BBC/Reuters/Media Center Poll: Trust in the Media

Wednesday 3 May 2006

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut.html

More people in eight of the countries trust media more than government, while in the other two — the United States and Britain — the results are reversed, especially among U.S. residents. As Britain-based Reuters writes it, "Americans emerged as the most critical of the news media's balance, with 69 percent disagreeing that the media reports all sides of a story."

Among other highlights from the GlobeScan polling firm, which questioned 10,230 adults in the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea:

• Media are trusted by an average of 61 percent compared with 52 percent for government. But the United States bucked the trust trend, with government ahead of media — 67% vs 59%. Britain was right behind, but more closely divided — 51% vs 47%.

• Media trust was highest in Nigeria (88% vs 34% gov’t.) followed by Indonesia (86% vs 71%), India (82% vs 66%), Egypt (74%, gov’t. not asked), and Russia (58% vs 54%).

• National TV was the most trusted news source overall — 82% trusting and 16% not trusting. It was followed by national/regional newspapers (75% vs 19%), local newspapers (69% vs 23%), public radio (67% vs 18%), and international satellite TV (56% vs 19%). Internet blogs were the least trusted source (25% vs 23%) – with one in two unable to say whether they trusted them.

• TV was also seen as the most 'important' news source (56%) followed by newspapers (21%), Internet (9%) and radio (9%).

• One in four (28%) reported abandoning a news source over the last year after losing trust in its content.

• Youth use online sources most. For 19 percent of those 18 to 24 it's their first choice, compared with just 3 percent of those 55 to 64. Overall, 56 percent of respondents valued having news available online, with South Koreans being the most enthusiastic (85 percent) followed by Americans (60 percent) and Britains (57 percent).

Methodology and questionnaire

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/demoquestbbcreu.html#quest

Shall we define bias, or would you rather try and define objectivity? Truth? Reality? You name it.

I'm not going to get into it with you, Hankfest. I'm old enough to remember seeing these talking heads on my B&W TV: Murrow, Sevareid, Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, Reasoner...

I suspect you are not that old. They may not have been perfect. They may have had some personal bias. Who doesn't? But they weren't total airheads like the trained seals and circus monkeys we have today. Peter Jennings wasn't bad. Today you could actually have trained seals and monkeys do it. It would be more entertaining. A parrot would work. I'm sorry. I'm old and cranky and only an idiot questions this CW.

It seems to prove Glenn's point, (as if you really needed to do more than look out your window to see if the sun was shining or not).

State of the News Media 2007

Public Attitudes

By the Project for Excellence in Journalism

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_publicattitudes.asp?cat=7&media=6

Hankest,

Nobody at Free Republic, or most of the GOP base, trusts the media either. They do believe the earth is 6000 years old and that young cave children rode dinoaurs to school.

Pew research polls :

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1067

I not only remember them, Hankfest. I watched them on TV. If I tried to watch the cretins on today it would be too costly. I would be tempted to use the .45 remote Elvis Presley used, but I can't a afford a new TV every other day like Presley. And I don't even like Elvis Presley. I don't like anyone who would kiss Nixon's ass like that.

"GG..That's why, I think, the inquiries ceased to be constructive several pages ago."

But look at all the links to polls and data we have. And Pudgnet's post...

Or is it merely a cheering section for our esteemed Mr Greenwald?

If it's the latter, let me know and i won't return.

If you know of anyone who does what Mr. Greenwald does, aside from George Bush, (that was funny, Mona), let us know. It's not as easy as it looks. He just makes it look easy. It takes alot of work... "hard work". That's some "skillz" for you.

Is that we even have to point these things out. I blame the press.

The New Criterion is one of the few sources I can read without becoming nauseous or angry or both. How Glenn and the rest of the good folks who take a close look at the output from the right armpit of the media is beyond me. I can't.

I don't think I want Cliff May's toe in my reality.

You are right, of course, about the proper use of data and polls, but even that can be questioned and challenged. I never underestimate the value of anecdotal evidence as a an adjunct and in this case, just licking your finger and putting it up in the air. Think about it. For years you have had the right complaining about bias in the media. Now you have the left complaining about, if not bias, just mindlessly parroting right wing talking points and memes. What a poor, well-informed consumer of the the product,(the news), suppposed to do? I think there was never any bias. the complaints about bias were intended to bias the reporting. It worked. Throw in the fact that the CIA has used journalists and journalism as a cover since the 50s... You are an idiot if you trust the media, (or pollsters) any more than a car salesman. Caveat Emptor.

Hankest... Just so i'm clear on this, are you saying the media treated Newt respectively and with kid gloves during his time as speaker?

It's amazing how well this rhetorical device works. You are a prime example of it's success. Claim the press has a "liberal bias" long enough and loud enough, and voila!, Fox News has no bias at all. It's just "fair and balanced".