Harris released one of their latest polls on the 6th and it showed that less than half the general American public trusts the press. With the state of the media today, this should come as no surprise to anyone. But, the numbers are pretty amazing when it is realized that 54% of those responding said they did not trust the press while 46% admitted that they don't trust television news either. The Internet fared better with 41% saying that they trust what they see there with only 34% saying they do not trust the web for their news.
But, the really interesting news with this poll is the wide disparity between Democrats and Republicans where it concerns their trust in the media. It seems that Democrats are far more trusting in the media in nearly every category than are Republicans. (Independents trusted the media even less, incidentally.)
According to Harris, the press is trusted by 43% of the Democrats polled but only by an anemic 19% of the Republicans contacted. Radio is trusted by 51% of Dems, and 45% of Repubs while TV is trusted by 50% of the Dems and only 31% of the GOPers. The Internet saw the two sides closer together with 45% of the Dems trusting what they find there and with 40% of the Republicans who also did.
Now, this should also come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the left slanted nature of the "news" that comes out of most of the media. With TV and the press firmly in the left's corner, it is not a shock to see few Republicans trusting what they see and hear from those sources. In fact, this poll pretty much serves as more proof of how far left most of the media is.
The poll also showed that the Internet is not yet a dominant news source for the general populace.
While the media has spent a great deal of effort enhancing their various websites, these are not where people are turning. One-third (32%) of Americans say they never go to the websites for national newspapers for political news while three in ten (30%) say they never go to the websites for the cable news stations when looking for political news. Looking at some other media, just over one-quarter (28%) say they turn to national newspapers such as The New York Times or USA Today for political news all the time or occasionally while the same number say they turn to weekly news magazines such as Newsweek or Time.
But, as the next part of the report goes on to say, the older generation sticks pretty exclusively to local TV news for most of their information. Once the Internet generation begins to get older, replacing this stubborn TV generation, who can doubt that the Internet will grow in importance for sources of news?
The final word of this survey is that the media isn't trusted by either side of the political divide, but that the left does trust their compatriots in the media a bit more than the rest of us do.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And in other breaking news:
March 10, 2008 - 10:46 ET by motherbeltAnd in other breaking news: Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view the MSM as fair and unbiased.
More Breaking News
March 10, 2008 - 12:14 ET by kgMore Breaking News: After Google search Republicans More Corrupt Than Democrats
News Flash: More Democrats Believe Fox News Biased
This just in: Democrats More Likely to Hate Bush Than Republicans
Special Report: Democrats More Intellegent Than Republicans
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Question Authority!
March 10, 2008 - 14:04 ET by dcbatlleQuestion Authority? Yeah, Right!
"Democrats Trust Press More
March 10, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Chris Norman"Democrats Trust Press More than Republicans Do" Well, of course they do. The press is a wholly-owned subdivision of the Democratic Party. They've really never given the Democrats any reason not to trust them. The MSM reinforces the Democrats' world view on a daily basis.
I'm astounded...
March 10, 2008 - 10:58 ET by ThalpyI'm astounded. Will wonders ever cease?
"Because the sample is
March 10, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Because the sample
is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no
estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated." from the poll.
This is hardly a 'random sample' of the population. And wouldn't pass basic requirements for a serious study
Also note that there is only a 5 pt difference between r or d on internet sites, including those specifically for political news at 40 and 45% trust.
Random samples are
March 10, 2008 - 11:32 ET by danboRandom samples are determined by how you decide who to sample. Not by who agrees to participate.
Who agrees to participate can effect the outcome. If most of the people who decline to participate are republicans or independents it's likely there is even less trust.
If the people who decline are mainly democrats there would be more trust.
However, it's likely that people who don't trust polls and say know; are the same people who distrust and turn off the MSM.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The View debates this issue
March 10, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Mica the MagnificentHow would "The View" handle this debate?
Joy: I'm sure our audience trusts the networks for their news, right?
Audience: (Cheers, applauds, nodding their heads in agreement)
Joy: Sure. How else would we know about things like Halliburton?
Audience: (Cheers, applauds, nodding their heads in agreement)
Elizabeth: (Grabs microphone, walks into the audience) You! You seem to agree. What did the networks teach you about Halliburton?
Audience member: Ummm, ahh. Bush-Cheney?
Audience: (Cheers, applauds, nodding their heads in agreement)
Elizabeth: I don't believe you people! You are like trained dogs, responding to the command to 'speak' or 'roll over!' None of you have a clue to what you are agreeing too!!!
Audience: (crickets)
Joy: (Jumps up, grabs microphone and yells) HALLIBURTON!
Audience: (Cheers, applauds, nodding their heads in agreement)
Whoopi: Well I guess you made a fool of yourself with your nasty conservative views, eh Elizabeth?
Audience: (Silent. Frozen at the potential confrontation)
Barbara: CHANGE!
Audience: (Cheers, applauds, nodding their heads in agreement.
ROFLMAO
March 10, 2008 - 14:55 ET by kg"Forget change, I want improvement!"
I'm amazed that only 43%
March 10, 2008 - 12:39 ET by mattmI'm amazed that only 43% of Democrats trust the press. My guess is that if FOX, Rush and the Conservative 'Webosphere' were all banned, that percentage would go way up.
Thanks for this first laugh of the week!
Democrats/news worship
March 10, 2008 - 11:37 ET by American TaxpayerThis should be of no surprise at all the MSM presents a liberal left wing veiw that Democrats despritly want to believe. Al Gore is a perfect example of how Democrats worship left wing liberal news.
Did you look at the sample
March 10, 2008 - 11:38 ET by danboDid you look at the sample demographics? A lot of times there is a fairly large difference in the number of democRATS vrs republicans and independents. If this is the case the distrust is likely greater.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
So contrary to popular
March 10, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Jack BauerSo contrary to popular belief it's liberals and other assorted leftists who trust the establishment, authority... and THE MAN.
You gotta laugh.
If the supporters of Hillary
March 10, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Chris NormanIf the supporters of Hillary see the media has tilted towards Obama and is pushing his candidacy, you'd think that they could also accept the possibility that the media is biased in other ways - but, noooo!
I can only imagine the results...
March 10, 2008 - 12:37 ET by sarcasmoIf they'd gone further than a simple "Republican or Democrat" and parsed out libertarians/greens/etc...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I agree. How dare we leave
March 10, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. How dare we leave out the 200,000 registered Libertarians from the equation. After all, that .06% of the population DEMAND their voices be heard! The Green Party and Constitution Party both have more registered voters than Sarky's crew (oh, wait, I thought Sarky was a Republican? whoops! my bad), so that would actually rank the Libertarians FIFTH on the food chain?
Perhaps, instead of the constant complaining about how everybody ignores Libertarians, Libertarians like Sarky should by trying trying to advance the party's cause, not annoy everybody with the constant belly-aching and "poor poor me!" immature complaining. Nobody likes a crybaby loser, Sarky.
All kinds of dumb assumptions here, Whiner.
March 10, 2008 - 13:28 ET by sarcasmoBut even Warner admitted to the media's antilibertarian bias today, so maybe you should whine at him, instead?? Whiner = Loser. Ignoring the libertarian vote has worked so well for Republicans like Bush...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Awww, someone needs their binky again...
March 10, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, Hell, if Warner said that, than it MUST be true. Forgive me if I am not in lock-step with the entire cadre of of NB writers. In fact, your entire post ignored the obvious: your party is a MINOR party. It is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme. Change that, then you would have the right to complain when you are ignored. Until then, suck it up, buttercup.
BTW, I fail to see how the Libertarian party "failed" Bush. he WON the election, Genius. Your Cato Institue report only shows how insecure Liberterians like you really are. Your party was so inconesquential, he won even WITHOUT YOU. Sucks, doesn't it?
The only person whining on this thread is YOU, Sarky. Boo-hoo, nobody pays attention to the .06% of the population. Boo-hoo for you. Everybody give Sarky a hug. He really needs one these days.
True, it is getting "INSIGNIFICANT"
March 10, 2008 - 13:47 ET by sarcasmoBut like it or not, Whiner, it still starts with an "R." And I'm not in lockstep with large-L Libertarians, no matter how many times you whine it.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Whiner = putting Sarky in his place
March 10, 2008 - 14:06 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhat starts with an "R"? Loser stars with an "L". I have never claimed you are in "lockstep" with the Libertarian Party, but you carry their water on this website big-time, that's for sure.
And I thought you were a Libertarian and changed parties when Ron Paul declared? You have been a card-carrying Repubilcan all along? I would bet that your registration card has a "2007" on it.
BTW, there are still two issues you have never cleared up:
1. What is Ron Paul going to with all that leftover millions of dollars from his campaign?
2. Have you stopped touching boys yet?
Uncalled for...
March 10, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Warner Todd HustonRoger that was uncalled for.
But that's how he "wins"!
March 10, 2008 - 14:23 ET by sarcasmoOtherwise these "debates" would be boring, right? We all know the main problem with the Republican party is all those goddam crossover libertarians trying to achieve actually-smaller government and making fun of the Ted Stevens types, no??
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Huh? Your response made less
March 10, 2008 - 14:44 ET by Roger the ShrubberHuh?
Your response made less sense than usual.
But thanks for answering NOTHING pertaining to my last comment.
oops rog, you should just
March 10, 2008 - 14:24 ET by TruthMongeroops rog, you should just stick with "douchebag" i guess:)
I am sorry you feel this
March 10, 2008 - 14:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am sorry you feel this way, Warner. Allow me to explain. When Sarcasmo comes accusing me of saying something on Newsbusters that I DIDN'T say, then refuses to offer proof of said offense (I believe the actual quote was "I don't need to look it up for you"), I have been equating this to the same as accusing someone of being a pedophile (without any proof) then forcing the defender to PROVE himself innocent.
That argument...
March 10, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Warner Todd HustonThat argument has nothing whatever to do with Sarc's sexual proclivities. Unless I am mistaken, he didn't bring your sexual activities into question did he? Sticking to the subject is fine, even using a silly example to illustrate the issue is fine, but to start questioning sexual morality is a step that does not strengthen your argument nor do anything but muddy the waters.
I guess it is okay to allow
March 10, 2008 - 15:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberI guess it is okay to allow unfounded accusations to fly around, but exposing those unfounded accusations is foul play.
Buy, hey, it's your thread.
You DO like...
March 10, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Warner Todd Huston... being an extremist, don't you? I never said that "unfounded accusations" are OK. I ONLY said attacking someone's sexuality is neither germane nor helpful.
Sometimes I am, I admit. But
March 10, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Roger the ShrubberSometimes I am, I admit. But can you honestly be suprised if an long-standing issue of past lies ends up getting brought into a thread? Until the accuser can prove his accusation as fact, I should not be silenced. In fact, you should be supporting me.
I am disappointed.
Again...
March 10, 2008 - 15:46 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou ASSume too much. I am "supporting" neither of you in this fight. I have one point and one point ONLY. And that point is that there is no need to start attacking each other's sexual proclivities.
If Sarc made accusations of you that aren't true he should be condemned for it. But his false accusations on substantive issues is no excuse for you to start calling him a gay, child rapist!
Your attempts to start calling him a child molester only diminishes your expectation to be taken seriously. And makes of you a "just as bad" sort of player.
Try less coffee.
So, your solution to this
March 10, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, your solution to this dilemma is calling me an a$$? A VERY professional solution, indeed.
Solution?
March 10, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Warner Todd HustonI called you and a$$ because you are acting like one. There is no "solution" intended. But, since you love to put words in everyone else's mouth, I am beginning to see why Sarc was going after you.
But, here is a little help for you. Go here and learn a little something.
Thanks for playing, but you aren't getting a home version of our game.
While we are educating each
March 10, 2008 - 18:45 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhile we are educating each other, here's a definition for you.
Learn it. Know it. Live it.
LOL
March 10, 2008 - 18:53 ET by Warner Todd HustonI do hope you don't really believe I'll click on that link!? I don't need any malware installed on my computer.
All you had to do is hover
March 10, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberAll you had to do is hover over the hyperlink, and you can see the pathname.
You may think I am an a$$, but this a$$ is apparently smarter than you. Here endeth the lesson.
I am...
March 10, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Warner Todd Huston... glad that YOU have such a high opinion of yourself. I mean, SOMEONE has to love you even If you are the only one that can!
Bye, bye little fella.
Have Democrats claimed a mandate yet?
March 10, 2008 - 13:07 ET by YahooWatcherIf not, I'm surprised. At 40% or so, their trust in the media mirrors the percentages Clinton got in '92 and '96.
Dumbocrats like TV news....
March 10, 2008 - 13:53 ET by ExtirpaterThey are so busy, they don't have time for unecessary things; like reading, thinking, or discussing any ideas that vary from group lock step.
Just to refresh your memory, the most corrupt administration in American history was that headed by Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
"W" will not rise to their level, nearly but not quite.
"W" will not rise to their
March 10, 2008 - 14:29 ET by Indiana Joe"W" will not rise to their level, nearly but not quite."
Really? Corruption? I can see a case for "incompetence," but I've only heard wild charges about actual corruption. Examples?