Media Confidence Ratings at Record Lows (gallup.com) 326
Gallup: Americans' confidence in two facets of the news media -- newspapers and television news -- has fallen to all-time low points. Just 16% of U.S. adults now say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers and 11% in television news. Both readings are down five percentage points since last year. Gallup has tracked Americans' confidence in newspapers since 1973 and television news since 1993 as part of its annual polling about major U.S. institutions. The latest readings are from a June 1-20 poll that saw declines in confidence ratings for 11 of the 16 institutions measured and no improvements for any. Television news and newspapers rank nearly at the bottom of that list of institutions, with only Congress garnering less confidence from the public than TV news. While these two news institutions have never earned high confidence ratings, they have fallen in the rankings in recent years.
A majority of Americans have expressed confidence in newspapers only once -- in 1979, when 51% did. But there is a wide margin between that and the second-highest readings of 39% in 1973 and 1990. The trend average for newspapers is 30%, well above the latest reading of 16%, which is the first time the measure has fallen below 20%. The percentage of Americans who say they have "very little" or volunteer that they have no confidence is currently the highest on record, at 46%. Confidence in television news has never been higher than its initial 46% reading in 1993 and has averaged 27%, considerably higher than the current 11%. This is the fourth consecutive year that confidence in TV news is below 20%. And for just the second time in the trend, a majority of Americans, 53%, now say they have very little or no confidence at all in TV news. Republicans' (5%) and independents' (12%) confidence in newspapers is the lowest on record for these party groups, while Democrats' (35%) has been lower in the past. Democrats' confidence in newspapers rose to the 42% to 46% range during the Donald Trump administration but fell when President Joe Biden took office.
A majority of Americans have expressed confidence in newspapers only once -- in 1979, when 51% did. But there is a wide margin between that and the second-highest readings of 39% in 1973 and 1990. The trend average for newspapers is 30%, well above the latest reading of 16%, which is the first time the measure has fallen below 20%. The percentage of Americans who say they have "very little" or volunteer that they have no confidence is currently the highest on record, at 46%. Confidence in television news has never been higher than its initial 46% reading in 1993 and has averaged 27%, considerably higher than the current 11%. This is the fourth consecutive year that confidence in TV news is below 20%. And for just the second time in the trend, a majority of Americans, 53%, now say they have very little or no confidence at all in TV news. Republicans' (5%) and independents' (12%) confidence in newspapers is the lowest on record for these party groups, while Democrats' (35%) has been lower in the past. Democrats' confidence in newspapers rose to the 42% to 46% range during the Donald Trump administration but fell when President Joe Biden took office.
Not picking sides here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:4, Funny)
Technically CNN+ hasn't reported any propaganda in 2+ months and counting.
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:4, Interesting)
They have lost sight of objectivity. Not once in recent memory have I looked at a news article from a major US news outlet and thought to myself, "they're giving the 'bad guys' credit when they do good things". Actually... Forget objectivity, I'd be happy with factual reporting. I want to read a story and not know what the reporter thought of it.
Foreign news seems less susceptible to this. BBC can be biased, but nowhere near as bad as US ones. French, German and Japanese news outlets are still decent, at least when the story doesn't involve their local politics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but in an era of "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests" you'd have to be brain dead to trust the media. From either side. Even when they aren't actively distorting the news their selective reporting is just as bad.
You've clearly picked a side. Maybe you're watching the wrong news? Here's a Harvard study showing BLM was pretty peaceful. https://www.radcliffe.harvard.... [harvard.edu]
You know who burned down the Minneapolis police station? It wasn't radical leftists but a right winger from Texas. https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
What is Fox always yelling about out of state protestors causing problems? Well they were partially right.
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly picked a side. Maybe you're watching the wrong news? Here's a Harvard study showing BLM was pretty peaceful. https://www.radcliffe.harvard.... [www.radcliffe.harvard] [harvard.edu]
That's if you trust Harvard to be unbiased, the problem is everyone has lost trust, and we are just believing who we want to believe.
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:5, Informative)
The vandalism and looting following the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police will cost the insurance industry more than any other violent demonstrations in recent history, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: The protests that took place in 140 U.S. cities this spring were mostly peaceful, but the arson, vandalism and looting that did occur will result in at least $1 billion to $2 billion of paid insurance claims — eclipsing the record set in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the police officers who brutalized Rodney King.
https://www.axios.com/2020/09/... [axios.com]
As part of their investigation, federal agents studied videos posted on social media and from nearby city-owned surveillance cameras to try to identify others who helped burn the building.
Co-conspirators Bryce Michael Williams, 27, Davon De-Andre Turner, 25, and Branden Michael Wolfe, 23, also pleaded guilty under plea agreements to one count each of conspiracy to commit arson for their individual roles in igniting the precinct fire. They have yet to be sentenced.
A member of the Boogaloo Bois, a right-wing group intent on capitalizing on chaos and starting the next American civil war, has also been charged with assisting in the damage to the precinct that night. Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, is accused of shooting 13 rounds from an AK-47-style rifle into the precinct while people were inside the building.
Hmm, so it doesn't look like a "right-winger from Texas" burned down the police station after-all, But that's what happens when you get all your news from NPR, I guess.
https://www.startribune.com/br... [startribune.com]
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:5, Informative)
You've clearly picked a side. Maybe you're watching the wrong news? Here's a Harvard study showing BLM was pretty peaceful.
Here's a study by the Insurance Information Institute that says the BLM riots could cost upwards of $2 billion to repair, making them the most costly riots in American history:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/ec... [foxbusiness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They were also the biggest protests in American history. Picking absolute numbers and pointing to superlatives is meaningless at best and deceptive at worst.
Re: (Score:2)
So given that we have a study which says most of the rioting was the far right and the cops, and that the BLM protests were kick-started by a cop murdering a man, and the protests wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't systemic violence against black people...
We should blame BLM?
I vote for the money coming out of police budgets.
Re: (Score:3)
You, uhh, you really think police (and the far right) caused most of the damage during the BLM riots?
Re: (Score:3)
In particular, the worst damage at the largely peaceful BLM protests was instigated by Boogaloo Boys and similar right-wing extremists
Brother, that's disinformation. There's just no other way to say it. Pure disinformation. You cannot possibly defend that claim, and no, a Washington Post politics editorial from mid 2020 doesn't do it.
Talk to me about how Boogaloo Boys are responsible for CHAZ/CHOP.
Get real. Stop lying to yourself.
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:5, Informative)
Which major media called those peaceful?
This was the original headline that led to the meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes... [knowyourmeme.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The question was which media called the January 6th riot and incursion into the US Capitol "peaceful". I think we all remember the chyron you linked about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GP is talking about the insurrection at the Capitol building on January 5th, not BLM protests.
Re: (Score:2)
Which major media called those peaceful?
It's not really a major media company, it's just a tabloid, but they did say the January 6th insurrection was a peaceful protest [mediamatters.org]. Then later, when a Republican on one the tabloid's talk shows said the exact same thing [thehill.com], the host agreed with the assessment rather than correct him.
There were others on the tabloid who said the same thing, but in different ways, because as stated above, when people are storming the capitol, attacking police [youtube.com], destroying property and callin
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, it was a "fiery, but mostly peaceful" insurrection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the reaction of police these days, I'd say taking a gas mask to a peaceful protest is quite sensible thinking...
Re: Not picking sides here... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Not picking sides here... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, believing something that's not just provably false but repeatedly debunked very publicly isn't much of an excuse - they just didn't like having lost the election, and they knew that Trump was lying to them but didn't care, because it gave them an excuse to do what they want to do. https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/... [cnn.com]
You're right... (Score:2, Interesting)
It was pretty bad when, in the summer of 2020, leftists were burning buildings around the White House, erected a guillotine there and beheaded Trump in effigy, and the Secret Service hauled the Trump family into the basement bunker because too many agents were injured outside by the Democrat-aligned protesters.
It's also been really bad when the media downplayed all the times left wing protesters invaded the congress to block votes on nominees or on various bills over the past several decades [capitol police
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really?
Because Fox News [cnn.com] are not journalists? Or because nobody publishes things [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Tucker Carlson on Fox claimed that they were tourists.
You see people walking around and taking pictures. They don't look like terrorists, they look like tourists, and all of them by the way are Americans.
https://www.foxnews.com/transc... [foxnews.com]
Re:Not picking sides here... (Score:4, Informative)
This may come as a galloping shock: Trump actually IS the bad guy. He constantly lied to his supporters, and still does. He had scores of aides, lawyers, and other politicians tell him there was no fraud and he lost. And yet he still invited people to "stop the steal" that wasn't happening, to the point of even knowing that there were armed J6 "protesters" and repeatedly told them to go to the Capitol in order to disrupt the Congress from figuratively pitching his shit onto the White House lawn.
And that isn't "media perspective" - that's investigative fact.
Re: Not picking sides here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, you're serious? LOL!
Send me some money. I'll stop the steal for you. Pinkey swear! No backsies. I am very influential. My brother-in-law is Q, so you can trust me. If I was lying, TFG, the secret real president would execute me along side Bill Gates at Gizmo. All major credit cards are accepted. Donate in the next 10 minutes to triple your impact!
I can't believe you're for real. Literally no one with an above room temperature IQ believes that loud of bullshit. It's Dinesh D'Souza for cryin
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, those were a lot of very emotive words.
Now can you answer my question? Or are you hoping nobody will notice that, in all those words, you never did that?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Answer what? The nonsense in your mockumentary? LOL! What's wrong with you? It's a work of fiction.
You do know that Dinesh is making fun of you, right? You're just a mark to him. Another rube keeping his coffers full. Normally, I'd roll my eyes and ignore nonsense like this but this stupidity is getting people killed.
So, so, foolish...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I asked what you thought of the indictments like this one:
No, you didn't. You asked me about a silly fiction movie produced by a convicted felon who violated campaign finance laws [fbi.gov].
Still, I'll answer your question. Maybe you'll learn something: There are a few people, despite the high risk, every election who attempt to commit voter fraud, the overwhelming majority of which are Republicans. [thebulwark.com] Some of them are Republican members of congress. [newyorker.com] Whenever you hear a right-winger make an accusation, you can safely assume that they're guilty of that very thing. Voter
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you believe the election was stolen (based on the fact you referenced the 2000 Mules nonsense). Can you answer me one question. If the Democrats were so smart and cunning to be able to stuff the ballots and get their presidential candidate elected why do they hold such slim majorities in the house and senate? If I am able to stuff the ballot boxes to get my candidate elected surely I would also rig all the down ballot votes so that my party could have full control of the legislative process.
You can
Re: (Score:2)
This is ridiculous.
If you mean your reply, then yes, you're right..
Re: (Score:2)
Too much reality for you, eh? You'll get over it.
Re: (Score:3)
None of your alleged mules exist. Your one lonely link doesn't even show a single one! You're completely delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL! Another link that doesn't show what you're claiming! Pathetic! It's just another Republican committing election fraud. There are tons of them. [thebulwark.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Wiki-fucking-pedia is NOT a valid source for political information. No wonder you posted AC.
Wikipedia isn't a source, it's an encyclopedia, meaning it's a summary of information from other sources, so it's precisely as good or bad as the referenced sources. And in this case, the summary is well-written, and the referenced sources are thorough and highly reputable.
Re: (Score:2)
>Did you know the two are not related to each other in any way,
If you condemn one, you have to condemn the other. Why weren't there more police at the Capitol building on Jan 6, especially knowing there will be hundreds of people protesting outside? Somehow Democrats haven't gotten around to asking that question, but hey we have to know what Trump had for breakfast on that day, am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
They are related on the part where the media on the side of the thing claims it was peaceful while the media against it claims it was a warzone and the truth is lost in the process.
And the actual inciters of violence on both cases get away scott free.
Re: (Score:3)
Geez - never thought D. Trump would post AC, but then we all know he's a gutless wonder.
Re: Not picking sides here... (Score:3)
Re: Not picking sides here... (Score:2)
Also odd how the Supreme Court protests and people going to the home of at least one Justice is in no way a threat to the fabric of the country.
It's the double standard that gets me. It's not a bloody team sport. Intellectual honesty is criticising actions, regardless if whose 'team' is doing them.
Surprised it's that high (Score:3, Informative)
Pick your flavor, all major and most minor outlets today are pushing an agenda and not doing anything even approaching "journalism". I'm not sure we have journalists anymore; they're all propagandists.
16% seems high, but I guess there are people who cling to their religion no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Katy Tur (Score:5, Interesting)
In group text messages on March 3, 2021, Lis Smith (member of Andrew Cuomo political team) boasted how she was texting with “MSNBC Live” anchor/NBC News correspondent Katy Tur:
“I’m texting w Katy Tur,” Smith wrote to the group. “Katy is saying my spin live. Like verbatim.”
Re: (Score:2)
Patriot Outlook? Oh that sounds totally legitimate. They even make a rant about Hunter's laptop.
Re:Katy Tur (Score:4, Insightful)
Patriot Outlook? Oh that sounds totally legitimate. They even make a rant about Hunter's laptop.
Hunter's laptop is a huge story that's been buried by the traditional media and big tech. The President's son is under federal investigation for acting as an unregistered lobbyist, while he smoked crack, influence peddled, and had his dad paying for Russian mob hookers. And President Joe straight-up lied to the American people about their business dealings being entirely separate.
How all *that* has managed to stay out of the headlines at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, et. al. ought to worry every American to death.
Hunter Biden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
What happened to any investigation of the Trump clan's
Let me stop you right there. You're exhibiting one of the primary symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We were just talking about Hunter Biden's many, serious, overt crimes of corruption and foreign influence peddling - that we have the receipts for - and how the mainstream media has literally buried and refused to even inform people about all of that. Most people don't even know that we have voicemails between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden now, talking b
Re: Hunter Biden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
why are these crimes so serious?
Well, let me ask you if you consider any of the following to be serious:
1) VP/President level influence peddling to foreign countries/business leaders
2) Failing to register as a foreign agent of foreign countries/business leaders
3) Sex trafficking involving the Russian mob
4) Illegally obtaining firearms while being a crack addict
5) Money laundering via art sales
Re: Hunter Biden (Score:2)
Re: Hunter Biden (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, absolutely. Let's do one of those Google searches. Specifically, let's take a look at Google News results on the recent Hunter Biden iCloud hack:
https://news.google.com/search... [google.com]
First result is an NBC news report covering the Secret Service saying they're aware of the alleged "Hunter Biden hack".
Then we have Snopes, as #2 news result, because presumably the lack of reporting on this makes people think it's fake when they hear about it.
I repeat, the #2 news result for the Hunter Biden iCloud hack is SN
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The source is 4chan, and you're complaining because news outlets don't yet treat it as a normal story?
These are voicemails, texts, photos, and video from Hunter Biden's iCloud account. Are you suggesting it's fake? Disinformation?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me stop you right there. You're exhibiting one of the primary symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We were just talking about Hunter Biden's many, serious, overt crimes of corruption and foreign influence peddling - that we have the receipts for - and how the mainstream media has literally buried and refused to even inform people about all of that. Most people don't even know that we have voicemails between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden now, talking business, exactly like Joe Biden swore to the public ne
Re: Hunter Biden (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there ever was anything incriminating on that laptop, the evidence has been lost due to signs of tampering.
https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Hu... [ddosecrets.com]
https://www.cyberscoop.com/hun... [cyberscoop.com]
âoeThere are considerable issues with this dataset including signs of tampering, as well as misconceptions about its contents,â a write-up of the organizationâ(TM)s findings reads. âoeMore than one altered or implanted emails was detected in a version of the dataset distributed by Trump allies and former staffers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a few news providers that do a good job (Score:2, Interesting)
I rate the Young Turks internet news program family highly. Politically, they're unapologetically left, but they will carve anybody, right or left, a new one when it's deserved. I trust them to deliver facts as they get them, and I enjoy the scathing criticism they've doled out to everybody from AOC and Joe Biden to Mitch McConnell and Jim Jordan. The ranting is annoying, but the content is reliable...and when they get something wrong, they don't just move on and pretend it never happened. They issue a c
Re: There's a few news providers that do a good jo (Score:3)
Parody? Even on the occasions they admit being wrong, such as Cenk's house Armenian on Rittenhouse, it's so obviously wrong that it's either astonishing incompetence or lies. The best part is nothing is learnt - it's straight in to the new lie.
They not always wrong - nobody is. They're a terrible source of news, frequently called out for at best taking the least charitable interpretation that suits them.
Re: (Score:2)
On what grounds? The videos make it clear that every shot was in self defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Rittenhouse got himself a Trump-friendly judge
You have absolutely no rational reason for claiming that.
Media = Traditional News (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Rogan? The guy who told "young, health" people not to get vaccinated? And then when he himself got COVID, he began a regimen including monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, azithromycin, NAD drip, a vitamin drip, as well as ivermectin.
Yeah, that ivermectin, the one that veterinary suppliers ran out of.
How We Got Here (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think it's gotten bad in the industry that pimps propaganda for profit instead of truth and facts, you should see how fucked up politics is.
In a Democracy, citizens deserve what they vote for. Don't like it? Learn to Vote Better. Yeah. It really still is that simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. Coke or Pepsi? You want something else? Not possible in any meaningful way. The Red and Blue have pulled that ladder up a LONG time ago. Gerrymandering, arbitrary procedural rules that are arcane as fuck, direct manipulation of ballots to make sure 3rd parties are excluded, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. Coke or Pepsi? You want something else? Not possible in any meaningful way. The Red and Blue have pulled that ladder up a LONG time ago. Gerrymandering, arbitrary procedural rules that are arcane as fuck, direct manipulation of ballots to make sure 3rd parties are excluded, etc, etc.
Coke and Pepsi, regardless of how unhealthy they are, are still valid products.
There isn't a fucking thing valid about watching geriatric monkeys throw Twitter shit at each other, hoping that they can still get a cheerleading squad together in between games of Insider Monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
This scene [youtube.com] from Zak McKracken illustrates pretty well how I feel about US voting.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately it doesn't matter who I vote for if 50.2% of the population votes for the idiot with the best hair. Or, in my case, if Ontario votes for the idiot with the best hair hours before I even get to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
"Learn to Vote Better." It's a nice theory but it's unadulterated hogwash. Voting makes no difference at all.
Try reading: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://scholar.princeton.edu/... [princeton.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
You actually have a choice now in the US? Did they change something while I wasn't looking?
Distrust is Profitable (Score:3)
What news? (Score:3)
It's not news anymore... its entertainment. News has become the WWF of media, news isn't for getting a handle on the world around you, news is there to entertain you. And they are going to 'entertain' people by working them up and politicizing people and telling them lies or telling them what they want to hear.
What people don't want to hear is reality, because reality is hard. It's hard to compromise, it's hard to let go of yourself and hear and respect other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a small portion of it is paid for
No money in real journalism anymore .... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's no surprise people have little confidence in the mass media. The media essentially decided it wasn't profitable enough to make the effort to do real investigative reporting. The nightly news in my city simply goes after the low-hanging fruit. Report any shootings or house fires of note, take one "top story" as the headline news item. (Typically something people were already becoming aware of throughout the day and talking about.) Spend a bunch of time on sports and weather coverage, and close it out with some "feel good" fluff piece. If they make an effort to be known for going above and beyond that formula, it's something like a "You paid for it!" type of program, where one of the newscasters takes requests from viewers to look into claimed corruption/scams/poor use of tax dollars. Typically not bad stuff, but they only get resolution for most people by the mere fact a light was shone on the problem in the news so the perpetrator fixes things to avoid the bad P.R.
The local newspapers are basically just regurgitating what comes off of the big newswires like AP or Reuters these days. They can't afford to hire writers who really investigate things to make their own unique stories.
While it's popular to throw around the "fake news" label these days, I think that's a little inaccurate. I don't believe most of these news articles are so much intentionally faked as just poorly researched, biased and not factually complete. But people SHOULD be angry about that and calling it out when they run across it! Especially in areas like health or science news, this happens constantly. A reporter learns of a new study that makes a preliminary conclusion and proceeds to make a news story about the finding. The public hears it and thinks, "Oh! They've made this new discovery that X is true!" Nope! It's simply one group that got those results, which may still only be because they made some mistakes in their process or they failed to account for something causing the results they obtained. Then, the next time the news tells people about the topic? It's another group of researchers explaining how the previous conclusions of earlier studies were wrong. After enough of this, most people throw their hands in the air and say, "These scientists are morons. They don't know anything about this stuff. One week, they tell me one thing and the next, they tell me something contradicting it. It's all garbage! Fake news!"
Really, it's just an utter failure to frame the findings correctly, as "preliminary information that's probably not nearly ready to draw conclusions from yet".
The Internet, Media and Social Media all (Score:2)
Politics (Score:3)
But you know what Americans have an unhealthy obsession with? Celebrities. I'm going to make a no doubt controversial argument a big driver of the year over year change, especially since it only changed much among Independent/Democrat. I've seen quite a large number of people who had been following the media circus around the Depp/Heard defamation trial seriously reevaluating their trust in media after liberal media (mostly, Murdoch-owned outlets too) decided the outcome wasn't to their liking, and proceeding to attempt to blatantly start lying about the case and taking the side contrary to the jury finding and the overwhelming opinion (Democrats agreed 50%-17%, the remainder having no opinion, Independents 54-11, according to a YouGov poll) that formed since it was all televised and people watched the allegations get epically shredded.
So you had tons of watch the media decide to start screaming misogyny and conservative conspiracy on a issue *without* an existing partisan divide (very few took MeToo 'false allegations do not exist'), and it was recognized as bullshit-- the media was going all in to defend an abuser making false allegations to preserve 'believe all woman [not named Tara Reade]' while telling millions of Democrats they were alt-right and shouldn't believe their lying eyes. This was happening right as the survey in media trust was being done (Survery ran 6/1-6/20, verdict was 6/1).
Never underestimate how much Americans care about celebrity drama. I think the media largely did, not knowing just how many liberals had watched the trial.
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They're not. They lament and complain, then turn around and believe that bullshit again as long as it fits their preconceived opinion.
Maybe do journalism instead? (Score:3)
What are the numbers for specific media companies? (Score:2)
Confidence in media is like confidence in Congress. Every hates Congress, but the truth is that many love their own party and hate the opposition, with an opinion of the combined Congress representing the minimum of the opinions. Similarly, I imagine that the survey respondents love certain media companies and hate others but report a combined opinion of media representing the minimum opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Frankly, if all of them croaked today, it's just a bunch of unemployables less in the country.
I could post a lengthy diatribe... (Score:3)
...but there is a 15 year old video that says it better [youtube.com] than I could what's wrong with the news these days.
Factual bias (Score:4)
NPR engages in factual reporting on issues of concern to left-leaning individuals from the perspective of left-leaning individuals. They don't lie, but they very rarely air stories of concern to other political interests, and their stories typically only explore the concerns of the left from the perspective of the left. It's rare to hear anything but token opposition that is generally undercut by the reporter the moment the speaker's dialog finishes. Opposing perspectives are also sometimes mischaracterized or omitted entirely.
I think it's fine to have news media like this out there (though I would argue it should not be taxpayer-funded if it does not evenly represent the interests of taxpayers in the aggregate), but I think it's important to be honest and open about biases, which the media and the media watchdogs often are not. This is what undermines my trust more than anything, the implication that since the reporting is usually factually correct that no other noteworthy concerns could exist and that criticisms must be from the misinformed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CNN and MSNBC right-wing? How crazy a commie do you have to be to think that? Literally everything they say is pro-Dem and left-wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally everything they say is pro-Dem and left-wing.
You're assuming that "pro-Dem" and "left-wing" are the same thing.
In America they are (Score:2)
And yes I know parliaments have their own issues although there are ways around them. One of the problems is that our population isn't anywhere near well enough educated to make a decision a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How delusional do you have to be to think anyone left of the republican party is a commie?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are left-wing now?
Wow... Not by standards of a country where being left is actually permitted.
Bush era republicans? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but if you consider Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow, and Jen Psaki to be "right wing", I think your Overton window might be broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Nicole Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Michael Steele for a few of their bigger names. There are many more as the network has become a lot more conservative. [salon.com]
Additionally you have Stephanie Rhule and Steve Schmidt. Sure they have some left wingers too but make no mistake. MSNBC is corporate before any other ideology and you see that even on what Rachel Maddow gets to cover.
There is a reason Cenk Uygur didn't make it as an anchor for them.
Re: (Score:2)
MSNBC is corporate before any other ideology
What's corporate ideology? You mean they're out for themselves first?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when literally every news story (on all sides) is written to serve a political agenda rather than just reporting the facts, it's no wonder people have lost trust in the news.
Re:July14 USA Today provided a glaring example of (Score:5, Informative)
2) He's full of shit. It's broader in the sense that it also includes some other serious consequences, but legal experts widely agree it's unlikely to be covered, and that it's such a stretch it's completely unreasonable for providers to take that risk.
Were you giving an example of why people believe conservative media are lying propaganda outlets spewing misinformation, by providing an example of how they're distorting this case?
Re: (Score:2)
The Ohio AG (David Yost) is a fucking muppet
Serious question: do you think expressing vitriolic hatred for the opposition like that is beneficial to our democracy, destructive to it, or neither beneficial nor destructive?
Re: (Score:3)
Press: "It's impossible, the vaccine will have issues, no way will it be safe."
Citation needed because it didn't happen.
Press: "States set up vaccine approval bodies because they don't trust the FDA."
Citation needed because this also didn't happen.
Press: "Dumb Republicans scared of vaccines, which are perfectly safe and approved by the FDA."
If you are implying QAnon believers are all "Dumb Republicans" then sure.