Latest Gallup Poll on public trust in the media

[Tigers2B1]

Here's the new Gallup poll relating to public trust in the media. Too bad that the CBS shenanigans has to spill all over the media in general – but that 'appears' to be what’s happening. It makes me wonder how this new level of public distrust will pay out in the election results. The new Gallup poll results show that public trust in media credibility is now at its lowest point in 30 years.

As a side note, this Gallup poll was taken BEFORE the CBS admission and apology but AFTER news reports began to question the authenticity of the CBS documents.

From the Gallup website –

Media Credibility Reaches Lowest Point in Three Decades

CBS News incident latest in long history of media mistakes

by Mark Gillespie

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- As media analysts and journalists wring their hands over the fallout from CBS News' faulty reporting relative to President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, a new Gallup Poll finds the news media's credibility has declined significantly among the public. The Sept. 13-15 poll -- conducted after the CBS News report was questioned but before the network issued a formal apology -- found that just 44% of Americans express confidence in the media's ability to report news stories accurately and fairly (9% say "a great deal" and 35% "a fair amount"). This is a significant drop from one year ago, when 54% of Americans expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media. The latest result is particularly striking because this figure had previously been very stable -- fluctuating only between 51% and 55% from 1997-2003.

Conversely, 39% currently say they have "not very much" confidence in the media's accuracy and fairness, while 16% say they have "none at all."

Clearly, something new has happened to shake public confidence in the media, but whether that "something" is the recent CBS News controversy is a matter of speculation…

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=13132

 

[Ba]

Did you seriously believe everything you heard or saw on the news without extra references? The media always has it's contributers outlooks, they are controlled by their contributers.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But it appears that now many schmucks are no longer buying it.

 

[wasteofo2]

Wow, this is great! This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are finally getting it, and they'll go and find their own conclusions without taking everything they hear at face value. Now we'll have a whole society of inquisitive, intelligent, curious people who find their own truth instead of being spoon-fed it by self-serving media corporations and our society as a whole will be better off for it.

Wait... no, nevermind. We'll just have a lot of people watching "The Apprentice" instead of the news now.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Or Fahrenheit 911.

 

[wasteofo2]

Or Fahrenheit 911.

Or listen to Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity...

"I don't trust the media anymore. Rush says they're all liberally biased, and that liberals want there to be more terror attacks on the US, and that they want the economy and Iraq to keep getting worse and worse. I can't trust someone who loves Osama Bin Laden the way the liberal media does to give me a fair and balanced view of the world."

 

[Outcast]

This is just one small example of media bias.
The news has been filled with stories about how Yusuf Islam, the former pop star previously known as Cat Stevens has been denied access to the United States. How many of you have seen this story? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40613

Members of Egypt's parliament have demanded Madonna, who has not requested entry into Egypt or announced any plans to visit the country, be barred from entering Egyptian soil. The parliament directed Egyptian embassies abroad to deny any visa requests from Madonna.

When I did a Google search on "Madonna Egypt" I got 19 hits. Yusuf Islam United States got 1,470 Google hits.

When a American entertainer is denied entrance to an Islamic country, no big deal.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Rush says they're all liberally biased...

Rush is right.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-cbs-mapes_x.htm

 

[Outcast]

Now some might consider that media bias in favor of John Kerry. As always, you can decide, but before you decide, consider this. The New York Times has run 12 front-page stories on the swift boat controversy, all of them either pro Kerry or neutral. Some of the headlines. "Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam." "Lawyer for Bush Quits over Links to Kerry's Foes." "Veterans' Group Had GOP Lawyer." "Kerry TV Ad Pins Veterans' Attack Firmly on Bush." "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Attack on Kerry."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133044,00.html

 

[JohnDubYa]

What about it?

 

[Outcast]

Just one more example of media bias in favor of Kerry

 

[wasteofo2]

This is just one small example of media bias.
The news has been filled with stories about how Yusuf Islam, the former pop star previously known as Cat Stevens has been denied access to the United States. How many of you have seen this story? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40613


When I did a Google search on "Madonna Egypt" I got 19 hits. Yusuf Islam United States got 1,470 Google hits.

When a American entertainer is denied entrance to an Islamic country, no big deal.

I'd assume that it's because no one expects countries like Egypt to necessarily be a light unto the world for fairness and liberty. America kinda has that motif.

If you guys trust Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly for your unbiased assessments, that's just sad. I'll come back with tons of evidence of a conservative media bias sooner or later, just gimme time to scrounge this up.

 

[Smurf]

Am I the only one wondering what happened 30 years ago to cause an even lower statistic?

 

[BobG]

Watergate. It took a long time for some people to accept Nixon could really be guilty.

I used to deliver the morning newspaper. I remember the morning after Erlichman and Haldeman resigned. Deliver that front page on enough doorsteps and you begin to realize things probably weren't going to end very well.

 

[Smurf]

Ahhh that makes sense. Well. I'm off to find out what watergate is.

 

[omin]

Why people aren't Believing the media.

Using logic, I would point out two significant categories of why people are believing the media less.

1. Is is becomming more popular among Americans to believe in the idea not to believe the media, which too is a belief.

2. Or, people in general are becoming more empirically skeptical.

I would say number one is the main reason behind the numbers in the polls, because empirical sketicism just isn't main stream enough to have that kind of an effect upon Americans, but psuedo-skeptism is alive and pulsing with a fever today, the science of doubting on the basis of the idea of doubting, usually resulting from being lied to too many times in a short period of time.

If you look at the technique most reporters use, for instance the 911 commision report bestseller on the shelves now, we don't see empirical evidence used for the claims inside the book. Flip through the book. No photos, which is the only way to represent most physical evidence. And, the span of investigation is significantly uncomprehensive, which would not be impossible or too time consumming to achieve. Obvoius representing a exclusionary technique. It's intentially biased, proven by it's form.

Here are some ways spin doctors create unscientific views of circumstances they report. 1. Exaggerate a fact. 2. Isolate a particual insignificant fact. 3. Use an unsubstitiated claim as a fact, and could perform 1 or 2 on them. 4. Ignore the significant facts. 5. Convey things in non-quantified contexts. 6. Do not provide empirical representation for their claims in the stories.

It's not coinicidental, we have a FAITH-BASED PRESIDENT IN OFFICE. He's a republican and republicans comprise the majority of religious fanatics in America, which deserve no policitical influence whatsoever, becaus most of their policies when they reach the national level cause others to loose freedoms. Bush Team knows this, that's why they say freedom alot, because they take it away from many. The world freedom to Iraqis could eventually mean terror and murder. Gay used to mean happy, now it mean homosexual. Bad can mean good. This is the part of the presidents game, to rename things. Defenders of the Iraqi homeland in Iraq are called terrorists. Operation Freedom has freed no one, but murdered meany and made things worse than before the invasion. These lies, not calling a spade a spade, add up and people distrust more and more, but that doesn't mean they are better off because they doubt. That requires leadership in a scientific direction in reporting.

The solution: move to a scientific criteria for reporting, where reports, based upon their empirical content get ratings. Every statement requires representation and reference, where readers can veryfy things reported. But, the spin doctors would probably control that from the get go and a battle would be waged on the intellgence front to prove to the masses the difference between reports that induce belief or knowledge. The New York Times is nothing more than a cleaned up Enquirer. Remember the Equirer is pushed upon every American at the place they must pass through more often than any other place in public, the food market. Look at the unscientific crap they condition people to focus on while they wait in line.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Amazing. Only omin could turn a discussion about media bias into yet another rant about President Bush. I am starting to get the idea that he doesn't like George W. much.

 

[GENIERE]

Amazing. Only omin could turn a discussion about media bias into yet another rant about President Bush. I am starting to get the idea that he doesn't like George W. much.

I think I agree with you Mr. Dubya but help me. What did he say?

..

 

[JohnDubYa]

I don't know. At this time my crack team of linguists and grammarians are still deciphering his text. Stay tuned.

 

[graphic7]

Amazing. Only omin could turn a discussion about media bias into yet another rant about President Bush. I am starting to get the idea that he doesn't like George W. much.

I also get the slight feeling that your a republican who favors Bush.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Are you kiddin'? Kerry all the way!

 

[graphic7]

Are you kiddin'? Kerry all the way!

Do I detect sarcasm?

 

[wasteofo2]

Do I detect sarcasm?

Dubya's of any sort are straight talkers, haven't you heard the Dubya we have for President say so himself? Dubya wouldn't lead you astray in any way.

 

[Outcast]

If you guys trust Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly for your unbiased assessments, that's just sad. I'll come back with tons of evidence of a conservative media bias sooner or later, just gimme time to scrounge this up.

I trust
Michael Savage more than I do those two.

Hurry back, with your evidence of the vast right wing media conspiracy, but I won't hold my breath, :rofl:

 

[Outcast]

Ahhh that makes sense. Well. I'm off to find out what watergate is.

I'll give you a point in the right direction, "Coverup"

A book you might want to read is called Will The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy, he spent more time in prison than the rest of the Watergate conspirators combined. After reading his book, I gained a lot of respect for that man. It is interesting to read about his relationship with Timothy Leary of LSD fame or the Black Panthers he met in prison. Or how he used his FBI skills, like tapping the prison phone system. Unlike Andy in the movie The Shawshank Redemption, G Gordon put his skills to work helping the prisoners more than the guards.

 

[Outcast]

What you failed to mention were alternate news sources. We no longer have to rely on the main stream media for news. It is ironic that as more and more main stream news media are controlled by fewer and fewer individuals, more sources have opened up to the public. There is the AM talk radio programs, cable news and the web, just to name three. Equally important are forums like this where people can discuss what they have read and heard. We no longer have to take Dan Rather word as gospel.
For those that still trust the media, they can go to Headline Spot and read the world news.

The world freedom to Iraqis could eventually mean terror and murder. Gay used to mean happy, now it mean homosexual. Bad can mean good. This is the part of the presidents game, to rename things. Defenders of the Iraqi homeland in Iraq are called terrorists. Operation Freedom has freed no one, but murdered meany and made things worse than before the invasion. These lies, not calling a spade a spade, add up and people distrust more and more, but that doesn't mean they are better off because they doubt.

What you are refereing to is called Newspeak from George Orwell's 1984. A second part of Newspeak was the elimination of words from the vocabulary. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/chance_news/recent_news/chance_news_7.08.html#S.A.T.%20scores shows a decline in verbal test scores of high school students. An interesting audio/video on the subject is at http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/00fall/520.html

The solution is not a

move to a scientific criteria for reporting,

that sounds too close to censorship. The solution is the new alternative news sources and the discussion groups that we have now.

 

[omin]

Amazing. Only omin could turn a discussion about media bias into yet another rant about President Bush. I am starting to get the idea that he doesn't like George W. much.

You are finally right JohnDubYa. But, let me point out something. I didn't choose to dislike Bush. I just call things what they are. He is hated, because that's what he expresses, not because I express hate to him.

 

[omin]

The solution is not a that sounds too close to censorship. The solution is the new alternative news sources and the discussion groups that we have now.

Okay, the point is not clearified. I admit. I get in a hurry during responses.

What if I say it like this, would you agree. When we call something by a name, we must stick to that name. If we distiniguish things that names slurrs together, like the republican method is doing, we may call them on there smattering and rate them as low on intellgence and factual representation.

For example, the defenders of Iraq are called terrorists. Team Bush qualifies them as terrosts, but Americans would do the same thing if we were invaded by those who murdered family, friends and fellow citizens.

So-called Operation: Freedom is not applying Democracy to Iraq, Democracy is the voice of the people. The principle of Democracy already existed in Iraq, just not in the expression is exists everywhere else. But no Democracy is identical. All people are responsible for the leaders they allow to govern them. It is the only way to understand Democracy in it's fully honest expression. Dictators force ideals on people against there will. As long as there is militant resistance against militant invaders, Democracy is being expressed by Iraq! Not terrorism!

 

[Smurf]

I like that. If (hmmm, let's see) a communist, or even better - anarchist, nation invades America and tells you they your being liberated from your oppressive government, how many Americans would support them, how many would start a resistance? t'is a good question.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I like that. If (hmmm, let's see) a communist, or even better - anarchist, nation invades America and tells you they your being liberated from your oppressive government, how many Americans would support them, how many would start a resistance?

Are we being slaughtered by Saddam Hussein before the invasion? I find it funny that you always conveniently leave out that part of the issue.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So-called Operation: Freedom is not applying Democracy to Iraq, Democracy is the voice of the people. The principle of Democracy already existed in Iraq, just not in the expression is exists everywhere else.

:rofl:

Yes, that was a Helluva democracy Saddam Hussein gifted to the people of Iraq.

 

[Outcast]

The Russians tried for 10 years to force Communism on the Afghans and that didn’t work. I wonder how long we will try to force Democracy on Iraq?

 

[russ_watters]

The Russians tried for 10 years to force Communism on the Afghans and that didn’t work. I wonder how long we will try to force Democracy on Iraq?

The phrase "force democracy" is an oxymoron.