by Peter Weinberger

In an era where headlines move faster than ever, trust in the institutions that deliver them is unraveling. Nowhere is this more evident than in the growing skepticism — and sometimes outright hostility — toward mainstream media. Once considered a cornerstone of democracy, the press is increasingly viewed with suspicion. Politicians, pundits, and even citizens themselves are working, knowingly or not, to discredit journalism at the exact moment it’s most needed.

The term “fake news,” once used to describe deliberately fabricated stories online, was weaponized during Donald Trump’s first term as president. It quickly became shorthand for any coverage that cast him or his policies in a negative light. Since then, it has become a catchall slur for any uncomfortable or inconvenient truth, often deployed not just by national leaders, but by local officials, influencers, and even neighbors on social media.

But this isn’t just a matter of bruised egos or partisan rhetoric. The public’s eroding trust in the press has far-reaching consequences, undermining accountability, distorting public debate, and threatening the very foundation of informed citizenship. It’s also a key reason why our democracy has split into two camps, with neither one listening.

Campaign to undermine journalism

Mainstream media, while imperfect, remains the primary institution responsible for verifying facts, giving context to events, and holding powerful figures to account. Yet in recent years, it has faced a coordinated and sustained effort to discredit our work.

Politicians have led the charge. From the White House press room to campaign rallies, elected officials have used accusations of bias and dishonesty to rally their bases and deflect scrutiny. In doing so, they’ve normalized the idea that facts themselves are subjective — even optional.

Since getting elected for a second term, President Trump intensified his campaign on social media, targeting mainstream outlets regularly. By 2025, he had used the term “fake news” or labeled specific reporting as “fake” nearly 1,500 times, and called the media the “enemy of the American people” in dozens of instances. Why? Mainstream media fact checks Trump’s statements that range from a mix of accurate and distorted information, to outright lies to protect his credibility. That said, he makes himself available to the media more than any president in my lifetime.

Trump himself once commented on his criticism of the media. “Why do I keep hammering at this? … I do it to discredit you all … so that when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.”

What happens locally

When someone asks me about how to manage the explosion of misinformation, I encourage them to get a second, or even third source for accuracy. This of course takes more effort, but it’s also the world we live in. We are fortunate to live in Claremont, but misinformation can trickle down anywhere. But most mainstream newspaper companies that have heavily cut editorial resources, still make an effort to get the facts correct. Even with less pages to read.

The Claremont Courier hasn’t been exempt from this kind of treatment. When a reader, business owner, or politician calls us upset about a story, we genuinely want to hear them out. Publishing local news is inherently subjective, and it’s impossible to land in the middle every time. Add in the noise of social media — where opinions often blur with facts — and it’s becoming even harder to distinguish what’s real.

Over the years, we’ve seen local politicians stand up during a City Council meeting to publicly blame the Courier for reporting on their decision making — more concerned about how it might affect their popularity than the facts themselves. I consider that an abuse of power. But holding public officials accountable is exactly what our readers expect from us.

What can local mainstream media do?

News organizations can elevate credibility by articulating how reporting works: name sources (when possible), link to documents, annotate fact-checks, and correct mistakes swiftly and publicly. And you will see this in the Courier from both editor Mick Rhodes and reporter/photographer Andrew Alonzo. This helps build trust — even when coverage draws criticism.

Trust remains higher in community journalism than national outlets. Local media should prioritize reinvesting in beat reporting on school boards, city councils, and local governance —while encouraging reader subscriptions or donations to offset losses of advertising revenue.

That’s why, as part of our 2025 fundraising effort, the Courier will once again attempt to hire a second full-time beat reporter. This would double the amount of local reporting we produce — going from one reporter to two.

At first glance, this might seem like a small change. But it creates a domino effect that impacts every aspect of our operation, all the way up to yours truly — especially when it comes to publishing a consistent, high-quality newspaper.

Only through transparency, local engagement, collaboration, and unwavering editorial standards can journalism make a difference — and remain a robust pillar in American life.