take a look at that. let's look at some of those faces. you may see one of them more prominently in international politics soon. we go to west virginia, democratic caller. caller: this is a really fascinating topic for me, because i graduated from west virginia university with a degree in broadcasting journalism back in 1981. of course, back in 1981, there was no such thing as the internet. three of the things that were always hammered into us in journalism school was accuracy, accountability, and attribution, and you had to have credible sources, and you were always accountable for what you reported. today, things are quite frank. in the age of the internet and social media sites, there seems to be a big blurring between news and commentary. you were talking about the personalities that democrats trusted most, and the personalities that wiccans trust most. those were not news reporters. those were commentators. people seem to rely more on commentary these days then on straight news. as far as what i trust, i have had a newspaper delivered to my doorstep my entire life. that is when i start off in the morning with my coffee and my newspaper. c-span, naturally. i don't watch cnn or fox because they tend to sensationalize things, and i don't like that. when i hear people say they don't trust the media -- in the age of the internet and social media and websites, you have access to a zillion different website and social media platforms. if you want your own biases confirmed, you can go to one american news or you can go to newsmax. i heard somebody call in one day and say that he trusts alex jones and info wars, as if that was a legitimate source. abc is great. i like what the guy said earlier. abc has a dignified and sober way of reporting things. national public radio, i listen to morning edition and all things considered. there are also a number of international news sources, like deutsche welle from germany, sky news from england, france 24, abc australia. if people would just broaden their news sources overseas and stop dwelling on how things are reported so sensationally here in the united states, i think they would be much better off. host: bonita springs, florida -- john, independent. where do you get your news? >> i get the news from the internet. i go to a bunch of sites with all the news. my favorite right now is citizen prepress. all across the country, all over the world -- we get a lot of good news stations. i cannot really watch regular news, cbs, nbc -- all propaganda owned by three companies. the new york times, washington post, awful, just biased now. here is something interesting. if you agree with the associated press about the abortion and joe biden -- in that article, it said there was a constitutional right to abortion, and we know there is not. but the associated press decided we should, and then you read it. i know it is not your fault, just reading it, but it is pure propaganda. so you have to do your own research. host: wait, john. it said the president is facing mounting pressure from ella deming that's to be -- from fellow democrats to be more forceful on the subject after the supreme court ended a constitutional right to the procedure. caller: so right, when was there ever a constitutional right for an abortion? host: roe v. wade is president. caller: -- precedent. caller: it is propaganda. there is no constitutional right to abortion, and you read it on air. it is completely wrong. i'm not blaming you. i'm blaming the associated press for writing that. host: ok, understood. chris, new york, independent. caller: how are you doing? any news, i go to multiple sources. see what these people have to say. democrats are democrats. republicans are republicans. it just does not make any sense. if one party says one thing and one party says another, that is perfect. so what i do is i listen to what people have to say. i listen to how they feel. everybody has their own opinion of this is the way it should be or that. all the shootings going on and republican and democrats, oak, yeah, we're going to do this or send that into law. what are they really doing? you just have to pay attention to what is really going on. look at who is getting money from who. politicians getting money from these people who want the law rather than exposing what the truth is. if i want to listen to anybody, i will go to c-span. i listen to others opinion. you can tell [indiscernible] liberal laws, can't do that. just listen. forget democrat, forget republican. just listen. want to pit one set against the other, are not open to any real news. host: all right, chris. from yesterday's discussion, and we will take more calls coming up, but back to that discussion because i want to put this out there for all of you to think about, for those who have not called in you can respond. "the wall street journal" editor talks in this clip about what can be done to improve public trust in the media. [video clip] >> i think what we can do and should do is become more transparent. you ask, how do you engender trust? there has been too much of what in my career as a journalist, too much of what we have done has been shrouded in secrecy. done in a dark backroom room can you bring the product forward and it is supposed to speak for us up and it should, but i think we need to be more transparent about how we do what we do, what our sources are, where our information comes from, what the composition of our newsroom is and isn't. if we are asking for transparency and it institutions we cover, particularly of the government, we have to practice transparency as well. as i have thought about the last for years and try to think about the question you pose, which is, what can we do? i do think we need to be fair and objective, but we also need to be transparent. and we have not been very transparent in my business during my time, which is 45 years in the business. we are getting better but we are not there yet. host: saying it is transparency that is needed from news outlets about how they gather news, how they write their news, what is going on in these newsrooms. do you agree with that? john, can you answer that question? do you think you would have more trust if there was more transparency? caller: i think so. i get my news basically from c-span. i like watching the government channels and listing to what comes out of the politicians mouths. host: c-span is a public service offered by your cable provider. we are not paid with taxpayer dollars. we are not part of the government. caller: right. but you cover the government. host: yes, we do. caller: that is what i like to watch. i like to watch the congressman in a the government and i just listen to what they say and i take what i can from that. one thing i have to say about january 6 deal, this a bologna -- cipollone fellow, the lawyer for term, i am disappointed that c-span isn't able to cover his testimony. host: it will be behind closed doors today. caller: i am disappointed because i would like to watch what he has to say that bing about to see it in person, it goes a long way for me. host: it is not clear whether or not he appears in person. you probably saw from the hearing so far, a lot of these witnesses appeared remotely while the committee gathered and conducted their investigation.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Georgia , Australia , Japan , Ann Arbor , Michigan , North Carolina , Brooklyn , Washington , United Kingdom , Texas , Iran , Bonita Springs , Florida , China , Illinois , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , New Mexico , Togo , Russia , Ukraine , West Virginia , Germany , Nigeria , New Jersey , France , Britain , Americans , America , British , Russian , American , Tucker Carlsen , Roe V Wade , Anderson Cooper , Wright Bart , Laura Ingraham , Rachel Maddow , Wesley Lowery , Sean Hannity , Rupert Murdoch ,