POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
The Harris results reflect the findings of a Harvard University study conducted last year, which found “nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the news media.” A few other recent surveys offer some explanation for the public’s distrust:
– Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
– The harshest indictments of the press come from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for news. The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to “stand up for America,” and political bias.
– Democrats, Republicans and independents have decreased confidence in the accuracy of media reports on the war.
These days, the slogan “most trusted name in news” doesn’t mean as much as it once did.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
66 Responses to “POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
i dont trust ANYONE.
ANYONE. neither should you.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pmCongratulations, GOP. Your decades-long attack on the press has borne the fruit that you have so long cultivated.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pmNo kidding.
~Hussein Zooey
March 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pmThere is no news…it’s all infotainment.
That’s what the traditional media gives us which makes people who are interested in truth turn to the internet. Newspapers and mass media as we know it is going the way of the dinosaur. That generation is dying and the up and coming children are sick of the BS. Thank god they are coming out of their shells and paying attention.
The “adults” have screwed the pooch. Good for the kids! They are our future. And that future looks much brighter.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm#2 - Beemer - you read my mind. Could not agree more.
Thanks to the vainglorious Right Wing, our Democracy has been perverted into a hateful and ingrown Idiocracy that really doesn’t deserve a place in the civilized world any more.
I’m saving up to repatriate. My kids will stand a better chance growing up somewhere else on Earth.
In that regard, I now feel a little greater kinship to my ancestors, who called it quits on Europe so long ago, and sacrificed so much here - only to have it result in a nation that worships overprivileged twerps and their amoral sycophants.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pmWe are Rome, and Bush is our Nero.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pmWhat bugs my about this type of poll is that it fails to really ask why people don’t trust the press. Republicans will claim it’s because anything less than Fox News type propaganda that exactly mirrors their belief system by being truly objective is guilty of Liberal bias.
On the other hand, the Left has an institutional analysis of the Corporate Media; why it has a right wing bias and the vested political interests of our Corporate Media system. Unlike the right which has only conspiracy theory to explain why they think the media has a Liberal bias, the left offers a factual explanation: the media, like every other corporate interest, has a bias towards the pro-business and anti-regulatory philosophy of the Republican party.
One only needs to look at the policies being pursued by the FCC under its current head Republican Kevin Martin. Despite massive public outcry and opposition from the two Democrats on that board and Democrats in Congress, Kevin Martin is pushing through deregulation of media ownership restrictions allowing giant media corporations to control more media markets to the point where a single company could control your local newspaper, TV station, radio stations, cable access and internet service. The possibility of complete control and monopoly over public access to information will soon be possible. If Kevin Martin is successful, the American media landscape could become a barren wasteland that makes Soviet Siberia look like an information paradise.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pmThere is an excellent comment by Richard Stengel, the managing editor of Time magazine, in the March 3rd issue where he talks about how endorsements of candidates by newspapers undermines the press as a guarantor of democracy. It was a very good read.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:08 pmIt is my personal belief that the press should attack politicians very aggressively, full time. Our political system is inherently corrupt and turns honest men into thieves. Everyone knows this.
Look what happened to Bush. He has the lowest approval in recorded history. And he has had the press on his side the entire way. This has been a disgusting injustice to the American people by the press.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm.
It is inherit in the words and intent of the seeds of our government, that WE THE PEOPLE are the final say in what is, or is not acceptable.
HOW SOFT HAVE WE BECOME?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pmBut when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
(forgot to add emphasis to this in particular)
March 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pmand accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
How poignant.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:16 pmIt’s as if our own history is some sort of fantasy, sci-fi story of ye olde.
America has lost it’s one and only claim to having a “soul”.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:18 pmUnfortunately the press has earned that, especially in this election!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pmShould have thought over 80% wouldn’t trust. What are we? Stupid?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pmThis trend will continue as long as we have Faux news and other neocon infomercial outlets portraying to be news.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:37 pmZogby Interactive is also asking this question!
~OleHusseinChick~
March 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pmBack in the days of Watergate, the press was mostly responsible for investigating and bringing corruption and criminality to light.
Now, the press either ignores, is afraid of, or actually participates in the corruption and criminality.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:43 pm– The harshest indictments of the press come from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for news. The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to “stand up for America,†and political bias.
And, the irony of this is that those relying on the internet as their primary source of news are actually getting news that’s been filtered FROM THE PRESS (the MOST distrusted source; witness the countless pieces that carry “AP” or “New York Times” just below the headline) OR they’re getting their news from sources which have a political bias. (Let us not forget that “bias” works two ways. If you’re reading news from ThinkProgress or Huffington Post, these sources make no bones about promoting a “progressive bias”; if you’re reading news at one of the conservative sites, these sources make no bones about promoting a “conservative bias”.)
March 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pmAs for radio, again, the majority of news/talk radio programs are conservative in nature, and most “mainstream radio” stations don’t have independent news sources–they generally rely on a network news feed for their 30-60 seconds of news “coverage”. (The lone fault of the station I typically listen to–when I’m listening to the radio–is that it gets its little newsbrief from FauxNews.)
We are Rome, and Bush is our Nero.
Comment by Zooey
Sorry, Zooey, this is too poetic for Bush - I suggest:
We are America, and Bush is our Moronic President.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pmI’m curious about the 44% who trust radio. It could be a good or bad sign. Are they listening to Amy Goodman and Steve Inskeep or Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pmI somewhat agree with the Harris poll, after the press giving Bush a free ride for 9 plus years (counting his campaigning) I distrust anything they report.
Having said that I think there is something more happening here. It amazes me that they trust radio which is worse than any press
I could be wrong but are people just “too busy” to sit down and read anything anymore. Call it multi-tasking or whatever, but they can listen to the radio and do other things, reading a newspaper requires full attention and allows no other activities. TV also falls more or less into the “I must sit and watch” scenario. Radio allow freedom to do other things. The internet is and interesting combination of being able to read and respond.
I don’t think it is entirely because the press has become an outlet for entertainment over news, I think people just don’t want to take the time or if they do they want to be able to put in their two cents (internet)
March 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pmIn a related development, half of the media stated that they did not trust the public.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pmCongratulations, GOP. Your decades-long attack on the press has borne the fruit that you have so long cultivated.
Comment by beemer — March 6, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
I think more accessory than mastermind. The true Bastard that comprimised the fourth estate would have to be corporate America.
I canceled any subscriptions I had to Newsweek, Time, etc. years ago when a study revealed that news entities would either downplay or withhold entirely any news that reflected poorly on one of their sponsors/advertisers. That simply puts them into the complicit column and renders them biased and compromised.
Better to uncover truths among unconnected sources, even ones with axes to grind since there can be found surprising information. It takes a knack to discern the truth from the overblown or fabulists, but it’s light years better than trusting a corporate-dependent shill network or “news corp.”
Remember the reporting (or the initial stonewalling) of My Lai by the press? Knowing how the basic nature of that brand of corporate-think works, does anyone really think that system has gotten more enlightened? Or just better with experience at the science of quashing stories and discrediting damaging information…..
March 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pmMaybe if the members of the press actually started putting more effort into doing their jobs — with the first steps towards that goal being a return to good journalistic ethics by not giving in so easily to pressure from corporate and/or governmental interests to only report “safe” stories and by staying focused on the objective facts instead of trying to influence and manipulate public opinion through subjective “spin” — then maybe people would be encouraged to start trusting them again.
I actually hold CNN at least partially responsible for what the news media has allowed itself to become. CNN was virtually the first 24-hour television news channel — but with 24 hour coverage, you can’t repeat the same stories over and over again and expect that viewers will stay interested so you have to always keep finding another angle to report. I think this may have been what encouraged reporters to start looking for anything they could use, even unsubstantiated reports and rumors. Increasing competition from cable and internet probably contributed to the increasing reliance on “spin” rather than objectivity in an effort to grab more market share — such as Fox News, which deliberately caters to a right-wing audience.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:02 pmSo let me get this straight…the abject failure of the press to do its job- report the facts and challenge the lies and propaganda leads to a decline in trust and readership…. Wait a minute… I think I’ve seen this somewhere…there’s a word for this…been about eight years since I’ve seen it…
March 6th, 2008 at 10:06 pmSomething very importantly American was lost when corporations became the legal equivilant of people. It is really as simple (and sad) as that IMO.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pmbeemer was the first in this thread to say what I was thinking.
Actually, Jon Stewart put it very well on TDS a while back. I forget who he was iterviewing, but he said that, in the Nixon administration, the strategy was to seal the well. That of course didn’t work, so the right wing decided to poison the well.
That seems to have worked to an exceptional degree — with the complicity of a spineless and socially insecure press, which believed conservatives when they told them they were part of the cool kids group.
Too bad they didn’t realize that the neocons were putting “Kick me” signs on their backs.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pmThe media as the deliverer of ‘news’ is controlled by corporations that in themselves may not have an agenda, but their Bankers do. Money moves on news and the shadow it casts. There is an absolute primal need behind the control of media. Now ask, who controls the Banks that are controlled by the Federal Reserve System (answer: not the government).
March 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pmNews today is entertainment masquerading as reportingfor the advertising dollar.
There are few journalists, but a lot of “pretty boys and girls” reading scripts; egomaniacs who have their own programs and enjoy perverse sport of playing gotcha with guests, without providing any historical clarity to the stories they present.
BTW, I always read Hinesight.com (the alternative to Drudge) where I used to get a lot of political news. It’s changed. The last few months, I can’t even read it because it is so anti-Obama/pro-Clinton — does anyone know who runs the site or what has happened to it?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:47 pmFOX’s “fair and balanced” pretty much started the shit path we’re now on.
Savage and Limbaugh, radio idols for the idiot thirty-something-percent crowd, will always be around to keep the muck a-flowing.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm… it’s too bad, yet inevitable, thank you bill, that MOST radio
is right wing bull shite propaganda…
the truth has got some catchin’ up to do…
March 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm- Hussein Katy
March 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pmI’m curious about the 44% who trust radio. It could be a good or bad sign. Are they listening to Amy Goodman and Steve Inskeep or Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh?
Comment by toasterhead — March 6, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
________________________
Look at the ratings. Those will answer your question.
Comment by good_golly — March 6, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Gigii doesn’t have a real firm grasp of statistical analysis, does she?
– Ralph Hussein Wonder Llama
March 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pmFind out what the leading US media companies own… and who owns them.
http://www.mediaowners.com/
March 6th, 2008 at 11:08 pm“We are Rome, and Bush is our Nero.
Comment by Zooey”
I think he also could do well with Caligula.
By the way, if Bushboy is King George written by Skakespeare, what play would McBush be, Macbeth maybe, any suggestions?
obtusehussianman
March 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pmI don’t trust this poll…
March 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pmI’m curious about the 44% who trust radio. It could be a good or bad sign. Are they listening to Amy Goodman and Steve Inskeep or Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh?
Comment by toasterhead — March 6, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Melanie Morgan got booted from her radio slimefest. It’s a start!
March 7th, 2008 at 12:27 amRemove the blinders, the press has never been Clark Kent and Perry White of the comics. It has always been agenda and money driven. Hearst didn’t build his castle at San Simeon on a news boy’s pay, he owned the media of his day. Do some research on the media barons in our past. — Rodham Gin
*******************************************
It seems to me that you’re the one who could stand to remove the blinders. So just because it’s happened before, that makes it all A-OK and hunky-dory? Nobody here has suggested that the news media shouldn’t be allowed to make money — after all, that’s the only way that they can stay in business. However, the primary goal of the news media is (or is supposed to be) reporting the news rather than simply making money as if they were a consumer products company. A new brand of soap or breakfast cereal isn’t likely to have a tremendous amount of impact on people’s lives and well-being, but news potentially can — and when news companies begin to put profit above the truth and the public’s right to know, that’s when there’s a problem.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:38 amRemove the blinders, the press has never been Clark Kent and Perry White of the comics. It has always been agenda and money driven. Hearst didn’t build his castle at San Simeon on a news boy’s pay, he owned the media of his day. Do some research on the media barons in our past.
Comment by Rodham Gin
Ahh, bullshit.
The “press” also have been journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walt Cronkite, Vance Packard, Upton Sinclair, and other muckrakers more concerned with informing Americans than making a buck. They weren’t “media barons” but their influence on our culture was arguably as great as any baron.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:17 amLook at the ratings. Those will answer your question.
Comment by good_golly — March 6, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
By your definition, then America trusts Simon Cowell!! ROTFL, you people are DUMB!
March 7th, 2008 at 2:22 amThink Progress is guilty of maniupulating google search results.
http://www.panicpanda.com/think-progress.shtml
March 7th, 2008 at 3:15 amUnfortunately, those 50% who do trust the media are the ones voting in the highest numbers. Thats why you have a choice of Hillary, Obama and McCain, all from the Congress with the lowest approval rate in history, and 2 of the 3 voted to get us in Iraq, and until recently Hillary was reluctant to commit to pulling troops from Iraq by 2012, and voted for legislation giving Bush the Ok to attack Iran.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:43 amI don’t trust the press, specially under the new media ownership laws!!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 5:42 amIt’s a compelling argument against the free enterprise system. Capitalism has utterly failed to give us reliable news.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:29 amOf course people don’t trust the press. The (including the huffpost, of late) have been lying to us about 9/11 since it happened and then using that lie to justify the lie that is the war on terror. I just laugh anymore. Our country is done.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:42 amAnd you won’t see anything about this in The Press.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:44 amLook at the ratings. Those will answer your question.
Comment by good_golly — March 6, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Good idea!
Democracy Now doesn’t seem to have listener stats. But according to Wikipedia, Michael Savage gets 8-10 million weekly listeners, Rush Limbaugh gets 13.5 million weekly listeners.
On NPR, Morning Edition gets 26.5 million weekly listeners and All Things Considered gets 11.5 million weekly listeners.
Not bad.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:25 amAnother great accomplishment of dumbo our president.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:38 amThe media are whores and will gravitate to whomever pays the most.
This is why Keith Olbermann is on the air;he makes them money.
The GOP has simply been more organized in getting
March 7th, 2008 at 8:00 amtheir message out for years.
Think Progress is guilty of maniupulating google search results.
http://www.panicpanda.com/think-progress.shtml
Comment by esoteric227 — March 7, 2008 @ 3:15 am
No they’re not. There are bots out there that swipe content from blogs and use them to misdirect traffic FROM legitimate blog sites to XXX HOT LOLITA MORTGAGE RATE ACTION PUMP UP YOUR PRICK sites. I’ve googled my own content and found my words “repurposed” like this plenty of times. It doesn’t mean I’m “manipulating google search results.”
March 7th, 2008 at 8:35 amGood morning, everyone — I see I’m late to this thread.
I notice from the table that it’s the “objective” news sources that are trusted the least — television and newspapers. Radio and internet media tend to be mostly commentary, openly slanted one way or the other. People find content slanted the way they want, and naturally they will tend to trust a message they want to hear.
However, hard news media have taken a beating in the trust department, and it’s no wonder. Once upon a time, they could be counted on to deliver news derived from actual investigative journalism, with sources checked and rechecked. Nowadays, they spoonfeed us pap that comes from press releases without question. Because of this, we have been fed lies that have led to the invasion of Iraq, we have been misled into thinking that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, we have believed that Iran has nukes, etc. etc. etc. These lies have originated from our leaders, but have been aided and abetted by the messengers.
Part of the problem may be that we have a glut of news outlets (particularly broadcast news) like never before. Competition for ratings is pretty tough, and unchecked sensationalism is the way most survive. That, and the fact that big business owners with a political agenda influence the content more than they ever have.
I’m actually surprised that this many people DO still trust the press.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:05 amThe people do not need to trust the press for the press to influence the general attitude of the nation with regards to consumption and set and prioritize the national agenda to favor the minority interests of the corporations that own major media outlets. Simply by bombarding the public with information and pomp the urgency and scarcity of time to think numbs the public who retreat into the Matrix (Greek for womb) to forget their history, forget where they came from, forget the mistakes of the past, forget everything and get 20% off your next purchase.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:10 amI know my comments won’t go over well on this site, but just for the record… Having spent 20+ years in the media, I’d agree with the polls that estimate that 85% of the media is liberal. Roughly 10%-12% is independent, roughly 3% to 5% is conservative. And when I say “the media”, I mean those who claim to be “objective reporters”, not gasbags like O’Reilly.
How does this manifiest itself? There are four ways a reporter’s or editor’s biases can be used, and objectivity can be abused:
COVERAGE/PLACEMENT - A story that goes against your political/social agenda can simply not be covered; it can be placed late in the broadcast or deep in the paper. Simply put, stories you don’t like can be avoided.
REPORTER AS CELEBRITY - My very first assignment in my very first journalism class in 1975 was to read “All the President’s Men.” While the reporting work itself was excellent, the book & subsequent movie spawned generations of reporters who chase the spotlight to advance their careers. As a result, the bland truth is often overshadowed by exciting guesses.
ABJECT LAZINESS - Investigative reporting, for the most part, has become a matter of clicking on various web sites. A vast majority of reporters have become tragically lazy, and do precious little if any fact-checking. The exceptions are those who are chasing celebrity, and even they tend to follow a herd mentality. The difference is that the stardom-chasers are more willing to inject hyperbole into their stories.
AGENDA-DRIVEN REPORTING - The most obvious and pervasive method. Rather than starting from scratch and keeping an open mind, today’s “reporters” are far more likely to begin with a premise (typically leftist) and work backwards. All a reporter has to do to keep their desired result intact is to ignore and/or avoid contrary evidence. Easy as pie.
Yes, I know, I’ll get denials from people who haven’t spent a day in a newsroom or a studio. And the few who have been in the media will issue the standard “I’m objective” denials. I get it.
Seems to me the media could do just fine by just admitting its biases. Professional wrestling admitted is was phony, and it’s as popular as ever.
…
March 7th, 2008 at 9:15 amYes, I know, I’ll get denials from people who haven’t spent a day in a newsroom or a studio. And the few who have been in the media will issue the standard “I’m objective†denials. I get it.
Seems to me the media could do just fine by just admitting its biases. Professional wrestling admitted is was phony, and it’s as popular as ever.
…
Comment by Mac the Blogger — March 7, 2008 @ 9:15 am
You couldn’t be more wrong, as if spending a day in a newsroom or studio gives you any idea of who runs the actual news. hint: it’s not the reporters. Your figures are pulled stright from 8your ass, as any objective ovserver can see. The media is wholly-owned and operated by the conservative far-right singnut faction of American greedmongers. Otherwise, such vile liars as the seiftboaters would have gotten no traction whatsoever. Your opinion is based on wishful thinking, not facts. All you’ve proven is that if, indeed, you are a reporter, then you are a prime example of the incompetence of the media, with your distortions of fact and outright lies. A simple perusal of any major newspaper or news show disproves your statements, immediately and totally.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:15 amProtect our civil liberties.
Write or email, call your Senators and tell them that you strongly oppose net neutrality.
The corporate elites are try to control the net.
Oppose internet taxes and regulation.
Check out Naomi Wolf 10 steps to close down an open society.
http://www.google.com/ search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS255US256&q=naomi+wolf+10+steps
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
March 7th, 2008 at 10:48 amThis reminds me of David Gregory backup dancing and clapping to ‘MC Rove’
He should have been investigating that turd blossom, not celebrating him.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:50 amThe news is about “reporters” who appear to know something. They come on the tube and present their “stuff” and expect all of us to take it for granted that what they’re saying is not bullshit. It’s bullshit. The big news giants care about appearances, suck with the administration and any other rich people they can talk to but other than a few human interest stories thrown in, the media hold the common man in utter contempt. This will have a way of coming around on them in any number of ways but I digress. It is the common man that did the revolution in 1776 and has served in the military all through our history. The average guy stuck his/her neck out to do the right thing. It has come full circle such that the right thing doesn’t matter to anyone in power anymore. The powerful want to know what’s in it for me and what is my return against investment. Although Making a profit is okay but making money at the expense of the 17 year old infantryman (just look at the profiteering going on in Iraq especially) is reprehensible. Especially reprehensible since the war is bogus based on lies by the administration. When the average guy gets fed up with the bullshit going on in the District of Corruption (DC) he/she will get the country back on the track. Depend on it. Depend on the fact that enough horseshit has been shovelled at us that the time is very near for the people, average hard-working, tax paying, country serving Americans to say enough.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:52 amThis is my first visit to this site, so I am ignorant of its natural lean. And I want to know more about that poll before I believe what it pretends to prove. But I have to ask: what exactly are you reading that you have developed so many uninformed and frankly untrue prejudices about the media, traditional or otherwise?
I don’t even know where to start. The trad press broke Watergate, but now trad reporters are just lazy lackeys of power? I’m looking at yesterday’s New York Times at the moment, and on the front page there’s a great story about the Shakespearean pressure Obama is feeling to fight Clinton’s mud-slinging with slinging of his own; there is a fascinating story about cyber-rebels in Cuba; there is a story about Bush’s failure to negotiate with OPEC. That’s page 1, if you don’t include the ground-breaking (and probably Pulitzer-winning) stuff the paper has been doing about blood thinner contaminants in China. (It has also published ground-breaking stuff about pollution in China, stuff that is changing the law in China, for God’s sake.) I happen to be in Toronto today, and the national establishment paper up here, the Globe and Mail, is similarly plastered with stories taking direct aim at Stephen Harper, their prime minister, about everything from his stand on the environment to influence peddling. Of course it’s not all political stuff: a couple of weeks ago it ran a huge four page spread on the paparazzi who cover Britney–and what dogs they are, and how emblematic they are at a time when so many of us expose our private selves on Facebook. I’m not a big celebrity gossip fan, but it was the most insightful thing I’ve read on the subject of celebrity since…I dunno, Tina Brown’s book about Diana, which was excellent. And that was in the weekend paper! Smart, beautifullyl and comprehensively reported, beautifully written, and absolutely ferocious about criticizing its own kind. And that’s just two days in two papers in two cities.
I find the problem isn’t that there isn’t any decent journalism, but the opposite–there’s too much to read, to much good stuff to take in, with the result that I get tired of it all, and thus retreat to the web and TV, where I don’t have to be challenged as much, because its easier to find stuff that agrees with my prejudices (or avoids thinking altogether). Then, feeling guilty, I blame the press for pushing me there.
I mean, look: 80 percent of the stuff produced by any industry or profession is average, even mediocre: talent and excellence are rare. Given that fact, I’d say the media on both sides of the political divide put out a lot of good stuff–certainly enough to make partially-informed stands, which is probably the best anyone can hope for.
And at least we are actually HAVING THIS ARGUMENT: as Tom Stoppard once said, in one of his plays, the fact that you can read the bare-faced rhetorical lies of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page AS WELL AS the water-assed dream-pap that sometimes appears in, say…Slate…means no one as yet controls the press. That’s the important thing, and–frankly–the reason why Americans are freaking nuts NOT to trust it. Because fakery and manipulation is way easier on TV and on the internet, without question.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:01 amThe Quackbuster manipulation of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia:
Wikipedia is an odd thing. It is made up of a so-called “volunteer system.” Several years ago, a team of quackbusters infiltrated various levels of the Wikipedia operation, and are now entrenched in the middle, and lower, level volunteer management system. If you try and put any positive information about advanced medicine, or the problems of US health care, on Wikipedia, or change false or misleading information the quackbusters have installed, you will fail. You will be blocked from further “editing” and the pages of Wikipedia will now carry information about what a “terrible person you are.” The only way to have ANY influence over what Wikipedia says about subject is to approach them with a legal threat letter at the highest levels. Nothing else works. Even that has problems, for Wikipedia management operates on a financial shoestring, and apparently has no ability to police its own encyclopedia. Unfortunately, people use the encyclopedia - and they get very bad information about health care.
Below is a paragraph from the editor’s section of Wikipedia. The editor, here, is discussing the problem of the quackbuster slime, acting to control the information flow on Wikipedia - and what to do about it. so you understand
http://www.bolenreport.net/ feature_articles/ feature_article070.htm
March 7th, 2008 at 11:08 amMy concern about the public believing what they are being told by MSM is:
Ask yourself WHY don’t you hear ANYTHING about the North American Union.
The Trans Texas Corridor
The NAFTA Super Highway.
The NEW WORLD ORDER just to mention a few.
The ONLY person BRAVE ENOUGH to mention these things has been Lou Dobbs on CNN.
And this information CAN be obtained online.
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/Alerts.html
And Check out Naomi Wolf’s articles and videos on Ten Steps to Fasism http://www.google.com/ search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS255US256&q=naomi+wolf+10+steps
March 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pmAmerica Take off the rose colored glasses!
If YOU CHOOSE not to check these sites out…than YOU REALLY DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH REALITY!
And YOU WILL be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk!
I am A Brit who recently had the privilege of going out to America for a while, you have a lovely country but I was incredibly disturbed by the lack of information in your new. The information that was there seemed to be lacking both clarity and objectivity, while world news was practically non-existent. I really feel that this is an issue that the public need to be questioning, especially in light of Americas place in current world events.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pmHistorically: Hearst, Yellow Journalism.
Today: Murdoch, Faux News, Mudoch buys Wall St. Jrnl, CNN seems to be tilting, Sensationalism and celebrity reports carry the day.
Why would anyone in their right mind NOT trust the news ?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm64> cazann100
Of course, I’m sure that you’re well aware the Europeans are well known for being more “up” on current events than americans. When I watch overseas news broadcasts, I am struck by how much better the announcers are. Of course, there’s the BBC. But I also use the internet for practice in some European languages. What really gets me is that my local announcers (both here and in some other places I’ve lived), can’t seem to conjugate a verb correctly.
While the European annonuncers, speaking a foreign language, still manage to correctly pronounce the place names of the locations that they are covering - even when the place names’ phonics are totally foreign to their language.
Meanwhile, we’re at war / occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan (and looking to Iran). I can’t decide if it is contempt, smugness, or inattention that makes it that we can’t pronounce Iraq or Iran even though the sounds are easily pronounced by the amerian palate.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pmWow southern man. You still get chills over Monica’s dress? Just go back to decorating elm trees with nooses. That’ll make you feel better.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pmSeems to me the media could do just fine by just admitting its biases. Professional wrestling admitted is was phony, and it’s as popular as ever.
– Mac the Blogger
****************************************************
If people in the media would at least be honest with us about their biases instead of pretending that they doesn’t exist — turning them into the metaphorical five-ton elephant in the room which everyone knows is there but which no one wants to acknowledge — I think that would at least be a marginal improvement over what we have now in which the majority of mainstream media outlets are in the hands of a very small number of parent companies and in which some stories which should be investigated are not because they’re critical of certain corporate or government interests.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm