Australia has just churned through its fourth prime minister in a decade as a result of party room shenanigans.

Much has been said about the willingness of our big political parties to trade in prime ministers, on average, every 30 months.

There is the so-called 24-hour news cycle, blamed for corralling fatigued governments into flawed and poorly executed public policy.

There is the structural factionalism of both parties, blamed for rewarding plotting, navel gazing and self-interest at the expense of good policy.

And there is the destabilising role played by elements of the media, blamed for blurring the line between commentary and activism, and for creating a sense of chaos and mistrust through the reporting of unverified and unsourced information, among other things.

The latest leadership spill, in which Malcolm Turnbull was deposed as prime minister has raised further questions about the role of the media in public life.

Indeed, Australians are feeling more disillusioned about the role of the media than almost any other country, according to an annual global survey of more than 33,000 people taken well before the latest knifing.

Communications giant Edelman found that people's trust in the media in Australia now ranks as the second lowest of 28 surveyed countries. Only Turkish people are less trusting of the sector.

According to the 2018 survey, about seven in 10 Australians are now worried about the spread of false information and of 'fake news' being used as a weapon to mislead and influence public opinion.

Political engagement also appears to be declining. The Australian Electoral Study, a detailed and long-running post-election survey conducted by the Australian National University's School of Politics & International Relations, has identified some alarming trends.

Almost eight out of 10 voters (79 per cent of survey respondents) said they did not watch leaders debates during the last election campaign. That compares to just 30 per cent during the 1993 election.

Fewer than one in three voters (30 per cent) reported taking "a good deal" of interest in the last election, compared to half of voters 23 years earlier.

And just 17 per cent of voters said they followed the election through newspapers, down from 29 per cent in 1993. For television, the decline has also been precipitous — the internet has only partly offset this, with 19 per cent using it to tune into the last campaign.

What is to be done?

The first point to make is that viewing the problem merely in terms of "the media" isn't necessary helpful.

"The media" — as a collective noun — includes a diverse array of news outlets and organisations, mastheads, TV and radio stations, and even individual journalists with different approaches to news and opinion. Some "commentators", for example, openly run political agendas.

Importantly, "the media" is now also seen to include social media platforms such as Facebook, and search engines such as Google, both of which have become purveyors of news.

Somewhat encouragingly, voters appear to be becoming more cautious and discerning.

While the previously cited Edelman Trust Barometer would appear to suggest that trust in the media in Australia has collapsed, drilling into the figures reveals a more nuanced story.

Trust in "journalism" — a more specific subset of the media — has actually strengthened.

On the other hand, Australia's trust in social media platforms such as Facebook and search engines has collapsed in 2018. Only the Irish and the Swedes placed less trust in these media forms.

Clearly, Facebook and others have work to do, amid growing public alarm about the spread of 'fake news' and the misuse of personal information for nefarious political purposes (think Cambridge Analytica).

Facebook is now running a concerted public relations campaign in an apparent effort to repair its battered image and regain the trust of users.

As a Facebook-sponsored message on a Melbourne billboard put it: "Fake news is not our friend."

"We're committed to reducing it," the message continued.

"So we're working with more fact-checkers globally, improving our technology, and giving you background information on the articles in your news feed."

Fact checking, it seems, has an important role to play.

A major poll undertaken by Roy Morgan in May tells a similar story of distrust. It found almost half of Australians do not trust social media, compared to (for example) only 9 per cent who distrust the ABC. So, trust in some news outlets remains high.

The point is, the loss of trust in the media as a broad concept may not necessarily be a cause for lament.

Rather, it could reflect the community's increasing discernment between information sources and, if you like, a growing polarisation of trust.

The upshot is a public that is increasingly placing a premium on credible news and information sources.

Which brings us to the role played by organisations such as RMIT ABC Fact Check. The goal as we see it — and the big opportunity — is to build trust with the public; that is, to put a trust "premium" on our reporting.

This will not be achieved by running political agendas, nor by seeking to strong-arm voters or by practicing "gotcha" journalism.

Rather, the aim is to engage with the public by bringing rigour, dispassion, fearlessness and facts to the fore in debates that are, all too often, marred by shouting and misinformation.

Fact checking is a global phenomenon. It is still in its relative infancy, although as a form of journalism it is growing rapidly.

In the heavily polarised US, fact checking organisations such as Poynter are seeking to engage with non-traditional audiences, often with preconceived notions of mistrust.

The result have reportedly been promising. Clear, factually-based and relevant information does make it difference.

In Australia, we have had an impact on political debates in policy areas including migration, taxation, the economy, health and education.

Our work requires tenacity, detailed research and taking the necessary time to consult with experts.

It can be arduous, but we and other fact checking organisations such as The Conversation are having an impact on the quality of public debate.

Of course, fact checking is not the panacea to all political ills; it can simply encourage public figures to think more carefully about the quality of information they are disseminating.

In return, we hope the public will continue to engage with us, not as purveyors of "truth", but as purveyors of "fact".

Josh Gordon is a senior researcher for RMIT ABC Fact Check.