Comments on: Poll: U.S. Public Distrusts Mainstream News Media More Than Ever

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:12:33 +0000

OK, noted as well. Although, it begs the question…..was the poll focusing on the politics-worn-on-the-sleeve personalities or those behind the scenes writing “news accounts”?

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:43:47 +0000

Casual- WaPo is no longer a liberal paper- their editorial board supports the neocon position, and they have been very easy on the administration. Their editorial page has liberal, centrist and conservative columnists like Novak and Krauthammer. The Washington Times- however, has no liberals on its editorial page.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:05:14 +0000

I don’t disagree, k, and that serves my point. My brain does not register “bias” when I read the WSJ for much the same reason you probably don’t “register” much by reading the WaPo.

By: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Wake up America-Media Bias

[BLOCKED BY STBV] Wake up America-Media Bias — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:32:49 +0000

Media Too Critical of America?…

So what about this most recent one from Pew? You can see the whole thing here for yourself, but what caught my attention besides the fact that many see that our media is uncaring, they see bias (no surprise, like I said), inaccuracy (I will show a fe…..

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:17:53 +0000

Casual- But I don’t hear much from conservatives about the bias in talk radio- which is so much more blatant. I’m not saying that there is no liberal bias on stations like PBS, but talk radio makes up for that and then some.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:54:43 +0000

I can’t view a declining confidence in the media, the government, and the professions and a rising confidence in the military with complete joy.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:09:58 +0000

kritter said,

August 10, 2007 at 2:37 am:

……….I believe the claims of bias are exaggerated…..

And if you go beyond the Breitbart summary into the actual Pew data where it breaks this further by political affiliation, Dems clearly do not have the same heartburn over bias that R’s and I’s do.

By: Robert Stein

Robert Stein — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:33:34 +0000

It doesn’t have to come down to an either-or about MSM or Internet journalism. All of us are plagued by what George Bush and Rupert Murdoch, as well as others of their ilk, have down to sow distrust in American life:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/08/souring-of-america.html

By: Gray

Gray — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:38:01 +0000

“But we do try to get our facts straight and seldom messss upphp..”

And that’s why we, the readers, come here instead of hanging around at one of those mainstream media ‘blogs’!
++

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:37:13 +0000

What’s the alternative to a free press? Believing our government? While I believe the claims of bias are exaggerated, I also think we owe a debt of gratitude to the press. Wouldn’t we still believe we were winning the war in Iraq? That the US attorney scandal was “an overblown personnel matter”? That Pat Tillman died in enemy fire? That Scooter Libby was a victim of an overzealous prosecutor?

My biggest gripe with the press, is that they don’t do much investigative reporting, or even put stories in context with what is already known. I remember after Gonzales’ first testified before congress a couple of months ago, WaPo was all over his inadequate performance. It was concluded that he was just another incompetent Bush appointee. But an earlier story described how Fred Fielding had been intensely preparing Gonzo for his testimony for three weeks. So, it seems that the testimony was purposely evasive and forgetful, in order to protect administration officials and possibly the president.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:15:38 +0000

I’m not knowledgable enough to guess why the public at large is losing their trust in mainstream media. As far as getting basic facts straight, I do trust the traditional media more than the blogosphere.

My main criticism of MSM reporting is the “he said, she said” phenomenon in which follow-up and analysis do not appear to involve fact checking or context building, but just finding someone else to say the opposite thing and then stopping there. Here’s an example of myself being frustrated with a report on climate negotiations a couple years ago.

It would seem that “he said she said” reporting would actually be very frustrating to the reporter. At its worst, it is something anyone with a tape recorder could write. Why would people with terrific backgrounds and specialties (such as science, economics, military, etc.) let their knowledge be reduced so much? Do we blame editors? Deadlines? I would rather excellent reporting with an upfront bias than lousy reporting.