www.editorandpublisher.co...1000640894
Thanks, Dan: Gallup Finds Trust in Media at New Low
By E&P Staff
Published: September 23, 2004 11:00 AM EDT
NEW YORK In the wake of the CBS "60 Minutes" controversy, a new Gallup Poll finds the news media's credibility has declined significantly among the public.
The poll, taken Sept. 13-15 while the CBS report on President Bush's National Guard service was being questioned but before the network issued an apology, found that just 44% of Americans express confidence in the media's ability to report news stories accurately and fairly.
"This is a significant drop from one year ago," Gallup reports, "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."
On the other hand, 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," Gallup reports, "but whether that 'something' is the recent CBS News controversy is a matter of speculation.
"One might assume that if the CBS News story were the culprit, that this would be reflected in a disproportionately large drop in confidence in the media among Republicans. However, the data on this is not conclusive. Trust in the news media is typically lower among Republicans, but all three partisan groups show a significant decline in confidence in the media since last year. It did drop by a somewhat greater degree among Republicans than Democrats, however."
The partisan divide goes something like this: 59% of Democrats express confidence in the media, 31% of Republicans do so and 44% of Independents feel that way.
Of the entire sample, 48% perceive the media as "too liberal," 15% as "too conservative," and 33% find it "just about right." The number finding the media too liberal has only gone up 3% in the past year, however.
It's truly amazing how the trust in the media has gone down but conservatives' trust in Dubya has not even though his strategerie for the war in Iraq was full of half-truths and misconceptions by attaching Iraq to 9/11 although it has been proven by the 9/11 Commission that there were NO ties between Iraq and 9/11.
No WMD.
No nuclear program.
No missiles ready to be launched in 45 minutes.
Military records suddenly, mysteriously, opportunistically disappear.
Why should anybody be suprised. The media is a s of it's former self.
What has hurt the media is a number of things.
1. Consolidated ownership of the TV, radio and print ownership limits the voice of what is reported.
2. Laziness, there is hardly the investigative hard hitting journalism that there used to be. Look at the last Bush press conference. The clowns asking the questions were pathetic and one scribe from the NY Times even spoke of being intimidated by challenging the president. Get a job writing an advice column sweetie if it's to tough to ask the President a challenging question.
3. The internet is the future but is still in evolution. Due to it's nature it can be filled with lies or hidden truths, sorting through it is difficult.
4. Constant handwringing by the right that the press is biased. Reporters have overcompensated for fear of being accused of bias.
5. Confusion over news versus comment. The proliferation of cable news shows really are nothing more than spin fests for whoever is on and rarely is anyone challenged that says something out of line.
6. Scandals like Jayson Blair and now Rather's have hurt credibility as well.
My main beef is I think the press overall is lazy and simply reports what talking points are handed to them.
Yes, I think people are by and large skeptical of what they see online. The onus is on the content provider to make the case, to provide the facts, to make a coherent argument.3. The internet is the future but is still in evolution. Due to it's nature it can be filled with lies or hidden truths, sorting through it is difficult.
I'm not so sure it's that difficult. If you want to check out something all you have to do is a search. Those who want people to believe what they write will provide links to their facts and a clean, coherent argument.
Compare that with kicking back, opening up a brew, and watching the boob tube. We're supposed to trust what the people on the screen are saying. Perhaps it is because we see a person instead of words on the screen. When you see someone talking to you are you more or less likely to doubt them than if you read what they have to say? Maybe the Rather episode will change that, maybe not.
I think people in general are much more accustomed to using the net and establishing what is and is not credible. They are more comfortable with operating in that environment.
Prior to the advent of widespread net access how easy was it to even check what the news channels had to say?
i think its more that historically, the public has been able to rely more on television journalism being truthful to them than we've seen in recent times. after 9/11, media outlets were so afraid to question anything that Bush was doing for fear of being labeled terrorist sympathizers and un-american, and in doing so, they got used to becoming lazy and just trusting whatever "news" came their way without researching and finding out ho much of it is actually factualCompare that with kicking back, opening up a brew, and watching the boob tube. We're supposed to trust what the people on the screen are saying. Perhaps it is because we see a person instead of words on the screen. When you see someone talking to you are you going to doubt them?
So yet another problem which is...Bush's fault. Great.
I still trust Fox News.....:eyebrow
i didnt say it was Bush's fault numbnuts, its the media's own fault for taking everything at face value and not doing their own researchSo yet another problem which is...Bush's fault. Great
Which you said was the case because...
you're reaching for something that isn't even there...once again, im not blaming bush, he didnt have a gun to anyones head telling them to just trust everything he says without question, they did that on their own
Then where is this "fear" coming from then? I thought the press was supposedly afraid of the president.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote