It’s no secret that public trust in news sources — traditional TV, cable, newspapers, even social media — has declined to all-time lows. But when questioned about the particular sources respondents typically access, the trust numbers go way up. This is a dangerous combination since it tends to polarize groupthink at the expense of more balanced debate fueled by unbiased news. How did we get here, and what can we do about it? Perhaps some perspective could help explain the former.

I just finished reading Hue 1968 by Mark Bowden of “Blackhawk Down” fame about the battle of Hue during the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War. It’s a stunningly good rendition of the battle itself and personal interest stories on both sides, but it also has a section that deals with media coverage of the war. Remember, this was years before Al Gore had his aha moment in the computer lab, so the public’s sources of info were predominantly TV network news, radio and newspapers, with Walter Cronkite having by far the biggest microphone. In spite of his liberal leanings, Cronkite earned the title of the most trusted man in America in no small part because he tried scrupulously to keep bias out of his news presentations.

With positive info about Hue from the government increasingly conflicting with local reports, Cronkite decided to go see for himself. He confirmed the local reporting but agonized how to present it because of concerns that it might come across as opinion. He eventually compromised by reporting the facts on the ground, but adding that his personal observations had convinced him that the war was not winnable, and the best we could do was achieve an honorable withdrawal. President Johnson is said to have commented that if we have lost Cronkite we have lost America. He altered policy accordingly, and the rest is history. Know any “journalists” today with that kind of juice?

Fast forward to Watergate. What is often lost in the hero worship portrayal of the Woodward/Bernstein efforts is the professional rigor that the adults in the Post’s newsroom brought to the process. The investigation went on for months, in constant jeopardy of being dropped, because the reporters were unable to meet strict journalistic criteria for going to press. Bradley must have sensed they were onto something because he allowed the investigation to continue, but he also demanded proof from multiple sources, not just because he was a pro, but also because he understood the stakes.

Watergate was a turning point for journalism because it inspired a shift toward high-profile investigative reporting. And why not? Who wouldn’t want to change history and get portrayed in the movies by Robert Redford? The slog of regular fact reporting gave way to a focus on triple bank shot investigations, and journalistic standards began to slip in the pursuit of the sensational. Human nature at its best.

Over the decades, newsrooms have always been populated with more liberals, but there were enough gatekeepers to keep things from spinning too far out of control. True, hard news was mixed with soft reminders that Reagan was a doofus actor, Clinton was a flawed character good old boy but balanced the budget and popped the economy, W. was a low IQ frat boy, and Obama was … well, Obama. But at least the powers that be had the professional sense to censure Cronkite’s successor when the National Guard story he “broke” on W. to try to influence the 2004 election turned out to be fake.

But then along came the Trump campaign, and the bright red line that was supposed to separate news from opinion was utterly obliterated. The culprit was the New York Times declaration that it was the civic duty of “news reporters” to inject negative opinions about Trump into their stories because Trump was such a dire threat to the country. The sigh of relief from the liberal news rooms was audible across the country, free at last, and the race to see who would be the ONE to torpedo Trump was on. The Times had always snuck some liberal bias into its news stories via things like sentence structure, headline phrasing, inflammatory adjectives, vague sourcing and even photo camera angles, but blatant blending of news and opinion exploded once the “journalists” got permission. After the election the media embarrassment was so all-consuming that they latched onto the “Russians did it” narrative that was created out of whole cloth by team Hillary to mask the utter failure of its candidate and mitigate the destruction of the consultants’ reputations. And they’ve been at it ever since.

What probably began as a CYA exercise for a discredited media morphed into a business model as ratings for even the most egregious news/opinion offenders went up. Who can forget the revelation from the CNN producer who said they all know the Russian story is bogus, but are being told by the network execs to continue to push it because of ratings? And now they are stuck relying on a business model based on repeated promises of sensational anti-Trump revelations. But you can only cry wolf (no, not that Wolf) so many times before the public eventually tunes you out, and that would not be in the country’s best interests.

To address our biggest issues in a way that leads to more permanent solutions, we need consensus based on robust debate, fueled by facts presented in an unbiased way by the news media. Opinion masquerading as news undercuts that goal and results in folks retreating to their self-reinforcing info sources, further polarizing the process. The media have drifted far afield from their traditional role, making reform a challenge. So how can we get back to the Cronkite way?

There may not be a silver bullet, but a combination of actions might have a shot, and the target needs to be ratings. Media is a business, and regardless of how we got here, as long as the ratings stay up, the business models of the opinion as news purveyors will continue.

First, stop the leaks; cut off the supply of anti-Trump raw material. Next, continue to call out unprofessional journalistic behavior; make them look bad. That used to be one element that kept things in line: Journalists were willing to stretch the envelope in support of a liberal agenda until they were made to look silly. Get back to that. Trump should keep up the tweets with a positive tone and leave the counterattack specifics to his surrogates. Create a war room-type response team to correct facts, encourage debate, and ridicule journalists who are crossing the line into opinion.

Rally the GOP as a whole to fight back on opinion as news. OK, I know that’s a reach, but it’s too easy to make it solely a personal Trump issue if it’s not widespread. Challenge the Dems to join the party. Make it a battle of ideas fueled by facts from reporters. That’s likely beyond a reach, but in for a dime… Send “reporters” who use White House press briefings as opinion soap boxes packing, Make being a real journalist a career-enhancing move again. That will of course lead to cries of censorship, but welcome that debate. The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee a reserved seat in the briefing room. Exhibit A was the exchange between the White House advisor and the CNN guy over immigration last week. It was mildly entertaining as verbal sparring, but I listened for 10 minutes and came away with zero knowledge about the actual policy. You can’t get public support for anything that important when the scorecard depends mainly on sound bite points.

And finally, use whatever personal influence available to convince the folks to tune out a media that tries to hide opinion in the news. So far the anti-Trump theme has worked as a business matter. Ratings have gone up for the same reason folks tune in to watch a car wreck, but that is running its course. Anecdotally, there are signs of some self-correction as there seem to be fewer mentions of the “Russia did it” angle. And when those still making the cut are sounding desperate — “Breaking now: MSNBC has learned that the guy who was Trump’s campaign manager for six minutes 18 months ago has a neighbor whose uncle’s lawyer once discussed opening a McDonald’s franchise in Putin’s home town with a Russian oligarch; film at 11” — you know the meme is approaching its sell-by date.

Don’t misunderstand: I do not want to see these news sources go out of business. I simply think it would be far better for the country if journalists returned to their roots of presenting unbiased facts. Keep all the opinion sources you want; just label them as such. Give the folks the info needed to assess issues and let essential robust informed debate drive the train. The alternative is policy driven by the more clever sound bite, with half-lives measured in weeks.

Our demographic may not move the dial much directly since the CNNs of the world are not likely on our faves list, but if you believe as I do that the country is far better served by having journalists do their traditional job of feeding facts into the debate, then tell your friends, neighbors and countrymen to vote with your remote. Even the Russians can’t meddle with that.