Media trust continues to spiral down to 32%

[Tyrianth]

hahahahahahhahahahahahaha

no

hahahahahahhahahahahahaha

yes

- - - Updated - - -

"Someone left wing" has already pretty much shown that it probably isn't a great news source. News shouldn't be one wing or another ... by definition, news CAN'T be one wing or another...

By definition no news source can be 100% unbiased. Humans are biased, and humans write the news.

[jdbond592]

It is not the media, it is not the congress. It is you. You are just too brain washed to watch or hear or vote for something that your brain washed opinion doesn't agree with. All your "opinions' are right. All your votes are perfect. You know everything.

So obviously you blame everyone else for not being perfect like you. Media, like politicians, merely cater to morons like you. So everything you don't hold dear to is incorrect!

[Deleted]

Funny how people in this thread will say they don't trust media, yet if if they write something about Russia, people here will swallow it without a second thought.

[hrugner]

It is not the media, it is not the congress. It is you. You are just too brain washed to watch or hear or vote for something that your brain washed opinion doesn't agree with. All your "opinions' are right. All your votes are perfect. You know everything.

So obviously you blame everyone else for not being perfect like you. Media, like politicians, merely cater to morons like you. So everything you don't hold dear to is incorrect!

Right, so 2/3rds of the country up and went crazy and the news media has no control over whether or not people take it seriously. The deadfall in reporting quality since news made the leap to the 24 hour news cycle is well understood, as is the loss in media trust stemming from poor fact checking in instant reporting and poorly disclosed native advertising. The more recent change to selling narrative rather than producing information is just another shovel full over the coffin.

[sethman75]

Wow, who are the 32%?

They must have lived under a rock to have any trust in the media.

If you want to see who runs each media outlet, find out who finances them.

[Garnier Fructis]

I just want to comment that the people saying they read all sources and make up their mind are generally making two logical errors. The first is in assuming that all news sources are valid, and the second is in assuming that the truth lies nears the middle.

[infinitemeridian]

That's because people call anything they disagree with as untrustworthy. Get over it.

[Paperfox]

It's been a long time since I've trusted the media. There are lots of important stories that get missed by the media.

Those numbers are quite good for the media, I would have thought it was lower.

[Jibjub]

hahahahahahhahahahahahaha

yes

- - - Updated - - -



By definition no news source can be 100% unbiased. Humans are biased, and humans write the news.

I disagree.

Watch.

A tornado touched down in Indiana. Reports say 2 are dead, at least 16 are injured and 3 people are missing. We will update you as we learn more.

That is news, written by a human, and it's unbiased.

I think it's a sad day when we think news can't be unbiased.


You are mistaking opinion and entertainment with news.

[Tyrianth]

I disagree.

Watch.

A tornado touched down in Indiana. Reports say 2 are dead, at least 16 are injured and 3 people are missing. We will update you as we learn more.

That is news, written by a human, and it's unbiased.

I think it's a sad day when we think news can't be unbiased.


You are mistaking opinion and entertainment with news.

I didn't say a new ARTICLE can't be unbiased. I said a news SOURCE can't be unbiased. And just because a source has a bias doesn't mean it can't have a few unbiased articles.

Four newsworthy events happen:

1. Liberals did something good
2. Liberals did something bad
3. Conservatives did something good
4. Conservatives did something bad

Liberal bias media writes unbiased article on:

1 and 4.

Conservative bias media writes an unbiased article on:

2 and 3.

So I repeat, no news source can be 100% unbiased. And you can't discredit a news source just because it has a slight bias, otherwise there would be no credible news sources.

[jdbond592]

That's because people call anything they disagree with as untrustworthy. Get over it.

Precisely that. Majority believes it is just too smart and knowledgeable. So it only watches bullsh.t that supports their worldview. This has led to creation of biased untrustworthy media. Wanna bet majority trusts whatever crap they watch? It is the other media they have problem with.

[hrugner]

I didn't say a new ARTICLE can't be unbiased. I said a news SOURCE can't be unbiased. And just because a source has a bias doesn't mean it can't have a few unbiased articles.

Four newsworthy events happen:

1. Liberals did something good
2. Liberals did something bad
3. Conservatives did something good
4. Conservatives did something bad

Liberal bias media writes unbiased article on:

1 and 4.

Conservative bias media writes an unbiased article on:

2 and 3.

So I repeat, no news source can be 100% unbiased. And you can't discredit a news source just because it has a slight bias, otherwise there would be no credible news sources.

This problem only occurs when you assume that a person's political bias is part of what makes something newsworthy. Generally speaking, in politics, if something good or bad happens, you can't blame one person or group. We have a weird news media habit of blaming a government authority figure for the economy, crime rates, and public health, while he's in office but there isn't much evidence to show that to be valid.

Scratching the surface on all these things shows a public complicity in that failure that goes beyond government. When all news sites avoid making that connection, you know they are just telling people what they want to hear.

News is what happened. Blame is a schoolyard concept that has little place in the world of solving problems. So when you have "liberals did something good", your article should be "this happened, this is the impact of this happening, and this is how it came about". No need to attribute good or bad, or attempt to isolate the cause to one individual or occurance.

[Damajin]

As long as advertisements are involved in the selling of news, one can never fully trust those who sell news.

Yep, anyone with a marketing, upper level sales or advertising background would have firsthand knowledge of exactly how newsmedia packages, spins and highlights certain facets while obscuring others to push an agenda, no different than the pushing of products. People think that the only commercials they're seeing during a newscast are the ones inbetween the story segments but in reality the majority of those segments are commercials themselves, written and filmed and delivered in such a way to shape perspective and create the urge for an idea(s).

[Tyrianth]

This problem only occurs when you assume that a person's political bias is part of what makes something newsworthy. Generally speaking, in politics, if something good or bad happens, you can't blame one person or group. We have a weird news media habit of blaming a government authority figure for the economy, crime rates, and public health, while he's in office but there isn't much evidence to show that to be valid.

Scratching the surface on all these things shows a public complicity in that failure that goes beyond government. When all news sites avoid making that connection, you know they are just telling people what they want to hear.

News is what happened. Blame is a schoolyard concept that has little place in the world of solving problems. So when you have "liberals did something good", your article should be "this happened, this is the impact of this happening, and this is how it came about". No need to attribute good or bad, or attempt to isolate the cause to one individual or occurance.

You're right, but again you're arguing about a news article being unbiased. Not about the source, the people who get to pick and choose which articles they right. It doesn't have to be left or right wing. A news source with a religious bias can write as many unbiased articles as they want, but if they choose to ignore the events that go against their world views its still a biased source. News outlets don't have unlimited resources to write every newsworthy thing that happens, so they have to pick and choose which ones they do write about.

[hrugner]

You're right, but again you're arguing about a news article being unbiased. Not about the source, the people who get to pick and choose which articles they right. It doesn't have to be left or right wing. A news source with a religious bias can write as many unbiased articles as they want, but if they choose to ignore the events that go against their world views its still a biased source. News outlets don't have unlimited resources to write every newsworthy thing that happens, so they have to pick and choose which ones they do write about.

I agree, and it's hard to know how much of a problem subconscious selection of relevant news really is. While we have concrete examples of deliberate selection bias from the old journolist and the more recent game-journals-pro debacles, I don't see enough evidence to think it's wide spread.

[kail]

Could be that people don't like articles or pieces that prove their stances wrong. A common mistake many fall for is using opinion pieces to back up a claim.

[Daethz]

/lost hope in 32% of people.
ANYONE trusts the media?
If your actually informed, and you watch the news on something you already know about, you can see the obvious extreme bias they are spewing, especially MSNBC in my experience, they go the extra fifty miles to take any negative focus off Hillary and throw it at trump, they spent the entire day the other day talking about trumps health, not even two days after Hillary publicly collapsed, yet trump has never so much as coughed or used a Kleenex on stage.

[Asiwassaying]

Good. People are starting to get it.

It gets so tiring when people here act like Fix is the only "news" source that is crap in America. Independent journalists are usually more objective and cover more than just what pushes an agenda.

For the life of me, I'm sick of hearing about Trump. Like; I get it. The news media doesn't want him to be president. Now can we please stop wasting time on his tweets. No one cares anymore. Do your damn job.

[Hooked]

Breitbart is my goto source for news. Raw and uncut. The Drudge report is probably the best news site link on the web though.

[Mifuyne]

I pretty much believe the news thats shown on Dutch television.
Same goes to news from a few countries near the Netherlands.
Any other news/posts/whatever I take with a grain of salt.