Take that as a signal. The messaging in journalism has been so thoroughly hijacked that people trust gossip more. I can appreciate that people might pick “unreliable“ over “actively manipulating.”
> messaging in journalism has been so thoroughly hijacked that people trust gossip more
If your information diet is television, sure. If not, there are obvious and almost daily advantages from being properly informed relative to the large number of Americans, including some wealthy ones, who think they can roll their own open-source intelligence through gossip-like media.
> The messaging in journalism has been so thoroughly hijacked that people trust gossip more
no it hasn't, and no they don't
this is an example of a common occurrence: a loud minority incorrectly thinking that their opinions represent those of "[the] people"
some other examples are American conservatives with their incorrect ideas of what "[the] people" want, and anti-science advocates with their incorrect views that "people" don't trust science
“28% of U.S. adults say they do not have very much confidence and 38% have none at all in newspapers, TV and radio. Notably, this is the first time that the percentage of Americans with no trust at all in the media is higher than the percentage with a great deal or a fair amount combined.”
I'm no expert in proofs, but one would think the first step in proving "people trust gossip more" would be getting the numbers on what percentage of people trust gossip :)
almost as unpersuasive as the original claim that it has, and they do - a loud minority opinion if I ever heard one, and one that deserves no more effort refuting than you spent proving it in the first place (none)
open to hearing evidence of that claim of yours, because the article disagrees with you