This is rather ironic - an article published by Fox News.

Pollster shocked half of Americans believe national media aims to mislead: 'Pretty striking'
Story by Hanna Panreck • Yesterday 5:30 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...484c8715f0b3dd7207d8

(excerpt)

The study found that only 25% of Americans agreed with the statement that national news organizations do not intend to mislead the public. Fifty-two percent of Americans said they disagreed with the statement, according to the poll.

the findings show a severe distrust in media that reaches "beyond the foundations and processes of journalism," according to the AP.

"Americans don’t seem to think that the national news organizations care about the overall impact of their reporting on the society," John Sands, the Knight Foundation's senior director for media and democracy, told the AP.

"Thirty-five percent say most national news organizations care about how their reporting affects American society, culture and politics; fewer (23%) believe most national news organizations care about the best interests of their readers, viewers and listeners," the poll said.

The poll showed that 71% of the 792 registered voters questioned said "American democracy is currently under threat" and 84% of them viewed "mainstream media" as some kind of threat.

The Knight Foundation/Gallup poll also found that half or more of Americans have difficulty with figuring out facts and being well-informed.

Sixty-one percent of Americans said the increase in information has made it more difficult to be well-informed and 50% said "there is so much bias in the news media that it is often difficult to sort out the facts."

====================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4a9c9d9df3c1a750c104

A 'striking' number of Americans believe news outlets intentionally mislead public, survey says
Story by Theara Coleman • Yesterday 11:05 AM

Fifty percent of Americans believe national news outlets "intend to mislead, misinform, or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting," The Associated Press summarizes, per the results of a recent study.

Polling also found that 52 percent of those surveyed disagreed that national news outlets "care about the best interests of their readers, viewers, and listeners." Only 23 percent agreed that journalists' work is in the public's best interest.

=====================================================

My own personal opinion is that orgs such as Fox News actually do "care" about their impact on society, culture, politics, and they use their platform to intentionally influence, sway, using lies and dis/misinformation, and even propaganda. They "care" about the outcomes and slant it that way, aside from the big-money.

You, especially Doc Butler, will say they all do it. No, that's not true, IMO. No one uses lies, and propaganda like Fox News or Newsmax, for examples. Their intent is clear.

News orgs like PBS, WP, NYT, etc., are not even on the same plane as far as honesty vs dishonesty goes. Bias is not the same as dishonesty.

Glad to see most Americans are finally waking up. I wonder why so many remain useful idiots, however? I mean, you have to be a complete dumbass to take anything a major media source says at face value. If you care to be informed, you must do your own due diligence. And no, not what you do ME, which is pull opinions from only like minded left wing sources. You are one of the foolish.

quote:

Originally posted by pointblank:
Glad to see most Americans are finally waking up. I wonder why so many remain useful idiots, however? I mean, you have to be a complete dumbass to take anything a major media source says at face value. If you care to be informed, you must do your own due diligence. And no, not what you do ME, which is pull opinions from only like minded left wing sources. You are one of the foolish.

quote:

If you care to be informed, you must do your own due diligence.

Now I want you to carefully and thoroughly explain just how you do that?

ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX are all questionable sources and will never let the truth get in the way of their bias. The past couple of years has just made it more obvious. It would be interesting to see what factual, balanced, reporting would look like. Regards, Bill

There is no way in hell would I believe ANYTHING in the current media outlets.

Regardless of nationality!

All one has to do is look at many differing sources, and make his own mind!

quote:

It would be interesting to see what factual, balanced, reporting would look like.

Watch PBS Newshour.

(Too boring for Fox News addicts.)

==================================================

Here's an article from a Right leaning source, and the target is NYT.

I'm not saying they published the truth, or the conclusions therefrom, but here it is for what it's worth.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4615bcfd841c0a8aa4fa

The US media and the political crisis in democracy
Opinion by Peter Wallison • Yesterday 1:28 PM

=================================================

One of the first things to notice, when one want's to be "informed" is the honesty of the article declaring up-front that it's opinion.

That doesn't mean opinions are worthless. The main thing is that some opinions are well sourced, and some are BS with no credible source to base upon.

quote:

All one has to do is look at many differing sources, and make his own mind!

The problem of course is that most have their minds made up to start with, and just sort out the sources that affirm.

Tell me it ain't so!!!

Another problem is that many (over 50% they say) can't sort out fact from fiction anyway. Thus it matters not how many sources one consults.

One half believe Fox.

One half believe CNN!

We have a WINNER!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
One half believe Fox.

One half believe CNN!

We have a WINNER!

Another half has trouble with simple math...

I read a good bit of US news put out by other countries. It is a different outlook than the usual here. I do alot of fact checking on anything suspicious.
I remember Kabob posting an opinion article, on climate, from a stockbroker who wrote for a womans magazine. I pointed it out.
He replied, "well, I agree with the article".

quote:

All one has to do is look at many differing sources, and make his own mind!

on average, i sift through 10 or more per day-

in general, true journalism died years ago,
the vast majority are slanted by opinion,
rather than simply reporting

It is very difficult to ascertain the truth these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

It would be interesting to see what factual, balanced, reporting would look like.

Watch PBS Newshour.

(Too boring for Fox News addicts.)

==================================================

Here's an article from a Right leaning source, and the target is NYT.

I'm not saying they published the truth, or the conclusions therefrom, but here it is for what it's worth.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4615bcfd841c0a8aa4fa

The US media and the political crisis in democracy
Opinion by Peter Wallison • Yesterday 1:28 PM

=================================================

One of the first things to notice, when one want's to be "informed" is the honesty of the article declaring up-front that it's opinion.

That doesn't mean opinions are worthless. The main thing is that some opinions are well sourced, and some are BS with no credible source to base upon.

This is one of the reasons I can’t get past. When Jim and Robin were still in charge, sure, it was a decently balanced show. With Judy, it’s been out in left field for years. The problem is, you can’t discern the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

If you care to be informed, you must do your own due diligence.

Now I want you to carefully and thoroughly explain just how you do that?

Sometimes simple sometimes not. Charlottesville is an example of simple. If you search hard enough, you’ll find a clip of the full interview with Trump. If you watch that full interview, you’ll see him Denounce, white nationalism, multiple times, though the interviewer tries to ignore him, tries to cut him off. Yes, he says there are good people on both sides. But he goes on to explain that the good people on the one side are the ones that simply do not want history to be erased i.e. tearing down statues. He makes it very clear That he’s not talking about Nazis or skinheads or anything like that. You never got that full video from CNN or any of your other sources.

I’m still not a Trumper, I dislike them for other reasons. When this occurred, though, I knew we were in new territory.

The media lost the plot when journalism schools started allowing “make a difference” instead of report just the facts as a goal of graduating journalists.

I think the media was pretty good until FOX started their obviously biased BS where opinion became journalism to millions. Just preach to the choir what they want to hear & it's money in the bank. It worked so others just followed the plan.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The media lost the plot when journalism schools started allowing “make a difference” instead of report just the facts as a goal of graduating journalists.

correct

Yet another moronic post by wymple.
The associated press has been recognized as the "reporting with a difference" for decades. By the media and govt offices.
How about that asshat Dan Rather and his made up stories that got himself fired from CBS.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
I think the media was pretty good until FOX started their obviously biased BS where opinion became journalism to millions. Just preach to the choir what they want to hear & it's money in the bank. It worked so others just followed the plan.

You’re letting your bias allow you to blame one side. Playground shit, he started it! The truth is that media bias has been around forever, and to my recollection, it started as left leaning. That’s not to say that right leaning media didn’t take it to the extreme first though. Both are now equally guilty, but some on both sides still believe they are only receiving truths from their side. To me, it’s simply impossible to be that gullible.

It seems plain to me that most news media is agenda driven. Opinion and Editorial work is blended seamlessly with news/ information reporting.

Lying, dishonesty, is nationally normal and accepted. Two days ago I spoke to a subordinate calmly and firmly but was reported to have "yelled". Lying from the common man, the dishonesty of the average media professional, the oath breaking of any and all political office holders is average and casual. One of my recent favorites is when a person separates from a spouse with the intent to divorce, that is seen as immediate release to hold in the sack with others. Actual court order divorce decree could be years away, but since the last time he slept in her bed was Wednesday, Thursday night is, " Who let the Dogs out?!?!?!"

The 24 hour news cycle is rife with disinformation. The drive is to get a headline out first, to hell with accuracy and honesty. At least with weekly news magazines and network news shows some research can go into a subject, not just rush to spotlight.

I refuse to sit and listen to a single word that comes out of Limbaugh's, Carlson's, Hannitys, Reid's, or Maddows mouth because I feel certain they all will lie with glee in order to press their views and agenda. As we say here, the end justifies the means.

Half of Americans are also idiots-25% hard left, 25% hard right.

I would guess that's about right Dollar.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Half of Americans are also idiots-25% hard left, 25% hard right.

and most are ill informed-
on either end
or the nebulos middle

I kinda think that most of the participants herein don't fit into a survey stats.

I think most people herein are informed, and definitely not idiots.

That's why debate is worth the effort.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4d68b3d60e0ba6821389

Ted Cruz Calls Newsmax ‘Fair and Balanced’ Moments After Host Says Every Cartel Member Has a ‘Biden Bumper Sticker’
Story by Michael Luciano • Yesterday 8:14 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4d68b3d60e0ba6821389

Bad beliefs: Misinformation is factually wrong – but is it ethically wrong, too?
Opinion by Lawrence Torcello, Associate Professo

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Yet another moronic post by wymple.
The associated press has been recognized as the "reporting with a difference" for decades. By the media and govt offices.
How about that asshat Dan Rather and his made up stories that got himself fired from CBS.

Bullshit. Fox went completely off the rails with it to an extent nobody ever had short of Pravda, and that's even a contest.

Two great sources of well timed lies are the announcements from the White house, and every time Trump opens his mouth!

No other major news network was like this. Knowing they were pushing lies, doing it anyway

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...41979fd4b9dceac80565

Dominion needs to rock FOX's world. Murdoch needs to be banned from the business. If you were caught lying in the financial sector, you can get banned for life. Murdoch is living proof that strong regulatory control is necessary. He has hidden behind "freedom of speech" his whole life. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16...documents/index.html

I see, everyone leading up to the last 15-20 yrs doesnt count. You have decided there is one boogie man.
Dan Rather pushed lies before Fox started. But you were OK with that? Shouldnt have fired him as anchor either right?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4c6b9d2bdba8e230a9d7

The documents also shed light on Carlson's reaction to the Fox News network calling an election victory in Arizona for President Joe Biden.

"Fox Hosts Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity immediately understood the threat to them personally," the court document reads. "Carlson wrote his producer Alex Pfeiffer on November 5: 'We worked really hard to build what we have. Those f--kers are destroying our credibility. It enrages me."

It continues, "He added that he had spoken with Laura and [S]ean a minute ago and they are highly upset,' Carlson noted: 'At this point, we’re getting hurt no matter what.' Pfeiffer responded: It’s a hard needle to thread, but I really think many on our side are being reckless demagogues right now. Tucker replied: Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them.' And he added: What [Trump]’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”

After January 6, trying to thread the needle between the truth and pressure from his viewers and sponsors became even more difficult. Late on January 6, Carlson texted with Pfeiffer that Trump is 'a demonic force, a destroyer. But he’s not going to destroy us.' On January 26, Carlson invited his leading sponsor Mike Lindell on his show, where Lindell spouted these same conspiracies on air after previewing them for Carlson’s staff during a pre-interview.

“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners," Fox News said in a statement. "But the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan.”

================================================

Freedom to lie and incite and do harm.

Obviously, there is a market for it.

Its kind of disgusting that FOX would reduce their defence to the argument that “We have the right to lie” and “No reasonable person would believe us”, when the very name of their outfit is “Fox News”.

I know people here in Canada who are glued to FOX exclusively, and of course they’re naturally the brain dead, Trumpified crazies who form the ‘Freedom Convoys’ and think governments should be installed and removed with air horns.

I don’t know how the media can be pressured into being as factual as possible; it once was, and people remained less polarized and more reasonable. I suppose lawsuits like Dominions could have a positive effect. I hope the courts slap FOX down very, very hard - and anyone else that knowingly sells lies as truth.

Fox found and developed a niche in the "market", not for news but for narratives and affirmations, based in conspiracy theories, lies, dis/misinformation. The ratings prove the niche/market is there.

They knew they were lying about Trump, did it anyway under the free speech and freedom of the press claims.

They welcomed Trump early on to satisfy and develop the base of the ratings. It was a pot of gold. They were his window to manipulate the fascist fodder. He also proved to be dangerous to the pot of gold, so they continued the path, looking for a way to save face and ratings.

When you knowingly bed with a demon --------

People should be aware that some shows are opinion pieces and NOT news reports. The same goes for any media source.
When Dan Rather was interviewed after he was fired. He said it was his duty as an anchor to help lead people to the right conclusion.
No actual news host should ever lead to a conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I see, everyone leading up to the last 15-20 yrs doesnt count. You have decided there is one boogie man.
Dan Rather pushed lies before Fox started. But you were OK with that? Shouldnt have fired him as anchor either right?

That's one, IF he knew beforehand his source was wrong. Fox does it every damn day, 24-7

So do the other networks.

I’d love to see a decrease in the libel protections the media have. Those have been abused, and here is an example in Fox.

Fox is playing by the same rules all of the left wing media types have been.

My only real concern would be that if we allow government to police the media to ensure telling the truth, don’t we allow the government to decide what the truth is?

And while the media does pollute reality with great regularity, they lack the power of force.

I do come back to the idea that the founders had thought a lot of this through and thus I’m reluctant to feel big changes are a good idea.

The big reason Fox is successful is that they are a counterpart to the left bias of the rest of media. I’m not sure why there isn’t someone looking at it and seeing the opportunity for a different nonleft media organization, other than most journalists are lefty and feel they are “right” and find not supporting what they “know” is “right” is unethical.

They don’t get the epistemological argument that ME posted above.

Look at CNN. They are shifting, but the internal culture is resisting it continuously. They are nowhere as goofy left as they were, but still are hard left.

I’d say WSJ is probably as close to a bare facts org in media as exists, but they do have editorial areas and seem to go off the reservation every now and then.

Looking at foreign media does show some differences, but that is not the same as telling the truth. Seeing things reported through different perspectives does allow one to grasp the few things that are common to the collective- but that may or may not be facts.

As does NBC.
Under new managment now, CNN CEO, said they are going to come more to the center, and stop being left.
To bad you cant see the forest for the trees, but... I dont give a shit if you do.

The difference is that Pravda was an arm of the government, and its role was to keep people from questioning the purveyors of force in the USSR.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Yet another moronic post by wymple.
The associated press has been recognized as the "reporting with a difference" for decades. By the media and govt offices.
How about that asshat Dan Rather and his made up stories that got himself fired from CBS.

Bullshit. Fox went completely off the rails with it to an extent nobody ever had short of Pravda, and that's even a contest.