The news media needs a Journalistic Code of Ethics to restore confidence.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/fox_news_trusted/2008/01/13/63997.html
Poll: Fox Most Trusted News for Americans
Sunday, January 13, 2008 3:05 PM
Fox News has supplanted CNN as the 'most trusted' news source for Americans, a new nationwide poll finds.
The poll conducted by Sacred Heart University, found that the most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).
In 2003, CNN led Fox News on "trust most for accurate reporting" 23.8% to 14.6%.
The Sacred Heart University Poll also found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting.
In the current national poll, just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003. Just under one-quarter, 23.9%, in 2007 said they believe little or none of reporting while 55.3% suggested they believe some media news reporting.
"The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S." stated James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU's Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture. "The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates," he continued.
The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion – from 79.3% strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6% in 2007.
And, 86.0% agreed (strongly or somewhat) that the news media attempts to influence public policies – up from 76.7% in 2003.
"Americans know bias and imbalance when they see it and they don't like it. When most service organizations strive for consumer satisfaction ratings in the high eighties to low nineties, an overall positive rating of 40.7% is dismal," said Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute. He added, "Americans know that it's just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home."
By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
By a three-to-one margin, Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4% to 15.7%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
And, by a two-to-one margin, Americans see CNN (44.9% to 18.4%) and MSNBC (38.8% to 15.8%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.
Just Fox News was seen as mostly and somewhat conservative (48.7%) over mostly or somewhat liberal (22.3%).
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 interviews with residents nationwide between November 26 – December 5, 2007. The sample was generated proportional to population contribution in all 50 states. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Truths, Half-truths and Lies of the News Media
Truths, Half-truths and Lies of the News Media
One wonders just how much of what is reported it the truth or what is a half-truth and what is a lie. The news media is suffering great economic/confidence collapse. If the news media is going to manipulate the news or allow the news to be manipulated, they do not deserve the support of the people.
I have no proof, but I believe the approval rating are, President first, Congress second and News Media third. What should be news is now little more than gossip or propaganda. Far too much analysis of the news and too little reporting.
It would be good for the news media to try to restore the confidence of the people by adopting a Journalistic Code of Ethics. http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece
From The Sunday Times
January 13, 2008
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
"The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research," said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros's Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: "In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research."
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros's sponsorship.
One wonders just how much of what is reported it the truth or what is a half-truth and what is a lie. The news media is suffering great economic/confidence collapse. If the news media is going to manipulate the news or allow the news to be manipulated, they do not deserve the support of the people.
I have no proof, but I believe the approval rating are, President first, Congress second and News Media third. What should be news is now little more than gossip or propaganda. Far too much analysis of the news and too little reporting.
It would be good for the news media to try to restore the confidence of the people by adopting a Journalistic Code of Ethics. http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece
From The Sunday Times
January 13, 2008
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
"The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research," said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros's Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: "In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research."
The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros's sponsorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)