The dangers of controlling public NARRATIVES, Pt 2: Erosion of trust in institutions

We covered the consequences of controlling the narrative had on democracies in part 1 of this series. Now we are going to address the consequences of narrative control specifically aimed at undermining trust in institutions.

One of the clearest consequences of pervasive narrative management is the decline of public trust. If citizens feel every source of information is biased or withholding truth, trust in those institutions’ plummets. Surveys across many democracies show a crisis of confidence in traditional pillars of authority in a democracy – executive, legislative and judicial. A global study covering 143 countries found that trust in representative institutions (like parliaments, governments, and parties) has been steadily declining for decades (phys.org). In fact, trust in national parliaments fell roughly nine percentage points on average from 1990 to 2019 in democracies worldwide (phys.org). Researchers call this a “warning sign” that opens the door for populist or authoritarian figures to gain support by railing against the establishment (phys.org).

In the United States, public trust in government is near historic lows, with only about 22% of Americans in 2024 saying they trust the federal government to do what is right “most of the time” (pewresearch.org). Trust in other democratic institutions has likewise eroded – for example, unfavorable views of the U.S. Congress hover around 70% (pewtrusts.org). Even the judiciary is not immune: confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court recently turned negative for the first time in decades (pewtrusts.org). This broad mistrust correlates with the perception that narratives are being managed for political ends rather than the public good.

Media and Information Sources: Perhaps most striking is the collapse of trust in the news media, the very institution tasked with informing the public. “Midway through the 20th century, the news media was among the most trusted institutions in the United States. Today, it sits near the bottom of the list,” outpaced only by Congress as the least-trusted institution (pewtrusts.org). Recent polls record American trust in mainstream news at record lows – only about 31% have a “great deal or fair amount” of confidence that the press reports news fully, accurately, and fairly (fox9.com). This distrust is intensified by partisan polarization: 77% of Democrats say they trust the news media, but only 42% of Republicans do (pewtrusts.org). A majority of Americans believe the media “purposely avoids reporting certain stories” that don’t fit a desired narrative (pewtrusts.org). In other words, many suspect the media itself is controlling the narrative, omitting important facts – a belief that further undermines credibility.

Tech Platforms: Trust in social media platforms as information sources is even more tenuous. 67% of U.S. adults say that news on social media sites is “made up.” (poynter.org). Given the prevalence of bots, fake accounts, and algorithmic echo chambers, users often approach online content with skepticism. Scandals involving tech companies (from data misuse to uneven content moderation) reinforce the idea that these platforms manipulate what users see – whether for profit or under government pressure – thus weakening public confidence in the information ecosystem.

Social Media Influencers: A growing and concerning factor in narrative control is the role of social media influencers, many of whom have become unofficial authorities on news, health, politics, and cultural issues, despite lacking formal expertise or accountability. Unlike traditional journalists or scholars who operate within institutional checks and standards, influencers are often rewarded algorithmically for engagement over accuracy. This leads many to sensationalize, oversimplify, or distort facts to generate likes, shares, and monetized attention. As a result, they can significantly undermine factual information – either intentionally or through ignorance.

Studies have shown that false content spreads six times faster than truthful information on platforms like Twitter (Vosoughi et al., Science, 2018), and influencers often play a central role in amplifying these narratives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, many wellness and lifestyle influencers used their platforms to question public health guidance, eroding trust in medical institutions and encouraging resistance to protective measures. Influencers who promote political misinformation have likewise shaped public opinion, often presenting emotionally charged or identity-affirming content that bypasses critical thinking.

The influence of these figures is compounded by parasocial relationships – audiences feel a sense of personal connection and loyalty to influencers, making them more likely to accept claims uncritically and dismiss contradictory evidence from formal authorities. This dynamic contributes to fragmented trust ecosystems, where someone may disregard peer-reviewed studies or credible journalism but believe an influencer with no subject-matter expertise. In a world where perception often trumps verification, the unchecked authority of influencers poses a serious challenge to maintaining a fact-based public discourse.

Educational and Other Institutions: Even institutions traditionally afforded respect are seeing trust fray amid politicized narratives. Universities and public schools, for example, have been accused by some of ideological bias or “indoctrination,” leading portions of the public to doubt them. Nearly half of U.S. public school teachers in one 2024 survey felt that most Americans don’t trust them or their schools much at all (pewtrusts.org). This loss of faith extends to scientific and health institutions when they become entangled in politicized narrative battles (as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic debates on masks, vaccines, etc.). In short, when every major institution is perceived as having an agenda, the default public reaction becomes mistrust and cynicism.

Importantly, erosion of trust can be self-reinforcing. As trust declines, people become less likely to accept even legitimate information from institutions, fueling further narrative control efforts in response. It’s a vicious cycle. Chris Couchman, an editor analyzing media trends, noted that “When trust erodes, uncertainty grows, and that makes societies more vulnerable to targeted disinformation” (communicatemagazine.com). In democratic societies, this uncertainty often translates to fracturing of the public sphere: people retreat to partisan or alternative outlets that confirm their worldview, since mainstream sources are no longer trusted. Some citizens may drop out of civic engagement entirely, believing “truth” is unattainable or that all authorities are equally untrustworthy.

On the other hand, there is a paradox: attempts to tightly control narratives might temporarily boost trust among a segment of the population that wants to believe a comforting or partisan version of events. For example, if a government and friendly media all repeat the same message, some supporters will internalize it and trust those institutions more, while opponents trust them even less. This leads to parallel realities of trust – each side trusts its preferred narrators and dismisses the others. The net effect is a fragmented trust landscape that can tear at national cohesion.

So, what can you do?

Developing trust in the information we consume is both a psychological and intellectual exercise, one that has become increasingly important in an era of misinformation, polarization, and information overload. Trust, in this context, is not about blind acceptance, but rather cultivating a disciplined approach to evaluating truth, credibility, and relevance. Below are expert-backed strategies to help the average person build a more reliable framework for information consumption:

Adopt a Critical Thinking Mindset

Trustworthy consumption begins with the acknowledgment that not all information is created equal. Critical thinking is the active, self-regulated process of questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and identifying logical fallacies. It involves:

• Asking Who Benefits: Who gains from this information being accepted as true?

• Interrogating Evidence: Is the claim backed by verifiable data or peer-reviewed research?

• Checking for Biases: Am I more likely to accept this because it aligns with what I already believe?

A critical thinker suspends immediate judgment and remains open to complexity.

Diversify Your Information Diet

Just as a healthy body requires nutritional variety, a healthy mind needs informational diversity. Consuming from only one political, ideological, or cultural source creates intellectual echo chambers that diminish critical faculties. Consider:

• Following reputable sources with opposing editorial perspectives (e.g., The Economist vs. The Nation)

• Listening to experts from different disciplines (e.g., political scientists, sociologists, ethicists)

• Engaging with global media to counterbalance local or national blind spots

Exposure to nuance builds resilience against manipulation and deepens trust in well-rounded perspectives.

Evaluate Source Credibility Systematically

Not all sources are equally reliable. Establish a baseline set of criteria to evaluate any source:

• Transparency: Are the author’s credentials, affiliations, and sources clearly disclosed?

• Accountability: Is the outlet known for issuing corrections or adhering to journalistic standards?

• Reputation: Has the source demonstrated a consistent record of accuracy?

Use tools like Media Bias/Fact Check, AllSides, or NewsGuard to assess known biases and fact-check reliability. This is especially true when it comes to engaging with social media as there is a likelihood that formal fact-checking has been suspended on your platform of choice.

Strengthen Digital Literacy

With algorithms shaping what we see, digital literacy is crucial. The average person should:

• Understand algorithmic curation: Platforms feed us what will keep us engaged, not necessarily what’s true.

• Check timestamps and URLs: Misleading headlines are often recycled or spoofed.

• Be wary of screenshots and quote cards: These are easy to manipulate and rarely provide context.

Cultivating a skeptical, not cynical, eye toward digital content improves discernment.

Anchor Trust in Process, Not Personality

Many people conflate charisma or confidence with credibility. Instead, trust should be placed in processes – peer review, evidence-based reasoning, legal standards of proof – not individuals. Even well-intentioned experts can be wrong or misinformed.

Rather than asking “Do I trust this person?”, ask:

• “How did they arrive at this conclusion?”

• “What are the mechanisms that validate their claim?”

This shift reduces susceptibility to demagogues and viral misinformation.

Develop Emotional Awareness

Psychological research shows that emotionally charged content – especially fear, outrage, or moral judgment – can override rational processing. To build trust in your own information processing:

• Pause when something provokes a strong reaction.

• Reflect on whether the message plays on your hopes or fears.

• Use mindfulness or journaling to detect cognitive biases like confirmation bias or groupthink.

Emotionally intelligent information consumption leads to more thoughtful trust calibration.

Engage in Dialogue, Not Debate

Finally, trust is strengthened when we practice epistemic humility, the understanding that we don’t have all the answers. Engaging in civil conversations with people who see the world differently challenges our assumptions and builds mutual understanding. This doesn't just expand our knowledge, it reinforces the social fabric that underlies trust itself.

To develop more trust in the information we consume, we must become conscious curators of our own knowledge intake. This means sharpening critical thinking, consuming across ideological lines, prioritizing credible processes, and managing our emotional responses. Trust is not a passive state—it is a skill that can be cultivated through rigorous inquiry and intentional engagement with the world.

Let truth be a practice, not a possession.

Resources

Dean, Claudia. Americans’ Deepening Mistrust of Institutions. Trend Magazine, Fall 2024. https://www.pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/americans-deepening-mistrust-of-institutions.

Holcomb, Jesse. Media Mistrust Has Been Growing for Decades—Does It Matter? Trend Magazine, Fall 2024. Pew. https://www.pew.org/en/trend/archive/fall-2024/media-mistrust-has-been-growing-for-decades-does-it-matter.

Pardon, Rebecca. April 4, 2025. Information Fatigue Drives Half of Brits to Avoid News, Survey Finds. Communicate Magazine. https://www.communicatemagazine.com/news/2025/information-fatigue-drives-half-of-brits-to-avoid-news-survey-finds/#:~:text=The%20survey%20also%20highlights%20growing,The%20data.

Pew Research Center. Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024 (June 24, 2024) https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/#:~:text=Public%20trust%20in%20the%20federal,nearly%20seven%20decades%20of%20polling

University of Southampton. “Democracy in crisis: Trust in democratic institutions declining around the world.” British Journal of Political Science (reported in Phys.org, Feb. 19, 2025). phys.org.

Vosoughi, Soroush et al. March 9, 2018. The Spread of True and False News Online. Science. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559.

Ziegler, Megan. October 14, 2024. Americans' trust in media is at new record low, Gallup poll finds. FOX9 KMSP. Retrieved May 29, 2025 https://www.fox9.com/news/media-trust-journalists-news-america-gallup-poll-election-2024.