The Media's Massive Credibility Problem

On her weekly Sinclair TV show, "Full Measure," on Aug. 18, former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson interviewed pollster Scott Rasmussen about journalists' standing in the public square. They're about as trusted as Wikipedia, the website considered so unreliable that school teachers often tell students they can't cite it as a source for their research papers.

Only 38 percent said national political coverage is accurate and reliable, while 42 percent said it is not. "We asked about national political reporters. Are they credible? Are they reliable?" said Rasmussen. "And you know, a little more than 1 out of 3 people say yes. When we ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's -- what's happening is we have a world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia."

You hear the media elites often break out the nostalgia for an era when the American people had "shared facts." Translation: a time when all Americans had the "mainstream" media to tell them what the "facts" were, and when those in that "mainstream" enjoyed a monopoly in their industry. Facts always seemed carefully arranged for political impact. For example, the TV anchors told us the Vietnam War was an unwinnable quagmire. Watergate was the worst scandal in American history. The Soviet Union only wanted peace. The wealthy were greedy. Planet Earth would succumb to global warming. And Planned Parenthood cares about children.

All this created a national hunger for alternative sources of information. The addition of Fox News, conservative talk radio, and conservative news websites and blogs in the '90s is decried as the dawn of a new era of "misinformation."

The media's dramatic tilt has clearly taken a toll on their image. Rasmussen told Attkisson that 78 percent of voters say reporters don't report news so much as they promote their agenda: "They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurate record of what happened. ... Only 14 percent think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened."

Then Rasmussen added a layer of public cynicism: "If a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36 percent of voters think that they would report that." The public sees the media for what they are: flagrant activists manipulating the democratic process.

Attkisson also interviewed former CNN anchor Frank Sesno to react to this massive credibility problem. Sesno toed the company line and, in so doing, tripped over his own tongue. "The public understands fundamentally what journalism should be," he said. "They don't understand how it's actually practiced." What does that mean? The public isn't well-informed enough to know how well-informed it would be if it were to trust the press?

If media organizations really wanted to improve their image, they would address public skepticism seriously, taking some very simple steps. Stop trying to bury every bit of good news for President Trump and every bit of bad news for Bernie, Biden & Co. Try to acknowledge that policy debates have two sides. It is fair to question climate change, support our national identity and oppose the abortion industry trafficking human carnage.

Is it too late? Conservatives have walked away from these networks and newspapers, which means that their audiences are now mostly liberals who reject everything conservatives champion. Obviously, from all we've witnessed, liberal journalists are much more sensitive to criticism from fellow liberals than they are to the American public. That's unlikely to change, so the credibility crisis will only deepen.

Here’s some info on guns etc. that we won’t see covered on the MSM

Thought you’d enjoy this....from Garage Logic-Joe Soucheray.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. populations on 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.

Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence • 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100

Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California of course, but you need to first understand it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault is all done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws, is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! We outlawed drugs!

36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths •

34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide) the same teenagers marching to get rid of guns, are the same teenagers who are texting and driving and killing far more than guns!

Now it gets good:

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. At that point you are safer in Chicago then when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the MCdouble cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:

Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”

Compiled from the book, “Fire Congress.”

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.