Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Latest Gallup Poll on public trust in the media

  1. Sep 23, 2004 #1
    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 –

    http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=13132 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 23, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    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.
  4. Sep 23, 2004 #3
    But it appears that now many schmucks are no longer buying it.
  5. Sep 23, 2004 #4
    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 alot of people watching "The Apprentice" instead of the news now.
  6. Sep 23, 2004 #5
    Or Fahrenheit 911.
  7. Sep 24, 2004 #6
    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."
  8. Sep 25, 2004 #7
    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? Egypt bans Madonna after Israel visit
    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.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2004
  9. Sep 25, 2004 #8
  10. Sep 25, 2004 #9
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  11. Sep 25, 2004 #10
    What about it?
  12. Sep 25, 2004 #11
    Just one more example of media bias in favor of Kerry
  13. Sep 25, 2004 #12
    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.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2004
  14. Sep 25, 2004 #13
    Am I the only one wondering what happened 30 years ago to cause an even lower statistic?
  15. Sep 25, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
  16. Sep 25, 2004 #15
    Ahhh that makes sense. Well. I'm off to find out what watergate is.
  17. Sep 25, 2004 #16
    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 statment 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.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2004
  18. Sep 25, 2004 #17
    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.
  19. Sep 25, 2004 #18
    I think I agree with you Mr. Dubya but help me. What did he say?

  20. Sep 25, 2004 #19
    I don't know. At this time my crack team of linguists and grammarians are still deciphering his text. Stay tuned.
  21. Sep 25, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I also get the slight feeling that your a republican who favors Bush.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook