Posted on 09/23/2012 12:43:27 PM PDT by neverdem
This just in from the Gallup organization: Americans' distrust of the media has just hit a new record, with six in 10 Americans saying they have "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly." Forty percent say they have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust, and I assume this is the same crowd who approve of the job Congress is doing. Where do they find these people?
Gallup says the 20-point difference between positive and negative views of the media is "by far" the highest Gallup has seen since it began asking the question in the 1990s. Among those who trust the media, 58 percent identify themselves as Democrats; 26 percent as Republicans; and most interestingly, 31 percent as independents. That means 69 percent of independents don't trust the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications of that:
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.
On the NBC News homepage for politics, there is a chart looking the number of mentions of each candidate on social media: As of yesterday, 30 percent who state an intention to vote for a candidate on social media sites intend to vote for Obama; 38 percent intend to vote for Romney. There have been nearly 33,000 opinions expressed about Obama: Of those, 40 percent are positive, 60 percent negative. Regarding Romney, 21,500 opinions have been posted: 51 percent positive, 49 percent negative. If these numbers are accurate, it tells me this: People aren't agreeing with what they're seeing and hearing from the mainstream media. And they feel strongly enough to post something online about it.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]
I feel the same way—I've gotten to the point where I tune out much of the political coverage because it makes my blood pressure so high. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. On that same homepage at NBC News, here are the headlines for today:
[Take the U.S. News Poll: Did Mitt Romney Release Enough of His Tax Returns?]
And yet we know that Romney also gave away $4 million last year to charity; that there are just as many polls showing Romney within the margin of error as show Obama ahead; and that Ryan was also applauded at the AARP conference—but there is no mention of those in the headlines. Apparently NBC feels we need to be reminded twice that Obama disagrees with Romney's '47 percent' comment.
Really? Only six in 10 have a problem with this?
Don't be surprised. The Bible says that satan is "the prince of the power of the air".
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I’m thinking we need to take control of NBC, CBS, or NBC
and install personnel who understand true critical analysis
when it comes to hard news and the panel program format.
Liberals believe that critical analysis is what you apply to
your philosophical opponents only. They will never be able
to be in control their impulse to interject their personal bias
when it comes to political issues. They are taught to be
activists in journalism school by liberal teachers.
Liberals always claim that network CEOs are conservatives.
I don’t believe that to be true and it makes no difference
if it is as long as the CEOs allow reporters to define truth as
whatever makes their side look good and the conservative
side look bad.
Americans aren’t going to let them decide who will be our next president!
_________________________________________________________
I hope you are right, but don’t forget, the media elected Bill Clinton. Thank God for the internet.
YES, WE ARE!!!
No. Conservatives just prefer to have real jobs, jobs that produce something tangible.
i am not sick of the media
i am sick of democrats
i just have a real problem
they just #$%^&%
disgust me
every last one
there is absolutely nothing a democrat has done in the last century (ok with the exception of ww2)that has not made me not want to punch (or worse) those #$%^&*($
So a physicist who discovers the concepts behind electronics does not have a real job. Only the people who build electronic devices do?
A person who gives us accurate news that we could not find on our own does not have a real job?
The teachers in a good school that teaches a kid how to learn on his or her own does not have a real job?
Could it be that this is because Romney is up an average of 7.8% in the polls and the MSM knows it? See www.unskewedpolls.com
How easy you make it sound. The fundamental problem, IMHO, is not that journalists should be objective but in fact are “liberal” but that journalism is united - and the result is exactly what Adam Smith would have predicted:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10There was some government support for communication among newspapers - in the form of free postage for the mailing of newspapers from one printer to another - in the early days of the Republic. But that wasn’t enough to unify and homogenize journalism, and the various printers were famous for not agreeing on much of anything. But something changed that in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. That something, IMHO, was the telegraph - the telegraph, and the Associated Press. The AP newswire is a virtual “meeting" of newspaper printers which has been going on continuously since the Civil War.
People who become journalists want to be influential. Journalists don’t provide us with our necessities of food, clothing, shelter, health care, or security - but they compete for credit with the public with those who do provide those things. So nothing could be more natural to the journalist than “demand side economics” - i.e., the idea that our necessities are things to which we have a natural right, and those who provide them don’t deserve any credit for that. Rather, journalists suggest that the credit does not go to “the man in the arena” but instead to the critic - i.e., themselves.That creates a propaganda wind, down which opportunists sail. Part of that propaganda wind is the pronounced tendency of journalists to associate positive labels to those who join the critic class with them. Thus, critics of suppliers are called “liberal” (originally an American virtue) “progressive” (ditto) or “moderate” (a classical virtue). Defenders of suppliers are given negative labels such as “right wingers” or “conservatives” (and anyone who doesn’t understand the latter as a smear should consider how desirous an advertiser is to be able to call his product “NEW!”).
The implication of this analysis is that we should look to antitrust law as our lever against the journalism monopoly. Fortunately - at least according to a seemingly credible web site I saw, but can’t now cite because it has changed - The AP was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. And, the AP is no longer “too big to fail” in principle, because its core mission is to economize on bandwidth in the transmission of news. That mission is anachronistic because bandwidth is now so cheap.
If I remember correctly, Yahoo uses RotoReuters news...
Another fine example of a fair and balanced news agency...
I was listening to a local radio talk show this evening, Beyond the Beltway, hosted by Bruce Dumont. He said he doesn’t remember a Republican presidential candidate being so vilified by the national mainstream media. The closest he remembered was the way Barry Goldwater was treated. A lib called and tried to challenge him and claimed there is no media bias, but Bruce told him he was wrong. It was good to hear, that I’m not the only one who feels the national media has gone insane. A disaster in the mideast, and the media spends a week on Romney’s 47% comment.
“Little does the mainstream media know that their love affair for Obama will cost him the election if they keep it up. Americans aren’t going to let them decide who will be our next president!”
And I don’t they have a clue that their massive pro-Obama bias hastens their demise as people turn away from their non-credulity in favor of multiple other alternatives.
“How simple you make it sound”.
To make it sound simple is not my intent but IMHO you make it
sound more complicated than it needs to be. I draw a distinction
between hard news and opinion journalism. I along with most
folks understand the difference. At one time the so-called Fourth
Estate boasted that their mission was to make the powerful
at least somewhat uncomfortable. While total objectivity may
have never been the case I believe that the “editorialization”
of hard political news is at an all time high and getting worse.
And since the beneficiaries of this editorializing tend to be
the liberal powerful they always have a reason to feel com-
fortable
I don’t believe that journalism, itself, unites people philosop-
hically although it may attract a certain type of people to its’
ranks. Regardless, political news reporting should be as ob-
jective as possible within the parameters of the general target
audience. IF you are perhaps advancing the idea that invoking
anti-trust laws can ameliorate this problem I don’t believe that
will ever happen. The train has left the station. Instead
of challenging freedom of the press I submit that it is
better to offer the people an alternative to one sided
slant.
“the media elected Bill Clinton”
Don’t forget George Bush’s contribution. Bush and Clinton, thick as thieves.
bfl
Thanks neverdem.
agree
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.