The media can’t get it right. The scary part is that, much of the time, we don’t even understand what we’re doing wrong.

It would be so beneficial to my friends and colleagues in radio, television and newspapers if we could — for just one month — see ourselves and our profession the way most of the public sees us.

It’s not a good look, folks.

A new Gallup poll found that the percentage of Americans who say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media has fallen to a record low. In fact, the media is the least-trusted civic and public institution in America, according to Gallup. Americans put more trust in Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House.

Only 31% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of trust in the media. Last year, the figure was 32%.

I have my own theories about how and why the media lost its way. But I was curious about the explanations that others might offer. When I talk to “civilians” — those who work outside the media — I will sometimes ask them to explain to me why they don’t trust what they’re being asked to consume.

We have an agenda, they say. We wear our biases on our sleeves, they say. We can’t relate to everyday Americans, they say. We always criticize Republicans while making excuses for Democrats, they say.

Meanwhile, when I ask my colleagues why they think more people don’t trust the media, they often get defensive.

It’s all Donald Trump’s fault, some say. After all, the former president has labeled us an “enemy of the people.”

In my 35 years on the job, I’ve seen many facets of journalism — the good, the bad and the ugly. Much of what I’ve seen has convinced me that a big contributor to public distrust in the media is the fact that many journalists migrated from the sidelines to the playing field.

That subject came up during a recent episode of CNN’s “The Chris Wallace Show.” The host asked panelist Lulu Garcia-Navarro, a podcaster for The New York Times, what she made of the Gallup poll showing the lack of public trust in the media.

“There has been just sort of an atmosphere here where we now put journalists in the role of prize fighters,” she said. “We don’t expect journalists to have a discussion with someone or an interview. We expect them to … play a role as kind of in the ring with them.”

She cited a recent interview she had with Sen. JD Vance, the GOP vice presidential candidate. Some listeners thought she should have pushed back on Vance’s comments to the point of engaging in verbal combat.

“And so what we see here is journalists in the role of an actor in these things,” she said. “And I think that doesn’t help where we’re at.”

In April 1910, President Theodore Roosevelt gave his famous “The Man in the Arena” speech in which he gave credit to “the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.”

Meanwhile, Roosevelt had far less respect for what he called “the critic” who shouted critiques from a safe distance.

The 26th president wasn’t saying that journalists should stop being referees and climb into the arena.

Yet, that’s what has happened over the last 50 years. I’d say things started to change after the Watergate scandal was uncovered by two young reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post. President Richard Nixon resigned, and “the boys” became celebrities.

Future generations — already marinating in the juices of reality shows, social media and social influencers — sought out a similar path. As one of my uncles once told me about my line of work, “As a journalist, you won’t get rich. But you will get famous.”

Or, if you don’t do your job right, infamous. My tio left out that part.

Email Navarrette at ruben@rubennavarrette.com