PDA

View Full Version : Majority see media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring


Cochise
08-09-2007, 10:25 PM
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".

Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.

The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.

"Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.

The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes itself as a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.


Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

BucEyedPea
08-09-2007, 10:31 PM
It's a conspiracy. :D

noa
08-09-2007, 11:28 PM
You mean they don't care about Paris Hilton when they are reporting?!
But she's so blond.

jAZ
08-09-2007, 11:59 PM
It's true, but not likely in the way you interpret it.

Mr. Kotter
08-10-2007, 12:02 AM
It's true, but not likely in the way you interpret it.

But CERTAINLY not the way....YOU...interpret it.

stevieray
08-10-2007, 07:32 AM
between being "investigative" and more journalists than reporters, not surprising.

we are a teardown society...and it's working.

StcChief
08-10-2007, 07:41 AM
color me shocked for the last 30+ years

chagrin
08-10-2007, 07:53 AM
I must say - taking my political beliefs out of it; there seems to be no integrity there anymore. We could probably get more news from ESPN than the theater that is TV news these days. I don't really like any of it, and the last two debates we saw a great example of how bad it really is now.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 08:43 AM
It's a conspiracy. :D

I got a tradition in addition.
My definition it donít hold me back.
Well what you think about that?

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 09:22 AM
Rather than use Black Crowe's for a definition:

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 09:47 AM
Rather than use Black Crowe's for a definition:

I didn't, and you have no sense of humor.

jAZ
08-10-2007, 09:47 AM
But CERTAINLY not the way....YOU...interpret it.
Actually, I think most would agree with the following.


The change from non-profit or necessary expense to for profit media has driven the downfall of news coverage...

1) TV News goes for the cheap sensationalism rather than the costly investigation
2) That costly investigation role has been replaced by partisan opposition researchers cozying up to media outlets
3) News media follows public opinion (ratings) more than it leads it (tough stories)

You can put your own partisan perspective to those attributes, but that's pretty much what's wrong with the media.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 09:52 AM
I didn't, and you have no sense of humor.
Neither do you. Since my response to Cochise's thread was cross-thread humor...or sarcasm.

Actually, it was more I just didn't get your post much at all, never mind missing any humor. So I took what I wanted of it since you and Cochise don't know what it means.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 10:04 AM
Neither do you.

From your perspective that doesnít mean much.

Since my response to Cochise's thread was cross-thread humor...or sarcasm.

What makes you think I didnít get that and wasnít playing along?

Actually, it was more I just didn't get your post much at all, never mind missing any humor.

Obviously. Here, itís simple really.
You:

Itís a conspiracy

The name of the Black Crows song = ďA ConspiracyĒ. Itís as simple as that.

So I took what I wanted of it since you and Cochise don't know what it means.

Really, how do you know? Did you ask for a definition or is it just that much easier to assume?

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 10:08 AM
I didn't assume anything....I just know the definition because I bothered to look it up one time.

I miss sparring with you Radar....where have you been?
Go on and make my day! :D

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 10:13 AM
I didn't assume anything....I just know the definition because I bothered to look it up one time.

So, this isnít you assuming I donít know what ďconspiracyĒ means? Well then, what is the ďitĒ youíre blathering about?

since you and Cochise don't know what it means.

I miss sparring with you Radar....where have you been?
Go on and make my day! :D

Busy, and I highly doubt you ďmiss sparing with meĒ. Judging by the rep you keep leaving me it looks a lot more like you have troubles handling it.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 10:16 AM
Ohh! But that was a week ago Radar.
Of course, you're not stingy in the rep department either.
Truly, though I'm flattered at how much attention you lavish on me. :D
We're alike in so many ways.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Ohh! But that was a week ago Radar.

Ok, if you can grow past it Iím cool.

Of course, you're not stingy in the rep department either.

Only as a response.

Truly, though I'm flattered at how much attention you lavish on me. :D

No more so than any other regular poster. :shrug:

We're alike in so many ways.

We actually donít disagree on all that much. If you could get past this need to demagogue everyone disagreeing with you as ďjust some neoconĒ weíd probably get along a lot better.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 10:30 AM
I disagree with your mischaracterization that I call someone a neocon only if they disagree with me. It's not true. I say that in certain situations, based on the argument, rationales for them and on occassion the debate style of the poster I'm dealing with such as yourself.

Other than that I say it because I believe that poster has taken on most of the nc arguments either in FP at least, or overall. There are only two to 4 people here I consider neoconservative in viewpoint overall...and two of those are with an asterisk since they only post on the war and not much else for me to know. I am aware that there are super hawk conservatives who agree with the nc's on the wot.

I've said I use it as sarcasm sometimes too. Like with you...when you resorting to your ridicule and mocking laughing smilies.

Now how is my doing what you say any different than calling someone out as a liberal for being antiwar such as you did when I first came here. I find that nc's are more prone to use that these days especially on the war. Fox, which is nc, relies on that ad hominem all the time.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 10:50 AM
I disagree with your mischaracterization that I call someone a neocon only if they disagree with me. It's not true. I say that in certain situations, based on the argument, rationales for them and on occassion the debate style of the poster I'm dealing with such as yourself.

I never posted ďonlyĒ.
And you seem to struggle with my ďposting styleĒ. Here, Iíll help.
When someone is going out of their way to be a jackass, I like to point it out to them then use their methods while arguing from a diametrically opposed view as an example, to illustrate exactly what Iím talking about.
I know youíve recognized this, at least partially, because of your complaint that ďI do what I accuse others ofĒ. You just seem to keep whiffing on why itís happening.

I've said I use it as sarcasm sometimes too. Like with you...when you resorting to your ridicule and mocking laughing smilies.

This is an example of what I just posted.
Since you only recognize this from one direction itís lead to my assumption that youíre obsessed with me.

Now how is my doing what you say any different than calling someone out as a liberal for being antiwar such as you did when I first came here. I find that nc's are more prone to use that these days especially on the war. Fox, which is nc, relies on that ad hominem all the time.

Youíll have to post a link to that one. I typically try to stay away from labels because Iíd much rather take people as they are than dismiss opinions because they're "just some (insert demagogic label here)", you already know this also.
You sure that wasnít in response to you calling me, or someone else, a ďneoconĒ?

banyon
08-10-2007, 10:53 AM
between being "investigative" and more journalists than reporters, not surprising.

we are a teardown society...and it's working.

Or you can go the Fox route and save on reporters and journalists and just replace them with "pundits" who offer their opinions on the events of the day.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 10:57 AM
Or you can go the Fox route and save on reporters and journalists and just replace them with "pundits" who offer their opinions on the events of the day.

:shrug: Itís apparently successful.

BIG_DADDY
08-10-2007, 11:24 AM
And for once the majority is right. It must be overwhelmingly obvious to even the biggest tards at this point.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 11:26 AM
Well I don't see it like you Radar. From day one you demagogued me as a liberal. So much for taking people at face value and not using labels. LOL!
Then you say you have the right to do it to a "jackass"...is that someone who disagrees with you? So deal with it when you get it the same back. No, I'm not going to search for links. I've done so already previously and it just goes on and one with no end.

Good day Radar. :D

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 12:10 PM
Well I don't see it like you Radar. From day one you demagogued me as a liberal. So much for taking people at face value and not using labels. LOL!

So, I take it you canít find a quote/link then? I didnít think you could but would check it out if you did.

Then you say you have the right to do it to a "jackass"...is that someone who disagrees with you?

Obviously not, equally obvious you havenít read much of what Iíve posted and are working off assumptions.
There are several posters here that I disagree with on several issues, yet I still value their opinions and have posted so. Amno, banyon, NewChief (now NewPhin), DanT (when he shows up) just to name a few.
In fact I get along with the vast majority of everyone here. :shrug: I havenít agreed with everyone on every issue so itís pretty easy to deduce the problem isnít me.

So deal with it when you get it the same back.

I do ďdeal with itĒ, and do so quite well IMO. ;)

No, I'm not going to search for links. I've done so already previously and it just goes on and one with no end.

Not if you provide verifiable evidence that isnít directly contradicted by equally verifiable evidence.
Iím pretty sure, though, in this case you are working off assumptions and already know you wonít find what you claim.

Good day Radar. :D

Oh, I am.
And you also. ;)

Cochise
08-10-2007, 12:13 PM
I found the 'uncaring' part to be telling. The media just swoops in like a pack of vultures on any tragedy. Reporting on it is fine, but camping out near these people's houses, not leaving victims' families alone... the media will smoke you like a cigar if you're worth a nickel to them.

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 12:17 PM
So, I take it you canít find a quote/link then? I didnít think you could but would check it out if you did.

I forgot to say, I'm not going to bother with a link. If you take people at face value like you claim my explanation of my feelings should be enough.
The other reason is I have done so before on this very subject ( the liberal name) and it still was not good enough for you. You'll argue it forever. So it's just not worth it.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 12:19 PM
I forgot to say, I'm not going to bother with a link. If you take people at face value like you claim my explanation of my feelings should be enough.
The other reason is I have done so before on this very subject ( the liberal name) and it still was not good enough for you. You'll argue it forever. So it's just not worth it.

:spock:

No, I'm not going to search for links. I've done so already previously and it just goes on and one with no end.

:shrug:

You've never posted a link to a quote of me calling you a "liberal".

BucEyedPea
08-10-2007, 12:25 PM
Ok, if you can grow past it Iím cool.

:spock: :shrug:

You've never posted a link to a quote of me calling you a "liberal".
Nope I sure have. We've had this very argument/conversation before. Feel free to use the search engine here. I got things to do and a storm is brewing.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 12:30 PM
:spock: :shrug:

What does that have to do with anything?

Nope I sure have. We've had this very argument/conversation before. Feel free to use the search engine here. I got things to do and a storm is brewing.

No you have or yes you havenít?
And since you already know where the search engine is, Iím sure you would make use of it if what you assert were true.

KC Dan
08-10-2007, 01:03 PM
Actually, I think most would agree with the following.


The change from non-profit or necessary expense to for profit media has driven the downfall of news coverage...

1) TV News goes for the cheap sensationalism rather than the costly investigation
2) That costly investigation role has been replaced by partisan opposition researchers cozying up to media outlets
3) News media follows public opinion (ratings) more than it leads it (tough stories)

Anyone can put their own partisan perspective to those attributes, but that's pretty much what's wrong with the media.
There should be no partisan perspective on this and you are correct. There are, I am sure, hundreds of other reasons for our media downfall but you marked the top three.

StcChief
08-10-2007, 01:31 PM
Water down biased stories for ratings is no longer NEWS.

banyon
08-10-2007, 01:42 PM
:shrug: Itís apparently successful.

What's popular is what's best for society?

Cochise
08-10-2007, 02:48 PM
I agree with the sentiment that the main problem is that there is little to no "hard news" out there. Commentary is fine, it's got it's place, but when there is no black and white stuff out there, that's an issue. There's a real, needed gap that is totally empty.

I can't think of anyplace where you get hard news anymore. It's all turning into the Today show.

Radar Chief
08-10-2007, 02:54 PM
What's popular is what's best for society?

I made no claims to right or wrong, simpley that it appears to be working for them.