Given efforts such as those of our local newspaper to ignore news and present opinion and bias as fact, is it any wonder that first, fewer people trust the media and of those who do, the majority are... you guessed it... democrats.
That democrats are foolish enough to trust the media is a direct reflection of the leftist bent of the media, and certainly not a reflection of the critical thinking skills of the individual.
September 21, 2012
U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High
Fewer Americans closely following political news now than in previous election years
by Lymari MoralesWASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.
The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views -- 20 percentage points -- is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 -- as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.
This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. The 31% and 26%, respectively, who express a great deal or fair amount of trust are record lows and are down significantly from last year. Republicans' level of trust this year is similar to what they expressed in the fall of 2008, implying that they are especially critical of election coverage.
Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.
More broadly, Republicans continue to express the least trust in the media, while Democrats express the most. Independents' trust fell below the majority level in 2004 and has continued to steadily decline.
More:
3 comments:
There's The Left's conspiracy theory that the media is controlled by a handful of giant corporations that slant the news to their financial benefit.
Then there's The Right's conspiracy theory that most newspeople are clandestine liberals who instill their bias into the news.
Dude, it’s neither - people naturally blame the bearer of news they don’t like.
Odd, that: according to Gallup, the left seems to trust the media so much more, and you completely discount the leftist bias of the meme.
I have no problem with bad news: news is news. Good or bad, I'm not in the least concerned about the bearer as long as they're accurate in their presentation.
But I find it hard to believe that you've concluded that, for example, my favorite whipping boy; the Columbian, which espouses and supports and arguably leftist agenda (mirroring the leftist "trust" in media) while attacking, trashing and attempting to destroy opponents to that agenda, somehow rises to the level of accurately providing all the news, sans bias, that we need to have or hear.
So, in this instance, when the rag publishes how bad our economy is, I don't resent their effort: I question their accuracy and integrity in under-reporting it as a political tool: they, for exampled, have Seattle Timed Boldt and Tanner like they were R74 and McKenna. Again, that is documentable.
I resent their inability to, as clinically as possible, present the news antiseptically so that we, the end user, can have the dignity of forming our own opinions without being told what to think.
So here, we have a fundamental disconnect. The local news has flatly lied; they've ignored facts inconvenient to their agenda, they've twisted information, set up, for example, false polling to support their agenda and the like: these acts are documentable and verifiable.
What I'm talking about isn't "theory." It's fact. And the rag's bankruptcy, in part, comes from their disregard of the truth, their efforts to use their bully pulpit to hammer this county into submission, their complete disregard and protection of their fellow leftists (We all know the deal on Jim Jacks, for example, Brancaccio didn't even try and get the story) and their crucifixion of anyone to the right of Marx.
There are at least a dozen indicators to suggest this is the case: back in 08, for example, this newspaper endorsed democrats and democrats only in every open race from Obama on down to the state rep. level.
Coincidence?
Every single one... all the while complaining about what the candidates they supported DID do once they get there... save for Obama, of course. I'm still waiting on, say, a Laird column trashing him. But I've decided I shouldn't hold me breath.
http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2012/10/cnn-exposed-emmy-winning-former-cnn-journalist-amber-lyon-blows-the-whistle-simultaneously-answers-one-of-my-questions-2459678.html
In case everyone has forgotten, Amber Lyons came out in public to expose the fact that CNN was withholding news that contradicted the Whitehouse, at the Whitehouse's request. This doesn't seem like it is fair and unbiased reporting.
Post a Comment