Posted on 01/12/2018 2:29:17 AM PST by ransomnote
More than in any other country, Americans on both sides of the political aisle believe the media does does a poor job covering political issues fairly, according to a blockbuster new survey of media consumption in 38 nations.
What’s more, the Pew Research Center’s study found that supporters of President Trump believe the media is doing a worse job covering politics than the supporters of any of the other international political leaders in countries surveyed.
Pew Research Center “Large gaps in ratings of the media emerge between governing party supporters and non-supporters. On the question of whether their news media cover political issues fairly, for example, partisan differences appear in 20 of the 38 countries surveyed. In five countries, the gap is at least 20 percentage points, with the largest by far in the U.S. at 34 percentage points,” said Pew.
The survey found that just 21 percent of Americans supportive of Trump and Republicans believe the media is fair. But it also found that just 55 percent of those who don’t back Trump also believe the media is not fairly covering politics in the U.S.
In every other case, those numbers are flipped, said Pew.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I think all of us Freepers could have told Pew the same thing, and saved them the money.
I’m currently in Colombia....Trump is treated much better here.
That Westwood Witch felt it absolutely necessary to stand up at the news conference with Norway PM and ask the most thoughtful question geared to embarrass the President.
If she were my daughter, she would be looking for a new last name.
What a despicable woman.
Oh, and I believe she works for the very paper this thread is addressing.
Washington Examiner indeed.
It is positive that Australia is becoming skeptical as well.
I was appalled at how skewed to the left their media was. There was no conservative viewpoint on the media.
The democrat party has taken over the MSM... cheaper than paying for your ads...
The democrat party has taken over the MSM... cheaper than paying for political ads...
Controlling the content and flow of information and you control the outcome, well at least for a while.
21% of Trump supporters think the media is fair? I think there’s something amiss with this poll.
What is the matter with 21% of Republicans?
“Pew: US media bias ranks worst in the world”
____________________________
P-ew!: US media bias ranks worst in the world.
There. Fixed it.
Actually I read that the CIA took over the MSM back in the 50’s. It was called Project Mockingbird. I found some black and white footage of the CIA and the head of CBS uncomfortably trying to dodge questions about it but ultimately admitting that yes - the reports use the CIA as a “source”. Anderson Cooper started off in the CIA and I think the old project is still in place.
It's different now... Most newspapers have been forced to downsize - meaning getting good stories and information is more difficult. Newspapers lack the regional offices they use to have... there's limited money for thumb sucking articles - where a reporter or two will work on a major story for months before being ready to publish.
Then again leaks don't have to go to all papers, just the papers of record - then other papers play off those stories and the 'if it bleeds it leads' local TV shows feed off them. A little effort goes a long way in a group think culture.
The CIA has an easier go of it now. It's a whole lot simpler to get a great story if you have the power, money, and expertise of the United States 'intelligence services' doing your foot work for you.
I heard it debated years ago - the balance between helping your county and having journalistic ethics so 'the people' could trust their paper. I think we know who lost that debate.
The ethical unintended consequences come in situations like we have now - where the intelligence services have been weaponized for one side -(like the old KGB was ) and papers are afraid to 'take them on' as they're totally dependent on the information that's handed to them.
It's different now... Most newspapers have been forced to downsize - meaning getting good stories and information is more difficult. Newspapers lack the regional offices they use to have... there's limited money for thumb sucking articles - where a reporter or two will work on a major story for months before being ready to publish.
Then again leaks don't have to go to all papers, just the papers of record - then other papers play off those stories and the 'if it bleeds it leads' local TV shows feed off them. A little effort goes a long way in a group think culture.
The CIA has an easier go of it now. It's a whole lot simpler to get a great story if you have the power, money, and expertise of the United States 'intelligence services' doing your foot work for you.
I heard it debated years ago - the balance between helping your county and having journalistic ethics so 'the people' could trust their paper. I think we know who lost that debate.
The ethical unintended consequences come in situations like we have now - where the intelligence services have been weaponized for one side -(like the old KGB was ) and papers are afraid to 'take them on' as they're totally dependent on the information that's handed to them.
Maybe Paul Bedard could do a piece on the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.