Trust in Media Hits All Time Low

[calamity]

Personally, I trust no one, especially not the media.

IMO, all news organizations are biased and agenda driven. That some lean Right while others lean Left is a given. That some are pro-gay and others are against it, or that some are pro-gun versus those that are pro-gun control, is to be expected. After all, all humans have a bias. But, there is more. I also see media turning into corporate whores, being driven more and more by the demands of their advertisers. Lately, I've been seeing articles that read like outright press releases for some product or special interest group disguised as news.

Rare is a media company that writes objectively. And, it seems, the country agrees.

Hardly Anyone Trusts The Media Anymore

Only 6 percent of people say they have a great deal of confidence in the press, about the same level of trust Americans have in Congress, according to a new survey released on Sunday.

The study mirrors past reports that found the public’s trust in mass media has reached historic lows, according to data gathered by the Media Insight Project, a partnership between The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute. The report found faith in the press was just slightly higher than the 4 percent of people who said they trusted Congress.

 

[MrT]

The only bias that exists amongst the media as a whole is a bias towards the businesses that own or are affiliated with the owners of the media corporations.

The notion of a Mainstream media or a liberally biased media is largely a fiction designed to sell political points or to boost the market share of the media groups peddling that fiction.

 

[joG]

Personally, I trust no one, especially not the media.

IMO, all news organizations are biased and agenda driven. That some lean Right while others lean Left is a given. That some are pro-gay and others are against it, or that some are pro-gun versus those that are pro-gun control, is to be expected. After all, all humans have a bias. But, there is more. I also see media turning into corporate whores, being driven more and more by the demands of their advertisers. Lately, I've been seeing articles that read like outright press releases for some product or special interest group disguised as news.

Rare is a media company that writes objectively. And, it seems, the country agrees.

Hardly Anyone Trusts The Media Anymore

Yes. It does feel very professional nowadays, doesn't it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Personally, I trust no one, especially not the media.

IMO, all news organizations are biased and agenda driven. That some lean Right while others lean Left is a given. That some are pro-gay and others are against it, or that some are pro-gun versus those that are pro-gun control, is to be expected. After all, all humans have a bias. But, there is more. I also see media turning into corporate whores, being driven more and more by the demands of their advertisers. Lately, I've been seeing articles that read like outright press releases for some product or special interest group disguised as news.

Rare is a media company that writes objectively. And, it seems, the country agrees.

Hardly Anyone Trusts The Media Anymore

Well the final nail in the coffin should of been JournoLists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

The groups existence, whether or not innocent, can be seen as highly unethical.

Regardless of all that, news agencies have been and will continue to be driven by sensationalism and drama.
Reporting "just the news" doesn't draw eyeballs.
Read your news carefully.

 

[eohrnberger]

Personally, I trust no one, especially not the media.

IMO, all news organizations are biased and agenda driven. That some lean Right while others lean Left is a given. That some are pro-gay and others are against it, or that some are pro-gun versus those that are pro-gun control, is to be expected. After all, all humans have a bias. But, there is more. I also see media turning into corporate whores, being driven more and more by the demands of their advertisers. Lately, I've been seeing articles that read like outright press releases for some product or special interest group disguised as news.

Rare is a media company that writes objectively. And, it seems, the country agrees.

Hardly Anyone Trusts The Media Anymore

Hardly a surprise if you ask me, given the consistent left wing bias the mainstream media has had for decades already.

I wonder if this typically goes up during presidential campaign season or not. Anyone know? I'm thinking that it would.

 

[JasperL]

Hardly a surprise if you ask me, given the consistent left wing bias the mainstream media has had for decades already.

I wonder if this typically goes up during presidential campaign season or not. Anyone know? I'm thinking that it would.

The big media companies are "left wing" like the Fortune 500 is "left wing."

 

[eohrnberger]

The big media companies are "left wing" like the Fortune 500 is "left wing."

No, not really.

Study: Just seven percent of journalists now identify as Republicans

Four Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative

 

[JasperL]

No, not really.

Four Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative[/url]

So, you think that, say, ABC delivers an ideological message at odds with the big advertisers and its corporate ownership? I've only rarely seen it, and then dwarfed by the approved message. Heck, it's even worse locally. The biggest business in town is in the midst of a big scandal, and the paper only reports the barest details, just enough to avoid being correctly assumed to be an arm of that business. It's stunning really. And it doesn't matter how "liberal" are the reporters when the editor and the owners kill or don't assign stories that might make the sugar daddy in town pull its business.

As far as I can tell, the media is "liberal" on social issues and toes the Fortune 500 line on economic issues. It's probably why Hillary gets so much media attention relative to Sanders. Sanders is clearly the "liberal" in the race, but his coverage is dwarfed by that of corporate darling Hillary.

 

[eohrnberger]

So, you think that, say, ABC delivers an ideological message at odds with the big advertisers and its corporate ownership? I've only rarely seen it, and then dwarfed by the approved message. Heck, it's even worse locally. The biggest business in town is in the midst of a big scandal, and the paper only reports the barest details, just enough to avoid being correctly assumed to be an arm of that business. It's stunning really. And it doesn't matter how "liberal" are the reporters when the editor and the owners kill or don't assign stories that might make the sugar daddy in town pull its business.

I think you over estimate business' influence on the media. Short of something outrageous or untrue, the business isn't going to jeopardize their marketing.

As far as I can tell, the media is "liberal" on social issues and toes the Fortune 500 line on economic issues. It's probably why Hillary gets so much media attention relative to Sanders. Sanders is clearly the "liberal" in the race, but his coverage is dwarfed by that of corporate darling Hillary.

View attachment 67200335

You may have something there in how the media reports different types of stories, definitely sliding left when it comes to social issues and politics, promoting that ideology, and less so when it comes to reporting business.

All we have to look at is how many times Democratic politicians are caught in the wrong only to be covered on page 12, while any Republican caught in the wrong becomes front page news, to cite one example. Frankly, both should be front page news.

 

[JasperL]

I think you over estimate business' influence on the media. Short of something outrageous or untrue, the business isn't going to jeopardize their marketing.

I agree, but when we visit my mother in law we watch daytime TV, so I know who pays the bills during those hours - mostly drug companies if my limited experience is any guide. There is simply no way in hell that the producer for ABC news is going to assign a story or air a story about, say, price gouging by a big pharma company unless that company was just indicted, then they'd run a story on the facts of the indictment, that's it.

You may have something there in how the media reports different types of stories, definitely sliding left when it comes to social issues and politics, promoting that ideology, and less so when it comes to reporting business.

All I know is pretty much no liberal I know of thinks the MSM promotes a liberal economic message, referring to them as the 'corporate' media, which they ARE. They simply are owned by and supported from the advertising of the Fortune 500 or nearly so.

All we have to look at is how many times Democratic politicians are caught in the wrong only to be covered on page 12, while any Republican caught in the wrong becomes front page news, to cite one example. Frankly, both should be front page news.

That's just entertainment, reality TV.

 

[eohrnberger]

I agree, but when we visit my mother in law we watch daytime TV, so I know who pays the bills during those hours - mostly drug companies if my limited experience is any guide. There is simply no way in hell that the producer for ABC news is going to assign a story or air a story about, say, price gouging by a big pharma company unless that company was just indicted, then they'd run a story on the facts of the indictment, that's it.



All I know is pretty much no liberal I know of thinks the MSM promotes a liberal economic message, referring to them as the 'corporate' media, which they ARE. They simply are owned by and supported from the advertising of the Fortune 500 or nearly so.

Not sure if this holds very much bearing. I don't think that liberals would even notice the MSM's pro-liberal reporting and would probably just accept it as the complete and unvarnished / unbiased truth.

That's just entertainment, reality TV.

If you say so, but I think it rather important to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, and since they are public officials, that accountability should also be public, if you ask me.

 

[JasperL]

Not sure if this holds very much bearing. I don't think that liberals would even notice the MSM's pro-liberal reporting and would probably just accept it as the complete and unvarnished / unbiased truth.

And you'd accept far right wing reporting as the unbiased truth..... And I simply do not believe that profit maximizing corporations will voluntarily offend their biggest customers on the news side of the business, nor do I believe corporate owners would tolerate a message from their news division that undermines overall corporate profitability. I'm not even suggesting that there is a memo from the BOD - do not offend the people who pay your salaries through advertising on our network. It's just common sense to anyone in charge not to to that, and if they do so regularly, their ad rates drop and they get fired, not because they offended Exxon/Pfizer/United Healthcare, etc., but because revenue is down. It's just basic corporate survival skills, and I assume the producer of ABC news has them.

My local newspaper doesn't have a blackout of the Pilot Oil scandal but they report the bare minimum. It's very obvious, and it's because Pilot is the big dog in this town (also, too, the Governor is a (likely) $billionaire member of the family that owns the company).

If you say so, but I think it rather important to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, and since they are public officials, that accountability should also be public, if you ask me.

As do I, but I've just never seen an objective study that shows republicans end up on page one and democrats on page 12 or wherever and even if true don't see how it matters in the big picture.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And you'd accept far right wing reporting as the unbiased truth..... And I simply do not believe that profit maximizing corporations will voluntarily offend their biggest customers on the news side of the business, nor do I believe corporate owners would tolerate a message from their news division that undermines overall corporate profitability. I'm not even suggesting that there is a memo from the BOD - do not offend the people who pay your salaries through advertising on our network. It's just common sense to anyone in charge not to to that, and if they do so regularly, their ad rates drop and they get fired, not because they offended Exxon/Pfizer/United Healthcare, etc., but because revenue is down. It's just basic corporate survival skills, and I assume the producer of ABC news has them.

My local newspaper doesn't have a blackout of the Pilot Oil scandal but they report the bare minimum. It's very obvious, and it's because Pilot is the big dog in this town (also, too, the Governor is a (likely) $billionaire member of the family that owns the company).



As do I, but I've just never seen an objective study that shows republicans end up on page one and democrats on page 12 or wherever and even if true don't see how it matters in the big picture.

Really, because I've seen scandals occur where the Republicans are identified out of the gate and in a similar situation the Democrat's party is never mentioned in the entire story. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[fmw]

I think the media does a good job covering disasters, accidents, events and so forth. As soon as the subject moves to government or politics, you need to hit the ignore button.

 

[clownboy]

MSM news is extremely boring and dry for straightforward reporting and they have competition in the web where the fanciful world of conspiracy theory and drama are front and center. So they gild the lily, add the drama, misinterpret to stir up "excitement". Yellow journalism sells. Pretty blonde talking heads sell. The whiff of debacle, racism, any sort of ism - sells.

In short they long ago sold out the principle of straight reporting.

 

[reinoe]

The only bias that exists amongst the media as a whole is a bias towards the businesses that own or are affiliated with the owners of the media corporations.

The notion of a Mainstream media or a liberally biased media is largely a fiction designed to sell political points or to boost the market share of the media groups peddling that fiction.

We can't trust the media to report the actual news. During the run-up to the war in Iraq they were just White House stenographers.

 

[eohrnberger]

And you'd accept far right wing reporting as the unbiased truth.....

I seriously doubt that. Especially since I'm not far right.

And I simply do not believe that profit maximizing corporations will voluntarily offend their biggest customers on the news side of the business, nor do I believe corporate owners would tolerate a message from their news division that undermines overall corporate profitability. I'm not even suggesting that there is a memo from the BOD - do not offend the people who pay your salaries through advertising on our network. It's just common sense to anyone in charge not to to that, and if they do so regularly, their ad rates drop and they get fired, not because they offended Exxon/Pfizer/United Healthcare, etc., but because revenue is down. It's just basic corporate survival skills, and I assume the producer of ABC news has them.

My local newspaper doesn't have a blackout of the Pilot Oil scandal but they report the bare minimum. It's very obvious, and it's because Pilot is the big dog in this town (also, too, the Governor is a (likely) $billionaire member of the family that owns the company).



As do I, but I've just never seen an objective study that shows republicans end up on page one and democrats on page 12 or wherever and even if true don't see how it matters in the big picture.

Hmm. I recall a study of news coverage in the run up to the 2008 election. Seems the media was in love with Obama, and it was reported that way. I think any of the non-Obama candidates were down like a solid 1/3 in positive coverage, and up 1/3 in negative coverage.

Yeah, like that's not biased at all. :roll:

 

[Thoreau72]

No, not really.



Four Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative

Yes, but as Hillary and Barack and others demonstrate, today's "liberal" is a Wall Street-loving war monger. I guess some call them Neo Liberals.

 

[MrT]

I seriously doubt that. Especially since I'm not far right.



Hmm. I recall a study of news coverage in the run up to the 2008 election. Seems the media was in love with Obama, and it was reported that way. I think any of the non-Obama candidates were down like a solid 1/3 in positive coverage, and up 1/3 in negative coverage.

Yeah, like that's not biased at all. :roll:

And current research shows that Hillary Clinton gets the most negative coverage of any candidate. So yea...there are plenty of explanations for why one particular individual or group gets more positive coverage in a particular time frame (perhaps there is just more good vs bad news to report at that time) without resorting to some industry wide political bias.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, but as Hillary and Barack and others demonstrate, today's "liberal" is a Wall Street-loving war monger. I guess some call them Neo Liberals.

I think it fair to call them Statists as well.

Neo Liberal? I think more a throw back to the classic Progressivism from FDR's era. All theory with little practical experience to back it up.

Just have to look at how well their 'theories' about the Middle East worked out, especially Egypt and Libya, Syria another case of their falling flat on their faces.

 

[JasperL]

I seriously doubt that. Especially since I'm not far right.

Well, I don't think I'm far left, either, but that doesn't prohibit you from making assumptions about how I perceive the news. We are all biased...

Hmm. I recall a study of news coverage in the run up to the 2008 election. Seems the media was in love with Obama, and it was reported that way. I think any of the non-Obama candidates were down like a solid 1/3 in positive coverage, and up 1/3 in negative coverage.

Yeah, like that's not biased at all. :roll:

OK, if you want to believe the BOD of ABC will allow the news broadcast to undermine their profits, that's your prerogative, but I don't believe it, and I'm not sure why anyone would. These are businesses, so the product we have to assume WILL maximize them. That doesn't happen by promoting a government or economic message that doesn't work for the owners. Do you think the board of ABC takes some principled stand on the news and allows producers complete autonomy without regard to profits?

 

[eohrnberger]

Well, I don't think I'm far left, either, but that doesn't prohibit you from making assumptions about how I perceive the news. We are all biased...

True. Confirmation bias is something that everyone probably struggles with, and really should be on the guard against.

OK, if you want to believe the BOD of ABC will allow the news broadcast to undermine their profits, that's your prerogative, but I don't believe it, and I'm not sure why anyone would. These are businesses, so the product we have to assume WILL maximize them. That doesn't happen by promoting a government or economic message that doesn't work for the owners. Do you think the board of ABC takes some principled stand on the news and allows producers complete autonomy without regard to profits?

I think there's a step in there, quite a few I think, between accurate reporting and a business having grounds, and traction, to object to said new reporting, to the point where they'd pull their advertising dollars. A contract is a contract, after all, and I'm sure there are clauses in those contracts that cover this sort of thing.

I don't think it's an immediate black or white decision, by either of the parties. Sure, at the extreme ends of the spectrum (journalistic slander or extreme corporate misconduct extremes I'm talking), it may seem to be that way, but I rather think that the decision making is more in the middle than those extreme ends. I'm pretty sure that it would be a decision made over the course of time, as frustrations with the other party build up.

 

[eohrnberger]

And current research shows that Hillary Clinton gets the most negative coverage of any candidate. So yea...there are plenty of explanations for why one particular individual or group gets more positive coverage in a particular time frame (perhaps there is just more good vs bad news to report at that time) without resorting to some industry wide political bias.

Hmm. Vox reporting on a study conducted by Crimson Hexagon. Who's tag line is:

Social data you can work with.

We help the world’s smartest brands use insights derived from social data to drive strategy across their organizations.

Crimson Hexagon

And who's about page:

700,000,000,000+ posts can answer a lot of questions.

Every minute, we ingest and index a torrent of data points from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Weibo, blogs, forums, and more. You don’t need to buy the data, we already have it. With Crimson, you can access and analyze any of it at any time.

Platform | Crimson Hexagon

Funny. I thought we were talking about the Main Stream Media, and not social media.

 

[JasperL]

I think there's a step in there, quite a few I think, between accurate reporting and a business having grounds, and traction, to object to said new reporting, to the point where they'd pull their advertising dollars. A contract is a contract, after all, and I'm sure there are clauses in those contracts that cover this sort of thing.

I don't think it's an immediate black or white decision, by either of the parties. Sure, at the extreme ends of the spectrum (journalistic slander or extreme corporate misconduct extremes I'm talking), it may seem to be that way, but I rather think that the decision making is more in the middle than those extreme ends. I'm pretty sure that it would be a decision made over the course of time, as frustrations with the other party build up.

Like I said, I don't believe the bias is explicit or overt. But if you're a producer for ABC news, in the worldwide behemoth that is Walt Disney, and nearly all you ad dollars come from Fortune 500 companies, it doesn't take a genius to realize who's interests you damn well better serve every night, and it's 1) your behemoth worldwide owner, and 2) your behemoth worldwide advertisers and any sane executive with the survival skills of a rabbit knows not to offend either of those two unless absolutely required by the events of the day.

Heck, if you're an anchor (who's getting paid $millions to read news other people write for you), what kind of idiot doesn't realize that he/she can do a lot of things, but he/she damn well better not take positions on air that run counter to the interests of that guy signing his mid 6 figure check every month?

 

[eohrnberger]

Like I said, I don't believe the bias is explicit or overt. But if you're a producer for ABC news, in the worldwide behemoth that is Walt Disney, and nearly all you ad dollars come from Fortune 500 companies, it doesn't take a genius to realize who's interests you damn well better serve every night, and it's 1) your behemoth worldwide owner, and 2) your behemoth worldwide advertisers and any sane executive with the survival skills of a rabbit knows not to offend either of those two unless absolutely required by the events of the day.

Heck, if you're an anchor (who's getting paid $millions to read news other people write for you), what kind of idiot doesn't realize that he/she can do a lot of things, but he/she damn well better not take positions on air that run counter to the interests of that guy signing his mid 6 figure check every month?

It is my impression that that you are doing a few things here:

1. Letting journalists, editors and producers off Scot free, without any sort of professional stake or control or responsibility for their own endeavors. I don't believe this to be true. What of all the claims of 'journalistic integrity', and the special status of 'Freedom of the Press'? These are mere illusions? No, there's something more here. Some local and personal control.
2. Over emphasizing the corporate control (over control) in what still has a modicum of digression at the local level and personal level.
3. Over emphasizing the corporate greed and drive for mere profits. While yes, some corporations behave that way, most do not, and in the news / entertainment fields I would believe this to be particularly so. Even more so for the programming that is more artistic and which is acting / interpretation.

You make the example of a news anchor. To be true, they are probably one of the least free on the small screen, especially so for a hard news program, and more so at the direction of the news copy writer / producer, rather than their own. However, I'm sure that even news anchors have some discretion at which news stories and how they are covered. Think of news special reports broadcast at other than the normal programming times.

It is in these spaces where one can see the various MSM biases, tendencies, and confirmation bias are found.

No, I think the landscape a bit more varied than what you are portraying.