Don Flood

You can trust us, really

Trust in the media, according to a recent poll, is at an all-time low.

It is, as Dan Rather might say, lower than the belly of a depressed armadillo that's been washed into a drainage ditch following a Texas cloudburst.

In fact, if the election were held today, the media would finish 257th in the presidential contest, behind, among others, Bush, Kerry, Nader, the Three Stooges, Gilligan, Darth Vader, the prize-winning potato at the Idaho State Fair, Martha Stewart, Carrot Top, and, sadly, a Donald Duck Pez Dispenser.

And at least part of the reason is Rather, who got taken in by phony documents supposedly from the early '70s. (The fiasco has also quashed a CBS exclusive on the Lincoln assassination. Sources say that e-mails linking John Wilkes Booth with Attila the Hun are now considered "questionable.")

Besides Big Dan's Document Dust-up, the media also took a beating recently when two of the country's premiere news-gathering organizations -- People magazine and US Weekly -- dueled over whether one of our nation's highest officials, Britney Spears, was married or not.

How embarrassing can you get!

Fortunately, the matter was resolved when CBS produced a marriage license confirming that, yes, Britney Spears had indeed married Dan Rather and that the two would go on tour together once Rather learned his steps as the new back-up dancer.

So with Rather dancing into the sunset, I conducted my own full-scale investigation that included many official and important-looking documents. Among people's concerns about the media:

* Too much reliance on clearly skewed or even bogus polls. A shocking 173 percent of people polled, including a whopping 255 percent of unmarried albino Sagittarians who had shaken hands with a Latino in the last month, agreed with the statement: "You can't believe every poll you read, even one by reputable people such as the writer of this column."

* Excessive use of unnamed sources. "It really makes you wonder whether there's really a person behind the quote," said one prominent media critic who asked that his name not be used.

"I often get the impression they just make this stuff up," said another critic, who also wished to remain anonymous.

(Editor's note: The policy of this column is to never, ever use unnamed sources except in cases of extreme and highly unusual circumstances, such as the weekly deadline.)

* Inability to see both sides of a story: While I can admit journalists such as myself might have some faults, this isn't one of them. It's just not possible. Furthermore, anybody who disagrees with me is a blockhead.

* Not taking the time to fully investigate a story. Well, I suppose there could be a point here, but if I don't take a break now I'm going to be late for lunch.

But not all journalists are pessimistic about the future of the profession.

"It's a matter of earning that trust one story at a time," said one veteran newsman, who, unfortunately, was suffering from amnesia and couldn't recall his name.

Write to Don Flood in care of King Features Weekly Service, P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475, or send e-mails to dflood@ezol.com