The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that any physical systems naturally and inevitably decay from a state of order into a state of disorder over time. In short, the “something” eventually diminishes into “nothing.” A once polished iron and wood axe, after enough time, eventually becomes a pile of rust and splinters. An elephant carcass decays into a skeleton and then ultimately dust. A massive 20-foot boulder that once weighed over 300 tons eventually erodes into fine silt, the individual grains of which are too light to even register on a micro-scale.

This law is a truth of science. Some physical systems decay slower than others depending on the climate-based factors around them, but they all still have the same inevitable future according to this law. Whether we like it or not, or we believe it or not, it is simply an irrefutable and unavoidable reality of the world we live in. Father Time remains undefeated.

In modern-day Western civilization, however, we live in a world with other immaterial systems that are not physical in this way and therefore not subject to this law. Our secular institutions, for example—because they were first established and now continue to be maintained by human beings (and their ideas)—can and should be durable enough to withstand the test of time. As long as people are dedicated enough to maintain them on an ongoing basis, there is no scientific certainty that they will ultimately perish, just as there is no mathematical formula that can definitively predict their collapse. The people who first establish and steward them may come and go, but with enough of a firm foundation and commitment from future partners to carry the torch into the next generations, as long as there are no extenuating circumstances, they have no natural reason to inevitably cease to exist.

Yet in spite of this, our current Western culture has increasingly observed a familiar decay pattern with certain aspects of these immaterial systems and institutions. This pattern we’ve begun to witness with these institutions seems to function similarly to the way the law of entropy does for the elephant carcass over enough time. It has been increasingly apparent with some institutions that are so ubiquitous and ingrained into the fabric of our culture that the notion they would ever face any kind of steady and severe threat would’ve seemed preposterous 50 years ago. So what is the foundational element within these systems that is continually being eroded away, which may lead to their untimely and unnecessary demise? Trust.

The Mainstream Media

According to Gallup, widespread American trust in the mainstream news media has consistently continued to hit record lows over the last 50 years. This has been the case regardless of what has been going on culturally or which party has had political power. Despite some minimal peaks and valleys on an individual year-to-year basis, in terms of overall five-to-ten-year averages, trust has never gone up, or even remained flat for that matter. It has only ever gone down. The latest data (2025) shows that just 28% of Americans trust mass media “a fair amount or a great deal.” Among the latest data for television news specifically, it drops to about 12%.

Some may attribute this to the fact that the polls are oversampling conservatives, who are statistically less likely to trust the media (the same media that has historically maintained a left-leaning bias). The problem with that theory is these polls proportionally survey all Americans, both left and right. In fact, the most recent available data also showed the lowest trust levels among Democrats since 2016. Others may attribute this to a “Trump effect,” whereby his rhetoric is perceived as being the catalyst for such a decline. The issue there is the decrease long preceded his political ascent, so we cannot assume he was the original cause of the same trend that long predated his campaign (on the contrary, he was originally very much part of the media).

Here’s the thing: corporate journalism is not a physical institution or system that is subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is—in many ways—an intangible system that consists of multiple companies, ideas, and broadcast content/reporting, and is kept going by a revolving door of people who operate the businesses. When David Sarnoff founded the company I worked for 13+ years—NBCUniversal, for example—he most likely did not establish it with the prophetic belief that, similar to the elephant carcass, it would slowly but surely decay into an unsuccessful company that would eventually cease to exist as a completely unavoidable scientific matter of course. As long as competent and well-meaning people were to keep it afloat in a market that is somewhat nourishing to its business goals, there would’ve been no earthly and independent reasons for it to just expire with enough time.

And yet here we are in 2025, on the brink of the midterms, where mainstream media newsrooms continue to report layoffs in record numbers. Independent and bipartisan non-profit organizations that analyze bias in news outlets continue to consistently report that the largest media outlets have always demonstrated one-sided bias. Not surprisingly, other surveys showed that 90% of the news coverage of Donald Trump was/is negative, while over 80% of the news coverage of Kamala Harris was positive. Disney reported a record loss in market share following their expressions of disapproval for Governor DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg lost a brutal debate against Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi on this very topic of public media trust.

GARM (Global Alliance for Responsible Media) shut down. The term “fake news” has somehow managed to be a common denominator between both the left and the right—albeit in different time periods—since both have raised concerns about its damaging effects on the electorate. Jimmy Kimmel said, “I don’t know if there will be any late-night television shows on network TV in 10 years.” Before his show was canceled, Stephen Colbert’s own left-leaning show with an NYC audience—in a candid and unscripted moment—laughed at the comment that CNN is a down-the-middle, objective news source. Journalists are among some of the job titles that carry the lowest rates on perceived honesty and ethical standards. Ironically, the person who reports the weather—who historically was always the butt of the “the weatherman is the only person who can be wrong 100% of the time and still keep his job” joke—is probably now one of the last remaining bastions of news that is actually the most trusted!

I was not alive when Walter Cronkite was still reporting, but apparently, when he was on the air and heralded as the “most trusted man in America,” there were profoundly deliberate efforts to clearly identify whichever portions of the news were considered opinion. In those days, the trust levels were in the 70–80% range. But today, corporate journalism seems as though it’s almost entirely opinion, without any effort to qualify it as such. I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that as the news media has grown more opinion-based and hyperbolized, the trust percentage is now in the high 20s, and falling fast.

What I’ve been endeavoring to get my former colleagues in the media to understand is that there is a high correlation between trust declines and ratings declines. And since ratings fund those businesses, we have a vested interest in improving the trust that is at least partially driving those consumption losses. How much longer can these widespread American trust declines go on while the corporations that comprise the mainstream media remain afloat? Using linear regression modeling, as long as no course corrections are made, we can predict that the next available 10-year period of data will show that trust levels of the media will drop to the low 20s. And again, if nothing changes, the trust percentages will eventually reach the teens, and then the single digits.

What will corporate media consumption look like when 5% of the country trusts it? Will people boycott even the less controversial aspects of these companies when that time comes, just to reduce the power and influence of the news organizations driving these large distrust increases? And more importantly, what will the social fabric of our country look like at that point?

I think about how incredibly divided we are as a country today. If the trust levels in the media are a barometer for how polarized we are as a nation, and we’re currently at 28%—but rapidly heading for less than 10% within the next two decades—what exactly will America and the West look like at that time, and how much worse can it get than it is right now? Will people only consume products or services that align with their political ideologies? If, for example, a liberal person has a family emergency and needs to fly somewhere ASAP, but discovers the pilot of the plane is conservative, will they refuse the ride?

One thing to note is that it’s not just the media. Similar steady and severe trust declines have been profoundly apparent among other institutions like the federal government (all three branches) as well as all of its agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and IRS; the medical and pharmaceutical establishment; public school and collegiate academia; the major financial institutions; and on and on it goes. But just like with the media, all of this is very fixable, because they are all run by human beings who have the capacity for exercising business acumen, responsibility, and ethical integrity. There do not have to be any trust declines to contend with. In fact, the world would be a supremely better place if they did exercise responsible moral virtue.

Here’s the good news for the mainstream media: the solution is so simple—just tell the truth. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth. When it’s opinion, label it as opinion. If that’s not an option, as far-fetched as this may sound, maybe we need visibility into the voting records of every mainstream journalist so it’s clear what they may or may not be telling us. There are a lot of additional things that can be done. The demise of these institutions is not inevitable, like it is for the elephant carcass. It is preventable.

Despite this rather bleak outlook for the mainstream media, there are some small glimmers of hope. CBS News just recently hired an ombudsman to investigate complaints about its own reporting from its own viewers. They also just recently hired Bari Weiss, who has a background in independent media and has been quite outspoken about mass media malpractice. Press Forward—a non-profit—recently announced they’d invest more into regional news outlets, which historically have carried higher trust rates than national ones. NBCUniversal just sold off and rebranded MSNBC to “MS Now,” a move that could be perceived as trying to distance the rest of its portfolio from this rather polarizing brand. In an unprecedented move, CNN—which has basically only ever hired left-leaning anchors, contributors, and commentators for the last 20 years—hired Scott Jennings as a frequently featured guest.

But in spite of some of these moves, the state of the legacy media still finds itself in a rather volatile state. The question is, will more of these attempts at course corrections continue? Moreover, will they prove to be effective enough to move the trust needle back up (or at least stop its rapid descent)? Trust is earned, not automatically given. Likewise, 50 years of increasing distrust takes a while to earn back. The American people may forgive, but can and will they forget? After betraying the trust of the American people for so long, will these steps drive any lasting change? Will American families eventually sit down to watch the news with an open mind and heart once again, like they did with Walter Cronkite? How much time will that take? Time will tell. Either way, one thing is clear: the legacy media has its work cut out for it if it wants to stave off this “entropy” that has been so clearly apparent for the last 50 years.

‍

Photo by Spenser Sembrat on Unsplash