In WHOM We Trust?
“A new poll finds Fox News as the only network that more people say they trust than distrust.
“Here are the trust/don’t trust spreads: Fox 49 to 37, CNN 39 to 41, NBC 35 to 44, CBS 32 to 46, and ABC 31 to 46.
“Analysis: ‘These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed.’”
—Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire, blogging on a survey
by consulting firm Public Policy Poll.
(Thanks to alert WORDster Kevin Doyle)
by consulting firm Public Policy Poll.
(Thanks to alert WORDster Kevin Doyle)
Editor’s Note: At least Glenn Beck tells us what we think. It’s loads easier....
ANOTHER NOTE: Fox was tops in cable news in 2009, reported the LATimes.
.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Cronkite neutral? On Vietnam? Whoever wrote this pretends not to understand the difference between Fox’s straight-news reporting and its commentary shows.
ReplyDeleteSigned, Constant Critic
Pease Replied:
My dear CC:
That's the truth (!?). Most Fox viewers *don't* know the difference between Fox news and commentary. Must be hard to be a news guy @ Fox (see Ken Auletta's NYer piece on covering the White House), because the noise emanating from the BeckHannityOReilly monster so drowns out whatever Fox may try to do in terms of straight news...
But there is a point--at least readers of the partisan press understood what they were getting.
Signed, Perennially Perplexed
To which, CC responded:
How do we know that most Fox viewers don’t understand? What about most MSNBC viewers watching Olbermann or Maddow? Oh – they’re sophisticated viewers, pardon me.
To which PP reflects:
Who knows what/if viewers think??
Another take from Jolly Olde...
ReplyDeleteWell, that is a depressing "word". It's not just where journalism is headed. It's about where the country is headed. No wonder policy-making is so dysfunctional.
Oxford Prof
So Fox is giving us these figures, right?
ReplyDelete--Will
It says more about where some segments of our society are headed than where journalism is headed: a lack of intellectual curiosity and ability to think for oneself. Fox attracts those people like a magnet. There have always been commentators (not journalists) who have no neutrality. But our society did not drink at their fountain of knowledge for factual information. If we only trust people who agree with us, our heads are in a collective toilet.
ReplyDelete--Lois
Taegan, I think it says a lot about where the other networks have gone and what they leave out of the news. It's because Fox is telling the other side of the story and that's refreshing to a lot of people who are voting many newspapers and news networks out of office. I prefer the "Walter Cronkite deliver rather than the "in your face" approach, but it is reassuring to hear both sides. The public doesn't get that much on the other networks. I belive if the other networks gave both sides they would be much more competative. Dale
ReplyDeleteDale
Thank you! This is SO interesting because I am a stinkin' PINKO (in Utah, anyway) and I love Fox and especially Fox News Sunday. I am always late to church because I have to see what is said during the panel discussion part at the end. As I was driving to church yesterday and thinking about my numerous sins, I realized that I love to analyze arguments and pose alternatives in my puny little pinko brain. So I agree with Dale, Fox is giving us a product that we enjoy and need!
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I get your point Prof. Pease, to mean that media outlets are not one-stop-shopping locations. If that's the case, people need to seek out opposing points of view...will they? The world of news and ideas is a market and media had better produce what consumers want and expect stiff competition from other sources (now I sound like a conservative). You can't just sit on your a** and look fondly at a picture of ol' Walter.
And was our past really better? Was Walter really neutral? Has news ever been totally neutral? We were so dumb back then. When I was taking journalism classes in the 1980's at the U, professors were trying to get journalism students to take a left-wing point of view and I switched to Poly-sci partly for that reason.
Catherine
Jeez, Catherine. I don't see you at any of the Proud Utah Pinkos Timidly Experiencing New Thoughts (PUPTENT) meetings.
ReplyDeleteWas the news more dependable, more complete, more "neutral" when we got it from Cronkite? No. But there's so much noise in the pipeline these days that getting a full picture is (in the immortal words of the Former Occupant) hard work. Fox--news and commentary--offers at least as much entertainment, excitement, huge headlines and voices of outrage as it does information. This makes Fox fun to watch, even as it raises blood pressure.
Back in the Even Older Days, the party press didn't purport to provide neutral reportage--but readers knew what they were getting when they picked up The Wild-Eyed Treehugger Tribune, and could balance those arguments with The Slash-and-Burn Bugle. Maybe Fox (and Maddow/Olbermann at MSNBC) is a return to the partisan press--a service to over-extended viewers who don't have time to think for themselves.
Two things...
ReplyDeleteFirst, you hit it exactly on the head about the idea that Fox "news" tells us what to think and that indeed makes it easier. Americans have become lazy. They would rather be told what to do than think for themselves. That, my friend, is truly frightening. Increasingly, I cannot get the novel "1984" out of my head.
Second, if it's true that this "says a lot about where journalism is headed" then we journalists need to rebel or create some new discipline that more accurately reflects where journalism belong
--Ross
I saw something as a reporter all the time that continues today and never ceases to amaze me. When it comes to a controversial topic (for instance, is Fox really news?), so many people seem to really be saying, "If I agree with you, you are fair/impartial. If I don't agree, you are biased." Hmmmm.
ReplyDelete