If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Headline: Fox News credibility hits 'record low'. Article: Fox News still more credible than MSNBC, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and even Comedy Central   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 143
    More: Obvious, Fox News, PPP, distrust, NBC News, credibility, MSNBC  
•       •       •

7531 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2013 at 12:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 12:28:44 PM  
Meanwhile Comedy Central has the best informed viewers of any "news" outlet in the US.
 
2013-02-07 12:28:57 PM  

sigdiamond2000: What exactly is there to "distrust" about PBS?

Don't believe Norm Abram's beard is real?


I have it on good authority that Sesame Street pushes sharing, kindness, and peace.  That's liberal talk.

Bert doesn't defend his property from Ernie with a gun, so he's a liberal (plus they are gay).

Cookie monster cut back on cookies iirc.  Only that fat biatch michelle obama and her libs would recommend healthy eating.

Oh, and as my moronic coworkers who listen to all right-wing radio folks tell me "npr is boring, I don't see how you can call this news"  Granted that last one applies to liberals who deliberately choose 24 hour news channels as their source of information too I suppose.
 
2013-02-07 12:29:47 PM  
Comedy Central never was credible.  Comedy Central never tried to be credible.  Credible is not what they do.  The reason why we mention Comedy Central in arguments about journalistic integrity is that the media companies that take themselves seriously have dropped to a level where they're worse than Comedy Central.  It's not praise of Comedy Central; it's a symptom of a very bad social disease.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment for the scope of this problem is if a major auto manufacturer failed to meet a toy company's reliability standard.  That kind of rate of failure would put it out of business within a year.  In media, the same lack of quality control is the recipe for financial success.
 
2013-02-07 12:30:39 PM  
If only  we could only get libfarts to understand that the Colbert Report and Daily Show aren't actually news shows.
 
2013-02-07 12:31:37 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Comedy Central on that poll?

Really?

Stewart and Colbert don't present news. They comment on things that are in the news, usually making fun of the media sources that present it.

It's meta-news.


For some people that's their only source of news.
 
2013-02-07 12:32:55 PM  
FOX: Right-wing propaganda; evil
MSNBC: Left-wing propaganda; money-grabbers following FOX
CNN: no actual news, just fluff pieces
ABC/CBS/NBC: what is this? for people who don't have internet or cable I guess
PBS: for people who don't have internet, cable, or a major network
 
2013-02-07 12:33:20 PM  

Danger Mouse: If only  we could only get libfarts to understand that the Colbert Report and Daily Show aren't actually news shows.


You forgot FARK on that list.
 
2013-02-07 12:33:27 PM  
Fox News still more credible than MSNBC, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and even Comedy Central

Imagine you came out of a 15 year coma, and read that sentence.
 
2013-02-07 12:34:20 PM  
I've found that I'm a happier person since I decided to avoid checking the news every day. I get some news here at FARK, and occasionally I'll look at the headline feed on my tablet or phone, but most of the time I have no idea what's happening in politics or in the middle east on a day-by-day basis, and my life is better for it.

Call it willful ignorance if you want, but back when I watched the news every day and stayed on top of every political story, I was frequently pissed off and ultimately unable to do anything to change the status quo. I protested, I rallied, I voted, I supported causes, I banned, I boycotted, I donated, I cheered, and in the end nothing is any better or any worse. It's all the same as it ever was, with the corporations firmly in control of everything, and all the nice family-owned businesses turning to shiat the moment they become publicly traded corporations. Doctors don't get into medicine to help people anymore. Politicians don't get into government to improve their world or nation. Everybody at the top is just hoarding as much money, power, and material possessions as they can while stepping on everyone else to do so, and no amount of news-watching, protesting, voting, rallying, boycotting, petitioning, or cheering will make any sort of significant change.

I've come to accept that I'm basically powerless to change the way the world works, and that the best I can do is to worry about  my world,  my stuff,  myfriends,  my family, and  myfinances. Not in the greedy "no, you can't have any of what I have" way, but in the "take care of your own and trust that others will do the same" way. Basically, not like a Libertarian, but like a completely apolitical citizen who just wants to get through the rest of this time on Earth without stressing out over every little stupid thing on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or the other corporation-controlled media outlets.

I'm not playing their game anymore. I didn't vote, and I won't register to vote again. I voted in every election since 1989, including the little stupid ones like school board or comptroller. I did my best to contribute to the system and do my duty as an American, and you know what? It didn't mean shiat.

What's important is paying attention to your loved ones, caring for your wife, spending time with your kids, and enjoying the short life you have in that meatbag you call a body. In the end, when you're on your deathbed, it won't matter to you if Obama held his hand to his heart when he sang the National Anthem, or if Rush Limbaugh took hillbilly heroin, or if George W. Bush couldn't speak without sounding like a stupid jerk. It won't matter!

News is 90% stress-causing, sensationalist bullshiat designed to rile you up and keep you buzzing like the little busy bee they want you to be. Walk away now, before you become like those insane, rambling jerks at the politically-obsessed websites. In the end, Fox News has as much actual effect on your life as the latest episode of Pawn Stars or Two and a Half Men. It's just not worth getting stressed out over it.

Find your zen thing, whatever it may be, and stop letting the worthless information rule your world.
 
2013-02-07 12:34:46 PM  
This isn't surprising.  People who trust Fox News are told not to trust the other networks by Fox News.  At that point, who are going to trust except Fox News?  It's insidious brain-washing.
 
2013-02-07 12:34:59 PM  

EZ1923: Ahem.


So you are saying the war wasn't over in 2003?  And therefore, in 2013, one shouldn't rely on an inaccurate graph from 2003.  Thanks for helping me prove my point.

/i don't think they found traces of WMD in IED's until after 2003.
 
2013-02-07 12:35:11 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's getting to the point that no one trust anyone and we're all buying bunkers.


No it isn't. You are deranged. About others derangment.

Frothception.
 
2013-02-07 12:35:44 PM  

Danger Mouse: If only  we could only get libfarts to understand that the Colbert Report and Daily Show aren't actually news shows.


The "Real news. Real funny" line has already been taken.
 
2013-02-07 12:35:49 PM  

dragonchild: Comedy Central never was credible.  Comedy Central never tried to be credible.  Credible is not what they do.  The reason why we mention Comedy Central in arguments about journalistic integrity is that the media companies that take themselves seriously have dropped to a level where they're worse than Comedy Central.  It's not praise of Comedy Central; it's a symptom of a very bad social disease.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment for the scope of this problem is if a major auto manufacturer failed to meet a toy company's reliability standard.  That kind of rate of failure would put it out of business within a year.  In media, the same lack of quality control is the recipe for financial success.


This... is why you are favorited.
 
2013-02-07 12:38:20 PM  

halfof33: EZ1923: Ahem.

So you are saying the war wasn't over in 2003?  And therefore, in 2013, one shouldn't rely on an inaccurate graph from 2003.  Thanks for helping me prove my point.

/i don't think they found traces of WMD in IED's until after 2003.


img522.imageshack.us
[citation needed]
 
2013-02-07 12:39:03 PM  
Personally I think the right has done a much better job of funneling their constituency down to a very small window of what they deem worthy news sources. Basically 1 cable news network, and small handful of talk-radio pundits.

The right makes up roughly half of our political spectrum, but they all watch basically the same thing (FOX news) which is why you see FOX's rating so high. The left on the other hand is spread across just about every other news source available, including FOX. The rating for FOX have never been any big surprise, and it certainly shouldn't be interpretred as a station that is trusted more, but rather the Right has become so single/simple minded in their thinking due to their Conservative masters doing a much better job then the left of controlling what they ingest on a daily basis for news and information.

The right in this country are incredibly easy to manipulate due to this, it's also the reason we see the conservative party in such a state of zero information and knee jerk reaction-ism.
 
2013-02-07 12:39:33 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Did you know that Fox News is the ONLY news outlet not directly controlled by George Soros? Yep. Soros owns all other broadcast networks -- domestic and foreign -- all major newspapers, and most internet sites. Apparently he is secretly a multi-trillionaire with such massive influence even state-owned operations such as the BBC cannot escape his iron grip of liberal socialism and the lone voice of Freedom holding back the barbarian hordes is Fox News.

If you don't know these "facts" then you must not be friends with my aunt on Facebook.


I heard Beyonce did the Illumaniti symbol to indicate to George Soros that his plan to ruin the Superbowl with a blackout was on task,
 
2013-02-07 12:42:49 PM  
ZeroCorpse:

I disagree a little with you. I totally agree with news viewership. I think that the overload of information and the ability to cherry pick the version of the news we like is a major problem in American politics. However, I don't think that not participating in the process is a solution.
 
2013-02-07 12:43:57 PM  

And there is this research:

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:


The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

When your viewers are worse than people who don't follow news....there might be a problem (although it doesn't say if they used print media for news)
 
2013-02-07 12:44:17 PM  
Since most people are goddam retards and couldn't define the word "credible," this news doesn't really make me feel better.

FTFA: "researchers also found that Fox News is both the least trusted and most trusted network when compared to the other networks in the survey."

LOL.
 
2013-02-07 12:44:56 PM  

Publikwerks: However, I don't think that not participating in the process is a solution.


You're assuming there is a solution.
 
2013-02-07 12:45:34 PM  
How many believe Huffpo?
 
2013-02-07 12:46:24 PM  
 
2013-02-07 12:48:20 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I've found that I'm a happier person since I decided to avoid checking the news every day. I get some news here at FARK, and occasionally I'll look at the headline feed on my tablet or phone, but most of the time I have no idea what's happening in politics or in the middle east on a day-by-day basis, and my life is better for it.

Call it willful ignorance if you want, but back when I watched the news every day and stayed on top of every political story, I was frequently pissed off and ultimately unable to do anything to change the status quo. I protested, I rallied, I voted, I supported causes, I banned, I boycotted, I donated, I cheered, and in the end nothing is any better or any worse. It's all the same as it ever was, with the corporations firmly in control of everything, and all the nice family-owned businesses turning to shiat the moment they become publicly traded corporations. Doctors don't get into medicine to help people anymore. Politicians don't get into government to improve their world or nation. Everybody at the top is just hoarding as much money, power, and material possessions as they can while stepping on everyone else to do so, and no amount of news-watching, protesting, voting, rallying, boycotting, petitioning, or cheering will make any sort of significant change.

I've come to accept that I'm basically powerless to change the way the world works, and that the best I can do is to worry about  my world,  my stuff,  myfriends,  my family, and  myfinances. Not in the greedy "no, you can't have any of what I have" way, but in the "take care of your own and trust that others will do the same" way. Basically, not like a Libertarian, but like a completely apolitical citizen who just wants to get through the rest of this time on Earth without stressing out over every little stupid thing on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or the other corporation-controlled media outlets.

I'm not playing their game anymore. I didn't vote, and I won't register to vote again. I vo ...


This might be the best post in the history of the internet!  Nailed it.
 
2013-02-07 12:51:45 PM  

OhioUGrad: And there is this research:

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:


The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
When your viewers are worse than people who don't follow news....there might be a problem (although it doesn't say if they used print media for news)


If that were a prospective study on a medical intervention, the investigators would have to seriously consider discontinuing the Fox News "treatment group" as they were experiencing demonstrably worse outcomes than the control group.

I know it was retrospective and these inferences can't be made. Still fun to consider.
 
2013-02-07 12:53:18 PM  
I watch the local shiat to find out what the traffic is like and what the weather is gonna be. That's about it. I keep it on and may occasionally pay attention to whatever bits the locals deign to cover (sports crap, the wrong-way accident that killed a guy on I-30 last weekend, the feisty gramma who scared off a burglar, shiat like that).

The "news" people only show you what they think you wanna watch. And now many of them are reading goddam Facebook and Twitter crap on-air, like I give a fark what Toocool69 thinks about the story I saw on TV 5 minutes ago.

I have a degree in journalism. I'm glad I didn't waste it actually working in journalism. I'd feel pretty stupid right now if I had.
 
2013-02-07 01:02:50 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I watch the local shiat to find out what the traffic is like and what the weather is gonna be. That's about it. I keep it on and may occasionally pay attention to whatever bits the locals deign to cover (sports crap, the wrong-way accident that killed a guy on I-30 last weekend, the feisty gramma who scared off a burglar, shiat like that).

The "news" people only show you what they think you wanna watch. And now many of them are reading goddam Facebook and Twitter crap on-air, like I give a fark what Toocool69 thinks about the story I saw on TV 5 minutes ago.

I have a degree in journalism. I'm glad I didn't waste it actually working in journalism. I'd feel pretty stupid right now if I had.


Get a gimmick. Polarize the sides of any given story. Get viewers/listeners. Profit.
 
2013-02-07 01:03:10 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Comedy Central on that poll?

Really?

Stewart and Colbert don't present news. They comment on things that are in the news, usually making fun of the media sources that present it.

It's meta-news.


...and that differs from most other "media sources" only in that they have a studio audience.
 
2013-02-07 01:04:53 PM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-02-07 01:11:17 PM  

Dog Welder: This isn't surprising.  People who trust Fox News are told not to trust the other networks by Fox News.  At that point, who are going to trust except Fox News?  It's insidious brain-washing.


The other day as I was flipping through the channels, I stopped on Sean Hannity because the title bar was "What the other networks won't tell you"... He was talking about the Bob Menendez donor's place being raided... then I turned to MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow was talking about how the scandal might effect Menendez and how the scent of corruption might lead to him losing his chairmanship on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was emblematic of the problem... the FNC story was all about how other networks aren't covering Menendez because liberals live in a world of denial, the MSNBC news story was about what happened and the potential consequences thereof.
 
2013-02-07 01:15:42 PM  

Gosling: SnarfVader: "We continue to find that Democrats trust most tv news sources other than Fox, while
Republicans don't trust anything except Fox," said Dean Debnam, President of Public
Policy Polling. "News preferences are very polarizing along party lines."

Bingo. Fox News' numbers get run up because it's the only place Republicans are willing to go. Everyone else sees their numbers diluted because Democratic interests are more varied than that. You see it on the book bestseller lists too: Democrats will buy a bunch of different books, Republicans only buy a few, but they all buy the same ones.


Not that surprising, really.  The Republican worldview is inherently small, closed off and exclusive.  It is a philosophy for those incapable of comprehending actual philosophy.  It is a ready-made system devoid of thought or nuance, and that is specifically why it appeals to the ignorant and the uneducated.  It provides them a community where they can hide their ignorance through numbers with the logic that if they can get enough people to say something there must be some merit to it even if it is supported by no form of fact, logic or reason.
 
2013-02-07 01:22:38 PM  

star_topology: Smelly Pirate Hooker: I watch the local shiat to find out what the traffic is like and what the weather is gonna be. That's about it. I keep it on and may occasionally pay attention to whatever bits the locals deign to cover (sports crap, the wrong-way accident that killed a guy on I-30 last weekend, the feisty gramma who scared off a burglar, shiat like that).

The "news" people only show you what they think you wanna watch. And now many of them are reading goddam Facebook and Twitter crap on-air, like I give a fark what Toocool69 thinks about the story I saw on TV 5 minutes ago.

I have a degree in journalism. I'm glad I didn't waste it actually working in journalism. I'd feel pretty stupid right now if I had.

Get a gimmick. Polarize the sides of any given story. Get viewers/listeners. Profit.


Corporate news channels are only about one thing - making money. Non-profit news media exists, but usually are better at local news and get anything bigger than their fishbowl from corporate news resources.
 
2013-02-07 01:31:52 PM  
I stand by my theory that Fox News is secretly controlled by the Democratic Party with the purpose of making republicans out to look so stupid that any moderates will flee to the polls to vote democrat out of sheer terror.

Thank you, Fox News.
 
2013-02-07 01:40:38 PM  
The way I see it, the truth is whatever I think it is.
 
2013-02-07 01:43:12 PM  

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: The way I see it, the truth is whatever I think it is.


That would make you an editor.
 
2013-02-07 01:43:49 PM  

whither_apophis: Jackson Herring: SnarfVader: Being perceived as credible by your viewers is not the same as actually being credible.

Also, from the report:
"We continue to find that Democrats trust most tv news sources other than Fox, while
Republicans don't trust anything except Fox," said Dean Debnam, President of Public
Policy Polling. "News preferences are very polarizing along party lines."

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Objective, observable reality no longer matters.

Which is sad as a lot of right wingers think of themselves as objectivist.


Yeah, so do left wingers.  Everybody is nuts.
 
2013-02-07 01:44:22 PM  
In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, they our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and limited its funding. Its strange how well educated reported, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)
 
2013-02-07 01:44:33 PM  
namatad:
FOXNEWS is most trusted for 68% of rmoney voters.
NON-FOX is most trusted for 95% of obama voters.

FOXNEWS is least trusted for 67% of obama voters.
NON-FOX is least trusted for 94% of rmoney voters.

welcome to divisive america, the tale of two countries.


I hear ya, this country is too divisive. But maybe calling one candidate names ("rmoney") isn't really a step forward?
 
2013-02-07 01:45:41 PM  
Note to self - at 5am when tipsy use the preview option!!!

In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, *though our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and limited its funding. Its strange how well educated reported, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)
 
2013-02-07 01:46:15 PM  

OhioUGrad: And there is this research:

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)
The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.
As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:


The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly -- a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
When your viewers are worse than people who don't follow news....there might be a problem (although it doesn't say if they used print media for news)


I always love these.  I don't have a party, and I don't watch these outlets, so it's great fun to piece these apart and dine on the juicy insides.  Here were their questions:

• To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in removing Hosni Mubarak?
• How about the opposition groups in Syria? Have they been successful in removing Bashar al-Assad?

Those first two are great.

• Some countries in Europe are deeply in debt, and have had to be bailed out by other countries. To the best of your knowledge, which country has had to spend the most money to bail out European countries?

This one is not as good: "had to" is a poor wording choice implying coercion.  How much bailing out has been coercive?  What proportion of "had to" money and "decided to" money ties into the "correct" statistic?  The question also (probably accidentally) narrows the focus to Europe by repitition.  How many more people might answer with a country outside Europe if "which country" read "which country in the world"?

• There have been increasing talks about economic sanctions against Iran. What are these sanctions supposed to do?

"Talks" is vague and "sanctions" can be formal or informal.  Why should we trust the pollsters with control of these definitions?  Are the answerers allowed to ask for clarification?

• Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives right now?
• In December, House Republicans agreed to a short-term extension of a payroll tax cut, but only if President Obama agreed to do what?

These are straight-forward questions with indisputable, correct answers.  Good job.

 • It took a long time to get the final results of the Iowa caucuses for Republican candidates. In the end, who was declared the winner?

• How about the New Hampshire Primary? Which Republican won that race?

I personally don't consider these questions of import. It makes me wonder how the questions were selected.  Democrats didn't have a primary; are they disadvantaged by this?

• According to official figures, about what percentage of Americans are currently unemployed?

Official figures are nice, but the prominence of alternative analyses on some networks may make this question a poor gauge of who is (not) informed.

These "who knows what" polls are entertaining.  The one about "no WMDs in Iraq" was the funniest, since the Underwear Bomber was being charged for possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction around that time (iirc)--and yes, it was worded that vaguely.
 

It's tough being progressive when all this backwards bickering is going on without any critical thought.  Scoring political points is about as effectual as any sport, except that it can edge an imbecile over the top.  I guess electing our best citizens is dangerous or something.
 
2013-02-07 01:46:56 PM  

Bhruic: namatad: the poll is flawed in assuming that most or least trusted should be split.

I'm trying to figure out why that is a "flaw".  If you want to find out which is the most trusted, and which is the least trusted, you need to ask the questions that way.  They aren't trying to figure out how trusted networks are compared to Fox.  If they wanted to run that poll, they'd have done it differently.


the flaw is that trust is not binary, nor does trusting NPR, imply that you dont trust CNN
if people were asked all of the pairs, the results would be much more interesting and valuable.

fox vs npr
fox vs cnn
cnn vs npr

you would learn relative trust values, which would give you completely different results that which of the 3 are the "most trusted"

at least by breaking out the data by obama/rmoney voter, the poll allows one to resolve a couple basic questions.
GOP voters distrust FOX the least, only 5%
DEM voters distrust FOX the most, 95%

the implication is that dem voters would rather trust ANYTHING else than FOX and GOP voters would rather trust FOX than anything else.

no matter how you split the data, the results are fascinating. They continue to prove what people have speculated on. That the country is divided along party lines with rigid GOP acceptance of FOX.
The DEMS have more choices of where they get their news and the "most trusted source" for dems reflects this.

WHAT I hate is that the spin will be that FAUXNEWS is the most trusted source of news. LOLOLOL
 
2013-02-07 01:47:01 PM  

Langdon_777: Note to self - at 5am when tipsy use the preview option!!!

In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, *though our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and limited its funding. Its strange how well educated reported, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)


Ok time for bed, but one more go:

In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, *though our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and *limiting its funding. Its strange how well educated reported, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)
 
2013-02-07 01:47:05 PM  
I gave up on the US "media" some time ago. Luckily, there's this thing called The Internets where you can read papers like The Guardian, The Times of London, the Sydney Morning Herald, even English versions of Der  Spiegel and etc. It's amazing how much information you can get about the American continent that's not dressed up in one politicized version or another.

Oddly enough, there are a few US news orgs that are very political, both left and right, that are doing what might be called hard-core journalism - you know, asking hard and uncomfortable questions.

One of these is Democracy Now, a hard-left radio news hour that one of my local low-power stations carries every day at 5:30 pm. I like it because Amy Goodman is second only to Lyse Doucette of the BBC in asking interview subjects hard questions, then following up in their face if they try to be evasive. I'm no lefty, but I appreciate their hard work in chasing down stories.

They can be cranks on the subject of Mumia Abu-Jamal, but that's nothing like the NYT and the WashPost sitting on a story to protect the current administration.
 
2013-02-07 01:47:47 PM  
Any televised `information'?

Harlan Ellison called it the `glass teat' and that's good enough.

Nothing really matters but the advertising numbers.  Hit the BREAKING NEWS/most horrid hook and go directly to commercial (raise the viewer's stress hormone levels so their hearing is more acute when they plod off to p*ss or hit the fridge - then kick the volume up.  Remember the product!!!).

I'll stick with the Congressional Record/Federal Register/EDGAR/GAO reports, myself (take the filth straight up without the `gilding')

/live feeds of live events?  Still require some  skepticism regarding how much of scene is being broadcast and why that angle was chosen
 
2013-02-07 01:48:17 PM  

SnarfVader: Being perceived as credible by your viewers is not the same as actually being credible.

Also, from the report:
"We continue to find that Democrats trust most tv news sources other than Fox, while
Republicans don't trust anything except Fox," said Dean Debnam, President of Public
Policy Polling. "News preferences are very polarizing along party lines."

Surprise, surprise, surprise.


Done in two.
 
2013-02-07 01:49:23 PM  

Quality Unassured: Trollerific headline is trollerific.


How so?
 
2013-02-07 01:49:29 PM  

Langdon_777: Langdon_777: Note to self - at 5am when tipsy use the preview option!!!

In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, *though our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and limited its funding. Its strange how well educated reported, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)

Ok time for bed, but one more go:

In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, *though our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and *limiting its funding. Its strange how well educated reported, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)


Not going to go to bed until I have this right (really shouldn't have opened the bottle of Mitchell Shiraz after the Grant Burge sparkling):

In Australia its the ABC (govt funded) that has the credibility, *though our repug equivalents are working hard at undermining (with 'no personal opinions' reporting) and *limiting its funding. Its strange how well educated *reporterzs, investigators and entertainers do not seem to support the right wing ;)

*nods self*
 
2013-02-07 01:51:02 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I've found that I'm a happier person since I decided to avoid checking the news every day. I get some news here at FARK, and occasionally I'll look at the headline feed on my tablet or phone, but most of the time I have no idea what's happening in politics or in the middle east on a day-by-day basis, and my life is better for it. (and other good stuff snipped for space)


This is pretty much where I am.  Perhaps not as far as you (I still vote), but the last election really took it out of me.  Never in my 30+ years of voting have I read/heard such unmitigated, trumped up lies and at best quarter truths from the pubbies.  And I'm a registered 'Pubbie, but haven't voted that way since Bush I.  So I too have backed out, I watch my local news until the weather is over, then I go back to doing whatever I was doing that doesn't involve "news".  And I'm much, much calmer.
 
2013-02-07 01:51:17 PM  

farkdd: I hear ya, this country is too divisive. But maybe calling one candidate names ("rmoney") isn't really a step forward?


after 20+ years of listening to GOP relatives tell me that I must stand behind the president (when he is a GOP) and that slick-willy/fartboma are destroying america and families, I am done with caring.
In the end, there is no civil discourse between the two sides and I am done with being the nice guy.
I am done hearing the rants of how terrible obama is (list your favorite reason), even though their guy was the same or worse ... shudder. Where were all the deficit hawks during W's 8 years?? LOL

that and I have a touch of typing dyslexia, rmoney types out quicker because money is lower brainstem typing. dont get me started on how many times I type jsut instead of just. stupid fingers.
 
2013-02-07 01:51:28 PM  
There is a reason why one should never drink and drive, you think you have it right but continue to screw up.

Nite nite.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report