As a journalist, I had never lived through such a news-packed time as the past eight years. Starting with the election of Donald Trump, those years brought the Russia investigation, COVID, two impeachments, the Jan. 6 insurrection, two wars, earthshaking decisions from the Supreme Court that affected fundamental rights, and the first felony conviction in U.S. history of a former American president.

It’s no wonder I ordered a baseball cap embroidered with three initials: “TMN.” Too Much News. I wear it a lot.

Here’s the thing, though: Journalists don’t really get to beg off when “there’s too much news.” We play a crucial role in American democracy. We bring you this news, and you need it to be accurate, fair and free of bias so you can evaluate and hold accountable your public officials.

For decades, though, journalism has been losing credibility with the public. Journalists believed the loss was due to the public’s belief that journalists were biased and that their reports skewed the news in favor of one side or another through language and choice of topic.

“Only 32% of Americans report having ‘a great deal’ or ‘fair amount’ of trust in news reporting – a historical low,” writes journalism scholar Jacob Nelson. But in a study, Nelson and two colleagues discovered something unexpected: “We found that people’s distrust of journalism does not stem from fears of ideological brainwashing,” he writes. Instead, they found that the public believes the news industry “values profits above truth or public service.”

“The Americans we interviewed believe that news organizations report the news inaccurately not because they want to persuade their audiences to support specific political ideologies, candidates or causes, but rather because they simply want to generate larger audiences – and therefore larger profits.”

That’s a stunning finding – at least to this journalist.

Also in this week’s politics news:

Naomi Schalit

Senior Editor, Politics + Democracy

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2024, in Washington. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Journalism’s trust problem is about money, not politics

Jacob L. Nelson, University of Utah

A study shows that Americans believe news organizations report the news inaccurately not because they are politically biased, but because they want to generate larger audiences and larger profits.

The rise of populist leaders and movements is sometimes the partial result of people’s economic insecurities and worries about the future. Getty Images

Populism can degrade democracy but is on the rise − here’s what causes this political movement and how it can be weakened

Gábor Scheiring, Georgetown University

Economic insecurity is one factor that drives populism, a former politician from Hungary writes.

U.S. Supreme Court justices normally take their time in issuing decisions. Douglas Rissing/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Supreme Court’s slow roll on deciding Trump’s immunity is the opposite of politics

Claire B. Wofford, College of Charleston

Critics are decrying the long time the Supreme Court has taken to rule in a crucial Trump case, charging that it’s politically motivated to help Trump. A scholar of the court says they’re wrong.

How Jefferson and Madison’s partnership – a friendship told in letters – shaped America’s separation of church and state

Steven K. Green, Willamette University

More than 2,000 letters between the two founders are available online. Many attest to their deep commitment to religious freedom.

Debate offers opportunity for errors, partisan spin − and maybe an opening for change

Susan Fillippeli, Auburn University

Featuring several unique rules, including no live audience and mics that cut off when it’s not a speaker’s turn, the debate might help shape the 2024 presidential race.

Even the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are polarized about the state of American politics

Kevin J. McMahon, Trinity College

The secret recordings of two Supreme Court justices reveal dramatic differences in how they see American political life.

As debate approaches, presidents are blamed for events over which they have little control

Andrew Reeves, Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis

Most efforts to project how well a candidate will do in an election are based largely on factors over which presidents have little to no control.