Media Donations and Bias
America needs to realize that the elections are being controlled by the Atheistic Liberal News Media of New York City.
There is no way there can be a fair election when there is news media bias. It would be better to eliminate the news media and have an unbiased election than to have a news media and a biased election. Freedom of the press requires very high standards that the news media is not following.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
--------------------------------------------
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.
Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Good News
Good News
Not all the news is bad news. ABC, NBC and CBS will have a lot less money to support their biased news reporting.
The only problem is that by Fox winning, the Atheistic Liberal news reporting is being replaced by Atheistic Conservative news reporting.
------------------------------------
Fox wins TV season crown
Strike, DVRs cause record ratings drop
By RICK KISSELL
http://www.variety.com/VR1117986172.html
A dominant Fox is set to be crowned the winner of the 2007-08 television season, one that the broadcast biz -- and perhaps even Fox -- would just as soon forget.
The writers strike, along with the rising popularity of DVRs and the increased availability of programming on multiple platforms, conspired to make this season the lowest-rated on record for the broadcasters. There was also a dearth of breakout hits, with no new show emerging as the biz's savior.
Of course, the broadcasters have been losing audience share to cable for years -- but this season saw the most troubling year-to-year declines yet.
In a season when overall television usage among young adults was up slightly, the top five English-language broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CW) will finish down 10% in adults 18-49 rating (14.1 vs. 15.6). And their overall audience average (41.5 million viewers) is off 7% from the 2006-07 campaign (44.8 million), according to Nielsen.
By comparison, ad-supported cable saw a 9% increase in 18-49 rating (17.4 vs. 15.9) and 7% in total viewers (51.6 million vs. 48.1 million).
Not all the news is bad news. ABC, NBC and CBS will have a lot less money to support their biased news reporting.
The only problem is that by Fox winning, the Atheistic Liberal news reporting is being replaced by Atheistic Conservative news reporting.
------------------------------------
Fox wins TV season crown
Strike, DVRs cause record ratings drop
By RICK KISSELL
http://www.variety.com/VR1117986172.html
A dominant Fox is set to be crowned the winner of the 2007-08 television season, one that the broadcast biz -- and perhaps even Fox -- would just as soon forget.
The writers strike, along with the rising popularity of DVRs and the increased availability of programming on multiple platforms, conspired to make this season the lowest-rated on record for the broadcasters. There was also a dearth of breakout hits, with no new show emerging as the biz's savior.
Of course, the broadcasters have been losing audience share to cable for years -- but this season saw the most troubling year-to-year declines yet.
In a season when overall television usage among young adults was up slightly, the top five English-language broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CW) will finish down 10% in adults 18-49 rating (14.1 vs. 15.6). And their overall audience average (41.5 million viewers) is off 7% from the 2006-07 campaign (44.8 million), according to Nielsen.
By comparison, ad-supported cable saw a 9% increase in 18-49 rating (17.4 vs. 15.9) and 7% in total viewers (51.6 million vs. 48.1 million).
Clinton Slams College Educated Media Elitists
Clinton Slams College Educated Media Elitists
Republicans have been saying there is bias for a long time. Who controls America, the people or a small group of people in New York City that control the major news networks.
I believe the New York City news media has selected Obama to be president because they can control Obama where they mighty not be able to control Clinton.
The New York City news media has too much influence on domestic and foreign policy by using biased reporting.
-------------------------------------------------
Clinton Slams College Educated Media Elitists
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:06 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Clinton_media_elitists/2008/05/20/97568.html
Although it's been a constant theme of the Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination from the start, Bill Clinton took yet another punch yesterday at the media and Beltway media elites, accusing them of being slanted in its coverage of wife and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.
During a rally at Transylvania University in Lexington, Ky., the former president lashed out at the media for what he called its "slanted press coverage."
Clinton attributes Sen. Barack Obama's delegate lead to the bias the press has shown during this year's campaign and pressed the argument Hillary made earlier in the day, that she had now and would have at the end of the primary process more popular votes than Obama.
"I believe it is far more likely than not when this is over she will have won a majority of all the votes cast in all the states," he said.
With that as pretext, Clinton unleashed a 12-minute tirade against the media in which he said, ""First of all, by their own admission, this has been the most slanted press coverage in American history. Secondly, they declared her dead more times than a cat's got lives." He went on to further accuse the press of not caring about the needs of voters and favoring other candidates over his wife.
Clinton also ridiculed Obama for vastly outspending Hillary in several states Obama lost.
"In Pennsylvania she was outspent 3-1 – by $8 million – and she won anyway," he recounted.
"In every single electoral math I have seen, she is beating Sen. [John] McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee for president] handily, and she is the only Democrat who is doing that," he said, echoing statements Hillary has made in recent weeks.
"Every time you turn on the television and you listen to one of those people dissing her, they all have a college degree, they all got a new job, they all got healthcare, and they're not going broke filling up their gas tank," he railed.
Two days earlier, Hillary told a crowd in Mayfield, Ky., the very same thing.
"All those people on TV who are telling you and everybody else that this race is over and I should just be, you know, graceful and say, ‘Oh, it's over,' even though I've won more votes," she said. "Those are all people who have a job. Those are all people who have healthcare. Those are all people who can afford to send their kids to college. Those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at the gas pump."
Hillary went on to say the media has been counting her out "since Iowa, and the voters always prove them wrong. I mean, I've been declared dead so many times and, luckily, it's been premature. And I'm hoping it stays premature," she said.
"Because I believe that I am better prepared to be president and I am more likely to be able to win, I don't care what the pundits say. I'm going to leave it up to the voters."
By placing blame for his wife's campaign problems and shortcomings on the press, Bill Clinton fell back on an old tactic he used when he first broke on the national scene in 1991.
The Clinton camp is riding this tactic right to the bitter end of the election race. It even unleashed a new television advertisement in Oregon Friday which points a finger at some of America's top political pundits, whom they accuse of being elitists.
The ad, titled "What's Right," aims its punches not at her front-running opponent, Obama, but at the media. It shows NBC's Tim Russert, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, and MSNBC anchors Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, downplaying Clinton's chances.
"In Washington, they talk about who's up and who's down," the narrator in the ad says. "In Oregon, we care about what's right and what's wrong."
In addition, the message Hillary's camp has been hammering home to supporters and superdelegates all along the campaign trail is not to count her out just yet. They urge anyone who'll listen to ignore the college-educated, elitist media hype that places Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee.
Republicans have been saying there is bias for a long time. Who controls America, the people or a small group of people in New York City that control the major news networks.
I believe the New York City news media has selected Obama to be president because they can control Obama where they mighty not be able to control Clinton.
The New York City news media has too much influence on domestic and foreign policy by using biased reporting.
-------------------------------------------------
Clinton Slams College Educated Media Elitists
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:06 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Clinton_media_elitists/2008/05/20/97568.html
Although it's been a constant theme of the Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination from the start, Bill Clinton took yet another punch yesterday at the media and Beltway media elites, accusing them of being slanted in its coverage of wife and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.
During a rally at Transylvania University in Lexington, Ky., the former president lashed out at the media for what he called its "slanted press coverage."
Clinton attributes Sen. Barack Obama's delegate lead to the bias the press has shown during this year's campaign and pressed the argument Hillary made earlier in the day, that she had now and would have at the end of the primary process more popular votes than Obama.
"I believe it is far more likely than not when this is over she will have won a majority of all the votes cast in all the states," he said.
With that as pretext, Clinton unleashed a 12-minute tirade against the media in which he said, ""First of all, by their own admission, this has been the most slanted press coverage in American history. Secondly, they declared her dead more times than a cat's got lives." He went on to further accuse the press of not caring about the needs of voters and favoring other candidates over his wife.
Clinton also ridiculed Obama for vastly outspending Hillary in several states Obama lost.
"In Pennsylvania she was outspent 3-1 – by $8 million – and she won anyway," he recounted.
"In every single electoral math I have seen, she is beating Sen. [John] McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee for president] handily, and she is the only Democrat who is doing that," he said, echoing statements Hillary has made in recent weeks.
"Every time you turn on the television and you listen to one of those people dissing her, they all have a college degree, they all got a new job, they all got healthcare, and they're not going broke filling up their gas tank," he railed.
Two days earlier, Hillary told a crowd in Mayfield, Ky., the very same thing.
"All those people on TV who are telling you and everybody else that this race is over and I should just be, you know, graceful and say, ‘Oh, it's over,' even though I've won more votes," she said. "Those are all people who have a job. Those are all people who have healthcare. Those are all people who can afford to send their kids to college. Those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at the gas pump."
Hillary went on to say the media has been counting her out "since Iowa, and the voters always prove them wrong. I mean, I've been declared dead so many times and, luckily, it's been premature. And I'm hoping it stays premature," she said.
"Because I believe that I am better prepared to be president and I am more likely to be able to win, I don't care what the pundits say. I'm going to leave it up to the voters."
By placing blame for his wife's campaign problems and shortcomings on the press, Bill Clinton fell back on an old tactic he used when he first broke on the national scene in 1991.
The Clinton camp is riding this tactic right to the bitter end of the election race. It even unleashed a new television advertisement in Oregon Friday which points a finger at some of America's top political pundits, whom they accuse of being elitists.
The ad, titled "What's Right," aims its punches not at her front-running opponent, Obama, but at the media. It shows NBC's Tim Russert, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, and MSNBC anchors Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, downplaying Clinton's chances.
"In Washington, they talk about who's up and who's down," the narrator in the ad says. "In Oregon, we care about what's right and what's wrong."
In addition, the message Hillary's camp has been hammering home to supporters and superdelegates all along the campaign trail is not to count her out just yet. They urge anyone who'll listen to ignore the college-educated, elitist media hype that places Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Cultural War Battle Looming
Cultural War Battle Looming
Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry lining up troops to win the Cultural War.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
----------------------------------
McAuliffe: 90% of Media Back Obama
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McAuliffe_Media_obama/2008/05/14/95979.html
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:57 AM
By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Terry McAuliffe called the media's coverage of the Democratic presidential race "the most biased" ever — and praised conservative Fox News for its "responsible" reporting.
McAuliffe answered: "Oh, 90 percent. I mean, from day one. It is what it is. We're not complaining. We have to deal with the hand we're dealt…
"Every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign. Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it."
---------------------------------
Oliver Stone rushes to finish Bush film
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2270318,00.html
Script asks: 'How did an alcoholic bum become most powerful leader in world?'
Ed Pilkington in New York
Thursday April 3, 2008
The Guardian
How different the world might look now if the US president and his advisers had settled on the phrase Axis of Unbearably Odious, or Axis of Hatred. But they rejected that and instead plumped for Axis of Evil, and the rest is history.
So begins the script to Oliver Stone's new movie, W, on the life of George W Bush, which begins filming this month and will be produced at speed. Stone, a director with a keen eye for publicity, is thought to want to get the film into cinemas before the November presidential election, and certainly before Bush quits the White House on January 20.
------------------------
Moore aims for followup on `Fahrenheit 9/11'
CANNES, France (AP) — Michael Moore is taking America's temperature again.
Moore, who won the top honor at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival with "Fahrenheit 9/11," plans a followup to resume his examination of the nation's status in the world in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Fahrenheit 9/11," the only documentary to top $100 million domestically at the box office, was a harsh, hilarious critique of George W. Bush and his administration in the wake of the attacks. The as-yet-untitled followup will have a longer-term approach, film executives overseeing the project said Wednesday.
"That movie was about a moment in time, a specific moment," said Nick Meyer, president of Paramount Vantage, which is co-financing the movie with Overture Films. "We don't view this movie as bashing anyone. I think it's going to take a look at where America is right now in relation to the world. It's not going to be about the issue of the war. It's about where we are and what our role is."
Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry lining up troops to win the Cultural War.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
----------------------------------
McAuliffe: 90% of Media Back Obama
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McAuliffe_Media_obama/2008/05/14/95979.html
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:57 AM
By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Terry McAuliffe called the media's coverage of the Democratic presidential race "the most biased" ever — and praised conservative Fox News for its "responsible" reporting.
McAuliffe answered: "Oh, 90 percent. I mean, from day one. It is what it is. We're not complaining. We have to deal with the hand we're dealt…
"Every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign. Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it."
---------------------------------
Oliver Stone rushes to finish Bush film
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2270318,00.html
Script asks: 'How did an alcoholic bum become most powerful leader in world?'
Ed Pilkington in New York
Thursday April 3, 2008
The Guardian
How different the world might look now if the US president and his advisers had settled on the phrase Axis of Unbearably Odious, or Axis of Hatred. But they rejected that and instead plumped for Axis of Evil, and the rest is history.
So begins the script to Oliver Stone's new movie, W, on the life of George W Bush, which begins filming this month and will be produced at speed. Stone, a director with a keen eye for publicity, is thought to want to get the film into cinemas before the November presidential election, and certainly before Bush quits the White House on January 20.
------------------------
Moore aims for followup on `Fahrenheit 9/11'
CANNES, France (AP) — Michael Moore is taking America's temperature again.
Moore, who won the top honor at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival with "Fahrenheit 9/11," plans a followup to resume his examination of the nation's status in the world in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Fahrenheit 9/11," the only documentary to top $100 million domestically at the box office, was a harsh, hilarious critique of George W. Bush and his administration in the wake of the attacks. The as-yet-untitled followup will have a longer-term approach, film executives overseeing the project said Wednesday.
"That movie was about a moment in time, a specific moment," said Nick Meyer, president of Paramount Vantage, which is co-financing the movie with Overture Films. "We don't view this movie as bashing anyone. I think it's going to take a look at where America is right now in relation to the world. It's not going to be about the issue of the war. It's about where we are and what our role is."
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Cultural War in America
Cultural War in America
It is ok for the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry to criticize Christians/Conservatives and Republicans, but you can get fired for intimating democrats could do anything wrong or inappropriate.
That is consistent with the Cultural War in America.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
-------------------------------------
Friday Feb 08, 2008
Shuster Suspended For "Pimped Out" Comment
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/shuster_suspended_for_pimped_out_comment_77059.asp
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns accepted invitations from us on Thursday evening to participate in a February 26th debate. Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned.
It is ok for the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry to criticize Christians/Conservatives and Republicans, but you can get fired for intimating democrats could do anything wrong or inappropriate.
That is consistent with the Cultural War in America.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
-------------------------------------
Friday Feb 08, 2008
Shuster Suspended For "Pimped Out" Comment
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/shuster_suspended_for_pimped_out_comment_77059.asp
NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns accepted invitations from us on Thursday evening to participate in a February 26th debate. Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Poll: Fox Most Trusted News for Americans
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.
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.
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)