"The poll conducted by Sacred Heart University, found that the most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).
In 2003, CNN led Fox News on "trust most for accurate reporting" 23.8% to 14.6%.
The Sacred Heart University Poll also found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting."
"ALPHAGNOSIS: I don't rely on polls anyway. Especially after last week."
What happened? Did something happen in the last two days to make you change your mind? Or do you only believe in the polls and sources that agree with your preconceptions, while discounting those that disagree?
"Some 10,230 people in 10 countries were polled for the BBC, Reuters and The Media Center. The most trusted media outlets were large global news organisations such as the BBC or CNN."
How about when the 2008 Presidential elections come up, some organization attach a poll asking that very same question. I'd be interested in seeing those results.
Fox News Channel once again ended the year as cable's top news network, followed by CNN, with few radical ratings dips or surges for either network. But among the channels with smaller audience totals -- MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News -- 2007 was a year of growth.
"Would the ratings for an entire year fill that request?"
No, but the number of Peabody Awards won by each for excellence in broadcast journalism will. And the number of Peabodies won by Fox pale in comparison to the number won by PBS, NPR, and CNN.
INJEST:
"After all people don't watch what they don't trust for news, that would be stupid."
Another wrong assumption. Fox treats news as more of a form of entertainment, than as a form of public service--which is why they are constantly trumpeting their ratings. Viewers apparently find the shouting matches hosted on Fox to be entertaining. However, popularity has NOTHING to do with quality journalism, which can often be more dry and academic. PBS, NPR, and CNN do treat the news as more of a form of public service and are recognized for it with Peabodies.
Judging quality by popularity is analogous to claiming Britney Spears' music is some of the best available simply because it sold many copies.
Oh, I see you also believe only the polls that agree with your preconceptions and disregard those that don't.
Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan all arrived at a different conclusion than the SHU study, used larger sample sizes than the SHU study, and agree with the observation that Fox News trails NPR, PBS, and CNN in Peabody Awards.
Most pollsters know that the results of a single poll by itself lack real credibility because the results can be so easily skewed by leading questions and improper sampling. That's why their results need to be corroborated by other independent pollsters--to iron out biases in questioning, sampling, etc. But none have corroborated SHU's study. That is why I quoted these other studies. Until other corroborate SHU's study, this SHU study is nothing more than an outlier.
" Basically they can control what we beleive about anything and everything. The problem lies in the fact that people actually believe the crap the news reports to us."
--I agree with most of your post and suspect that you're speaking of the average person but I hope you meant to say that the media *influences* what we believe as opposed to controlling it. IMO, it's people who are influenced by the media and *don't know it* who are the ones under its control. Although mostly I watch FOX for comic relief, I occasionally tune in to a program with the intent to challenge my left of center grounded beliefs. Then once those 45 seconds of blood boiling torture have elapsed, I cave in and surf over to watch Sponge Bob...
So, you are saying you don't care what the facts actually are, you just want to be told what you want to hear? Your whole theory dismisses facts and claims everything the media reports is merely their opinion.
Well, you are correct, if all you watch is fux news, it really is that simple.
1. Who cares about your nitpicking? Do you doubt the poll?
2. Of course CNN gets the nod on breaking news. Fox only has news 5 minutes per hour. Of the 2 CNN channels here only one has the 24/7 news, the other has Anderson Cooper, Larry King, etc, a lot like Fox. If I want news I can turn on the radio. Apples to oranges.
3. Duh - They don't get Fox in those countries. Even here in Vegas they kept Fox off cable until about 5 years ago.
Yout comparisons are as unscientific as can be. You would make a great biased pollster for CNN, et al.
"1. Who cares about your nitpicking? Do you doubt the poll?"
Many pollsters and statisticians would tell you that the results of one poll alone lack any real credibility until the results have been repeated and corroborated by other independent pollsters. This eliminates biases in questioning, sampling, etc. Since the other polls I have cited (from Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan)--many of which have even larger sample sizes than the poll conducted by SHU--contradict the SHU poll, the SHU poll remains an amusing outlier.
TIRED:
"They don't get Fox in those countries."
CNN is based in the U.S. while (Fox) News Corporation is based in Australia. Because News Corporation began as an international news organization, more foreign countries receive Fox News' telecast than CNN's telecast--they just choose to listen to the BBC instead.
The words from someone who obviously lacks understanding in statistics. Sorry, but your elementary school arithmetic will not help your argument. Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan came to different results than the SHU study, they used larger sample sizes than the SHU study, and their results seem to agree with the observation that Fox News trails behind NPR, PBS, and CNN in Peabody Awards.
Most pollsters know that the results of a single poll lack real credibility because the results can be so easily skewed by leading questions and improper sampling. That's why their results need to be corroborated by other independent pollsters, none of which have corroborated SHU's study. Until that happens, this SHU study is nothing more than an outlier.
Jack Cafferty is about the only good thing the Clinton News Network (aka the "all illegal immigration, all the time" channel) has going for it. Though, sometimes I might tune in to see if, when reporting on his heartthrob George Bush, Wolf Blitzer still drools uncontrollably and gets that creepy glazed look in his eye (like he just might have to sprint off the set to whack off behind a potted plant or something if they don't break for a commercial soon). Scary imagery, to be sure... Or maybe, I think to myself, this will be the day Lou Dobbs' s head finally spins a full 360 degrees, his eyes bulge out even more than usual, and in lieu of one of his long gassy tirades about iilegal immigration, he instead spews green vomit all over the camera crew, confirming my long held suspicion the man is in fact possessed by the devil. ;-x
The strangest things is that his wife is a Mexican immigrant!!!
Lou's diatribes amount to nothing more than broken record, caught in the same groove, repeating itself ad nauseum!
His reporters do most of the "research" while Lou just sits there, belching out his burps of insincerity and intolerance!
The only saving grace for CNN is Anderson Cooper. He has lived in the trenches and understands what a reporter's mission is. The rest of the gang, including Larry the Panderer are insignificant bugs splashed on the windshield - with no redeeming value at all!
After Ted Turner sold CNN to Time Warner, there is absolutely no quality left there. Ever since Paula "the Zipper" Zahn's salacious entry into the network, it has been going downhill!
Now NBC is playing dirty politics, by first inviting Kucinich to tonight's Las Vegas Democratic Candidates' debate and then dis-inviting him! I suspect that ever since that weasel Chuck Todd joined NBC, his immature and childish handling of such serious matters raises new questions about NBC's journalistic integrity.
This is a terrible example of media molesting our democracy!
How could I forget AC? Oh, maybe because I usually doze off sometime after nine. Nevermind. But he is cool to watch. I didn't know that about LD's wife, though I do hear Olbermann rag on him a lot over the issue.
They probably same lies that fuaxNews trying to spread.
First who the heck is SHU? What other credible studies they conducted. If it is two man and a truck operation, I would like to know how people were selected. Anyway...
Just because repukes claim "most trusted name in news" doesn't mean anything. Where are the FauxNews awards? Oh wait....
"Polls are an exercise in statistics and probabilities. A poll with a 95% confidence rating will not always predict correctly. However, the Law of Large Number suggests the polls will not be so far off the mark again so soon. To reject math and statistics because of one failed prediction demonstrates a lack of understanding of fundamental statistical principles."
I don't necessarily go by polls, but I know what I have observed.Of course, I always suspect what is meant by "news" and if it's the truth.But I have noticed Fox has a bigger tendency in their "debate" formats to let the opposing side speak with less interruptions or cutting them off.
Of course, I always read the word "TRUST" lightly.
"why your facts in your post to me was so overwhelming, you've changed my mind . . . I'm a believer now! See Ybodogsct's overwhelming evidence here:"
Well, Halleluia! Of course, ALPHA, there's one thing you should know about the snippet you quoted. The Law of Large Numbers also suggests that individual polls have less credibility unless their results are repeated and corroborated by other independent polling stations. This corroboration irons out the biases in questioning, sampling etc. Until that happens, this SHU study remains an amusing outlier.
RDY2RCK:
"Fox has a bigger tendency in their 'debate' formats to let the opposing side speak"
That's the problem. Fox airs more "news commentary" and less "news reporting." Instead of reporting and factchecking dispassionately, Fox hosts shouting forums that present no objective reporting, just spin from both sides of the aisle. This is why Fox lags PBS, NPR, and CNN in Peabody Awards.
A classic example of Fox's "Newsworthiness" is Bill O"Reilly. This guy has zero credibility, a total lack of research of facts and a mouth that puts a Manhattan manhole to shame!
He was invited to give a keynote speech to a meeting of experts on missing and exploited children. Just a week before that, he opened his sewer mouth and commented that the boy who was kidnapped and sexually abused for more than four years "Must have liked it, otherwise he would have ran away from his abductor". When the news reports of this trash came to the attention of the organization, they canceled O"Reilly's invitation.
This is just one example of this low-life potty-mouth's droppings! There are a lot more where this came from!
---Thanks, yb...I always get a hoot outta the tinfoil propeller beanie brigade here. Take the issue of global warming again. One moment, 29 percenters are attempting to match their home-school educations against the collective intelligence of tens of thousands of reputable scientists across the globe. They'll methodically and tenaciously attempt to rebut this argument or that, citing this discgraced scientist or that ancient obscure study.
But when the allegedly evil, totally untrustworthy and omnipotent "liberal media" temporarily loses it's mighty paralyzing grip on the world and there is *good* news in their favor, their formerly "healthy" skepticism (well, *any* sort of critical analysis skills, really) suddenly evaporate. It's like the proverbial hamster has fallen asleep at the wheel and they're free to accept the positive news at face value. Uncanny...
"A survey by RoperASW [found that] Americans are more satisfied with programming on PBS compared with commercial broadcasting or cable networks and consider PBS news and public affairs series the most trustworthy."
Pew Research shows that Republicans rate CNN the 2nd most trustworthy news outlet. But Independents and Democrats rank Fox News NOWHERE in the top 6 most trusted news sources.
"CNN remains the most trusted source among those surveyed, just slightly higher than the next most trusted sources — CBS's "60 Minutes" (27%), C-SPAN (25%) and Fox News (25%)."
"But Independents and Democrats rank Fox News NOWHERE in the top 6 most trusted news sources."
I can't imagine why they don't agree. Especially since I have seen such nice comments about FOX from the left and especially the far left.
Sarcasm off.
Trying to keep all sides of the issue presented is not in keeping with what they want to hear. Only left biased news is TRUTH to them. Any presentation of center or right is FALSE to them. The surge is working extremely well so the left media say nothing. Why??
"Trying to keep all sides of the issue presented is not in keeping with what they want to hear"
--It seems to me that would *more* accurately explain why Ronnie Raygun torpedoed the Fairness Doctrine and why wingers are soiling their panties in terror that the Democratic led Congress will succeed in resurrecting it.
where'd you get "three years ago" from? fox news?"
fox news uhhh nope. The Roper poll was conducted in, well here's the first sentence of the report. Click the link vb gave and look
ALEXANDRIA, Va., February 5, 2004 -- In a survey just completed by the non-partisan, international research company RoperASW, the American public called PBS the most trusted institution on a list of nationally known organizations in
Are you surprised? Fox News was the one that screwed us over by announcing first that Bush won before Florida was done counting. I guess it does help when you have a few family members who work for the network.
"Lets see a poll conducted among PBS viewers (all 28 of them) by PBS found PBS trustworthy, imagine that ?"
Actually, if you had bothered to read the story (and it's clear from your fatuous comments that you did not), you would have noticed that PBS did NOT conduct the poll. The poll was conducted by Roper Center for Public Opinion.
"Most people do not know PBS is tax funded and wouldn't, unless they watched it."
Wrong. That's why it's called the PUBLIC broadcasting service--it is funded with PUBLIC funds.
"The American public called PBS the most trusted institution and the best use of tax dollars. The majority of people surveyed believe that public broadcasting receives 'too little' funding from the federal government and that money given to PBS stations from the government, corporations and individuals is 'money well spent.'"
PBS has far more Peabody Awards than Fox News has.
"Polls are snapshots of public opinion AT THE TIME THEY ARE TAKEN."
Wrong. Most pollsters would say that polls are not best used as accurate snapshots of public opinion, but rather are best used to track trends over time. Individual polls, like the SHU study, lack credibility because results can be so easily manipulated with leading questions and improper sampling. Unless the SHU poll's results are corroborated and repeated by other independent polls, the SHU poll remains an outlier.
Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan all arrived at a different conclusion than the SHU study, used larger sample sizes than the SHU study, and agree with the observation that Fox News trails NPR, PBS, and CNN in Peabody Awards. The fact they all agree not only lends their studies credibility, but also shows an overall trend of the public preferring BBC, NPR, PBS, and even CNN for accuracy over Fox.
Roper poll, tell us what you want the poll to show and we will make it so.
In PBS we trust, according to PBS survey.(In The Loop)
Broadcasting & Cable, February, 2004 by Eggerton, John
That popular blue PBS logo must be turning red. According to a Roper poll commissioned by the Public Broadcasting Service, PBS is the most trusted organization in America, beating out the three branches of government and the rest of the media. Remember, PBS commissioned it. PBS came in second only to defense spending as a value proposition.
This means PBS PAID for the poll that shows PBS #1
THE ROPER POLL
UFOs & Extraterrestrial Life
Americans' Beliefs and Personal Experiences
Prepared for the SCI FI Channel
September 2002
Many Wonder What Government Really Knows
About Other Intelligent Life
A Majority Already Believe in the Extraterrestrial
"This means PBS PAID for the poll that shows PBS #1"
So you're accusing PBS of bribing Roper for a positive poll? FYI, in order to bribe another company, you must have more money than the other company. But Roper is part of a huge corporation and dwarfs PBS in comparison. Had the results come out differently, Roper would have nothing to lose by publishing this data. However, if Roper did decide to skew the results of the poll, they would have everything to lose.
"RoperASW, an NOP World company, is a leading global marketing research and consulting firm with headquarters in New York and offices in London. Bringing together some of the most renowned U.S. and European research firms in a unified global network, NOP World is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UK-based United Business Media plc."
Is all you have innuendo? If you're going to accuse an internationally-recognized polling firm like Roper, you had better have more hard proof than this.
"Polls are snapshots of public opinion AT THE TIME THEY ARE TAKEN."
"Wrong. Most pollsters would say that polls are not best used as accurate snapshots of public opinion, but rather are best used to track trends over time."
Lame, semantics. Snapshots of public opinion placed in a matrix shows "trends". Trends based on "public opinion snapshots".
That's why polls are done on DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY, YEARLY basis,
THINGS CHANGE.
Example: a public opinion poll conducted on March 10th 1948 is only valid for March 10th 1948, it is not valid for June 4th 2001.
Most people also understand that polls that show the "Entity" that paid for the poll in favorable light are bogus.
289)
"The poll conducted by Sacred Heart University, found that the most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).
In 2003, CNN led Fox News on "trust most for accurate reporting" 23.8% to 14.6%.
The Sacred Heart University Poll also found significantly declining percentages of Americans saying they believe all or most of media news reporting."
Quoting a poll from SHU? I thought you didn't believe in polls:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/01/11/...
"ALPHAGNOSIS: I don't rely on polls anyway. Especially after last week."
What happened? Did something happen in the last two days to make you change your mind? Or do you only believe in the polls and sources that agree with your preconceptions, while discounting those that disagree?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2003-04-02-...
"Nearly a third of survey respondents, 31%, said they tune to CNN first when news breaks, followed by Fox News with 20%. NBC was third, with 11%."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4965550.stm
"Some 10,230 people in 10 countries were polled for the BBC, Reuters and The Media Center. The most trusted media outlets were large global news organisations such as the BBC or CNN."
ahh funny. the Yalie has to attack AG cause he does not like the story.
Then he compares apples and oranges "studies".
Hilarious!!!!!!!
Interesting. YB proves that AG is a hypocrite, and you attack YB.
Facts don`t bother you, do they? Like water off a duck`s back...
I'd like to see a larger sampling, myself.
How about when the 2008 Presidential elections come up, some organization attach a poll asking that very same question. I'd be interested in seeing those results.
At least he's squeezing juicy oranges instead of trying to squeeze dry old apples.
"I'd like to see a larger sampling, myself."
Would the ratings for an entire year fill that request?
After all people don't watch what they don't trust for news, that would be stupid.
Fox news #1 cable news #6 overall cable. The closest cable challenger was CNN, at #26 overall
Fox News Channel Leads in 2007 Cable News Ratings
MSNBC, CNBC, CNN Headline News Experience Growth
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6517...
Fox News Channel once again ended the year as cable's top news network, followed by CNN, with few radical ratings dips or surges for either network. But among the channels with smaller audience totals -- MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News -- 2007 was a year of growth.
INJEST:
"Would the ratings for an entire year fill that request?"
No, but the number of Peabody Awards won by each for excellence in broadcast journalism will. And the number of Peabodies won by Fox pale in comparison to the number won by PBS, NPR, and CNN.
INJEST:
"After all people don't watch what they don't trust for news, that would be stupid."
Another wrong assumption. Fox treats news as more of a form of entertainment, than as a form of public service--which is why they are constantly trumpeting their ratings. Viewers apparently find the shouting matches hosted on Fox to be entertaining. However, popularity has NOTHING to do with quality journalism, which can often be more dry and academic. PBS, NPR, and CNN do treat the news as more of a form of public service and are recognized for it with Peabodies.
Judging quality by popularity is analogous to claiming Britney Spears' music is some of the best available simply because it sold many copies.
LIBS:
"Then he compares apples and oranges 'studies.'"
Oh, I see you also believe only the polls that agree with your preconceptions and disregard those that don't.
Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan all arrived at a different conclusion than the SHU study, used larger sample sizes than the SHU study, and agree with the observation that Fox News trails NPR, PBS, and CNN in Peabody Awards.
Most pollsters know that the results of a single poll by itself lack real credibility because the results can be so easily skewed by leading questions and improper sampling. That's why their results need to be corroborated by other independent pollsters--to iron out biases in questioning, sampling, etc. But none have corroborated SHU's study. That is why I quoted these other studies. Until other corroborate SHU's study, this SHU study is nothing more than an outlier.
" Basically they can control what we beleive about anything and everything. The problem lies in the fact that people actually believe the crap the news reports to us."
--I agree with most of your post and suspect that you're speaking of the average person but I hope you meant to say that the media *influences* what we believe as opposed to controlling it. IMO, it's people who are influenced by the media and *don't know it* who are the ones under its control. Although mostly I watch FOX for comic relief, I occasionally tune in to a program with the intent to challenge my left of center grounded beliefs. Then once those 45 seconds of blood boiling torture have elapsed, I cave in and surf over to watch Sponge Bob...
So, you are saying you don't care what the facts actually are, you just want to be told what you want to hear? Your whole theory dismisses facts and claims everything the media reports is merely their opinion.
Well, you are correct, if all you watch is fux news, it really is that simple.
I have a few questions:
Who paid for the poll?
What was their methodology?
How did they choose their sample?
Where is the questionnaire?
Did they sample only Religious Right Wing respondents?
What was the percentage of sample that chose to respond?
Was there any validation of their results?
Perhaps answers to these questions would shed some light on the very strange results of this poll!
Peace and Blessings!
What would Socrates's say about that?
I C so disagreeing with someone and pointing out prior posting is attacking.
1. Who cares about your nitpicking? Do you doubt the poll?
2. Of course CNN gets the nod on breaking news. Fox only has news 5 minutes per hour. Of the 2 CNN channels here only one has the 24/7 news, the other has Anderson Cooper, Larry King, etc, a lot like Fox. If I want news I can turn on the radio. Apples to oranges.
3. Duh - They don't get Fox in those countries. Even here in Vegas they kept Fox off cable until about 5 years ago.
Yout comparisons are as unscientific as can be. You would make a great biased pollster for CNN, et al.
TIRED:
"1. Who cares about your nitpicking? Do you doubt the poll?"
Many pollsters and statisticians would tell you that the results of one poll alone lack any real credibility until the results have been repeated and corroborated by other independent pollsters. This eliminates biases in questioning, sampling, etc. Since the other polls I have cited (from Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan)--many of which have even larger sample sizes than the poll conducted by SHU--contradict the SHU poll, the SHU poll remains an amusing outlier.
TIRED:
"They don't get Fox in those countries."
CNN is based in the U.S. while (Fox) News Corporation is based in Australia. Because News Corporation began as an international news organization, more foreign countries receive Fox News' telecast than CNN's telecast--they just choose to listen to the BBC instead.
TIRED:
"Yout comparisons are as unscientific as can be."
The words from someone who obviously lacks understanding in statistics. Sorry, but your elementary school arithmetic will not help your argument. Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan came to different results than the SHU study, they used larger sample sizes than the SHU study, and their results seem to agree with the observation that Fox News trails behind NPR, PBS, and CNN in Peabody Awards.
Most pollsters know that the results of a single poll lack real credibility because the results can be so easily skewed by leading questions and improper sampling. That's why their results need to be corroborated by other independent pollsters, none of which have corroborated SHU's study. Until that happens, this SHU study is nothing more than an outlier.
Jack Cafferty is about the only good thing the Clinton News Network (aka the "all illegal immigration, all the time" channel) has going for it. Though, sometimes I might tune in to see if, when reporting on his heartthrob George Bush, Wolf Blitzer still drools uncontrollably and gets that creepy glazed look in his eye (like he just might have to sprint off the set to whack off behind a potted plant or something if they don't break for a commercial soon). Scary imagery, to be sure... Or maybe, I think to myself, this will be the day Lou Dobbs' s head finally spins a full 360 degrees, his eyes bulge out even more than usual, and in lieu of one of his long gassy tirades about iilegal immigration, he instead spews green vomit all over the camera crew, confirming my long held suspicion the man is in fact possessed by the devil. ;-x
meso,
The strangest things is that his wife is a Mexican immigrant!!!
Lou's diatribes amount to nothing more than broken record, caught in the same groove, repeating itself ad nauseum!
His reporters do most of the "research" while Lou just sits there, belching out his burps of insincerity and intolerance!
The only saving grace for CNN is Anderson Cooper. He has lived in the trenches and understands what a reporter's mission is. The rest of the gang, including Larry the Panderer are insignificant bugs splashed on the windshield - with no redeeming value at all!
After Ted Turner sold CNN to Time Warner, there is absolutely no quality left there. Ever since Paula "the Zipper" Zahn's salacious entry into the network, it has been going downhill!
More..
Contd..
Now NBC is playing dirty politics, by first inviting Kucinich to tonight's Las Vegas Democratic Candidates' debate and then dis-inviting him! I suspect that ever since that weasel Chuck Todd joined NBC, his immature and childish handling of such serious matters raises new questions about NBC's journalistic integrity.
This is a terrible example of media molesting our democracy!
How could I forget AC? Oh, maybe because I usually doze off sometime after nine. Nevermind. But he is cool to watch. I didn't know that about LD's wife, though I do hear Olbermann rag on him a lot over the issue.
I doubt the polls pretty much.
They probably same lies that fuaxNews trying to spread.
First who the heck is SHU? What other credible studies they conducted. If it is two man and a truck operation, I would like to know how people were selected. Anyway...
Just because repukes claim "most trusted name in news" doesn't mean anything. Where are the FauxNews awards? Oh wait....
ybodogsct, why your facts in your post to me was so overwhelming, you've changed my mind . . . I'm a believer now!
; )
See Ybodogsct's overwhelming evidence here:
"Polls are an exercise in statistics and probabilities. A poll with a 95% confidence rating will not always predict correctly. However, the Law of Large Number suggests the polls will not be so far off the mark again so soon. To reject math and statistics because of one failed prediction demonstrates a lack of understanding of fundamental statistical principles."
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/01/11/...
:D
I don't necessarily go by polls, but I know what I have observed.Of course, I always suspect what is meant by "news" and if it's the truth.But I have noticed Fox has a bigger tendency in their "debate" formats to let the opposing side speak with less interruptions or cutting them off.
Of course, I always read the word "TRUST" lightly.
ALPHA:
"why your facts in your post to me was so overwhelming, you've changed my mind . . . I'm a believer now! See Ybodogsct's overwhelming evidence here:"
Well, Halleluia! Of course, ALPHA, there's one thing you should know about the snippet you quoted. The Law of Large Numbers also suggests that individual polls have less credibility unless their results are repeated and corroborated by other independent polling stations. This corroboration irons out the biases in questioning, sampling etc. Until that happens, this SHU study remains an amusing outlier.
RDY2RCK:
"Fox has a bigger tendency in their 'debate' formats to let the opposing side speak"
That's the problem. Fox airs more "news commentary" and less "news reporting." Instead of reporting and factchecking dispassionately, Fox hosts shouting forums that present no objective reporting, just spin from both sides of the aisle. This is why Fox lags PBS, NPR, and CNN in Peabody Awards.
A classic example of Fox's "Newsworthiness" is Bill O"Reilly. This guy has zero credibility, a total lack of research of facts and a mouth that puts a Manhattan manhole to shame!
He was invited to give a keynote speech to a meeting of experts on missing and exploited children. Just a week before that, he opened his sewer mouth and commented that the boy who was kidnapped and sexually abused for more than four years "Must have liked it, otherwise he would have ran away from his abductor". When the news reports of this trash came to the attention of the organization, they canceled O"Reilly's invitation.
This is just one example of this low-life potty-mouth's droppings! There are a lot more where this came from!
BTW, he is still on Fox!
A believer?!! You certainly are...
Take the last train to Spandau and I'll meet you at the station...
---Thanks, yb...I always get a hoot outta the tinfoil propeller beanie brigade here. Take the issue of global warming again. One moment, 29 percenters are attempting to match their home-school educations against the collective intelligence of tens of thousands of reputable scientists across the globe. They'll methodically and tenaciously attempt to rebut this argument or that, citing this discgraced scientist or that ancient obscure study.
But when the allegedly evil, totally untrustworthy and omnipotent "liberal media" temporarily loses it's mighty paralyzing grip on the world and there is *good* news in their favor, their formerly "healthy" skepticism (well, *any* sort of critical analysis skills, really) suddenly evaporate. It's like the proverbial hamster has fallen asleep at the wheel and they're free to accept the positive news at face value. Uncanny...
"Quoting a poll from SHU? I thought you didn't believe in polls"
No more strange than people who don't believe in God or religion commenting on God and religion.
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20040205_Roper...
"A survey by RoperASW [found that] Americans are more satisfied with programming on PBS compared with commercial broadcasting or cable networks and consider PBS news and public affairs series the most trustworthy."
http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005-...
Pew Research shows that Republicans rate CNN the 2nd most trustworthy news outlet. But Independents and Democrats rank Fox News NOWHERE in the top 6 most trusted news sources.
REPUBLICANS:
1) Fox News (29%)
2) CNN (26%)
3) 60 minutes (25%)
INDEPENDENTS:
1) 60 minutes (29%)
2) CNN (28%)
3) CSPAN (26%)
DEMOCRATS:
1) CNN (45%)
2) 60 minutes (42%)
3) CSPAN (36%)
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2007/narrative_c...
"CNN remains the most trusted source among those surveyed, just slightly higher than the next most trusted sources — CBS's "60 Minutes" (27%), C-SPAN (25%) and Fox News (25%)."
"But Independents and Democrats rank Fox News NOWHERE in the top 6 most trusted news sources."
I can't imagine why they don't agree. Especially since I have seen such nice comments about FOX from the left and especially the far left.
Sarcasm off.
Trying to keep all sides of the issue presented is not in keeping with what they want to hear. Only left biased news is TRUTH to them. Any presentation of center or right is FALSE to them. The surge is working extremely well so the left media say nothing. Why??
I think the same can also be said for those on the right....maybe right-biased news is the truth for them, as well.
We'd RATHER not watch biased network news hacks!
Then maybe many on the left would agree with you...
"Trying to keep all sides of the issue presented is not in keeping with what they want to hear"
--It seems to me that would *more* accurately explain why Ronnie Raygun torpedoed the Fairness Doctrine and why wingers are soiling their panties in terror that the Democratic led Congress will succeed in resurrecting it.
...Trying to keep all sides of the issue presented is not in keeping with what they want to hear
Nice statement. Works both ways.
...The surge is working extremely well so .....
Not for the 450 civilians killed this year....
But my guess is that Fox doesn't give this figure. But then neither does CNN, or the other major media.
The Roper poll was 3 years ago - people are much wiser now.
And then we have you.
the roper poll was from 2007.
where'd you get "three years ago" from? fox news?
NoWayMan
"the roper poll was from 2007.
where'd you get "three years ago" from? fox news?"
fox news uhhh nope. The Roper poll was conducted in, well here's the first sentence of the report. Click the link vb gave and look
ALEXANDRIA, Va., February 5, 2004 -- In a survey just completed by the non-partisan, international research company RoperASW, the American public called PBS the most trusted institution on a list of nationally known organizations in
ugh.
here you go injest and all the other doubters:
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/pbsfoundation/news/...
scroll down to page 7. you'll see that PBS topped the roper poll every year from 2004-2007. fox usually comes in third just behind CNN.
and PBS came in first in 2006/2007 when asked which news source is least biased.
fox came in last in 06 and second to last in 07.
booyah!!!
Are you surprised? Fox News was the one that screwed us over by announcing first that Bush won before Florida was done counting. I guess it does help when you have a few family members who work for the network.
PBS News Monday, January 14, 2008
PBS #1 IN PUBLIC TRUST, RESPECT ACCORDING TO NEW ROPER POLL
PBS Gets Top-Ranking for Trustworthiness and Is Seen As Excellent Use of Tax Dollars
Lets see a poll conducted among PBS viewers (all 28 of them) by PBS found PBS trustworthy, imagine that ?
This line here is a dead giveaway to this bogus poll.
"Seen As Excellent Use of Tax Dollars"
Most people do not know PBS is tax funded and wouldn't, unless they watched it.
PBS NEWS ratings are so dismal that they rival AirAmerica.
INJEST:
"Lets see a poll conducted among PBS viewers (all 28 of them) by PBS found PBS trustworthy, imagine that ?"
Actually, if you had bothered to read the story (and it's clear from your fatuous comments that you did not), you would have noticed that PBS did NOT conduct the poll. The poll was conducted by Roper Center for Public Opinion.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/
INJEST:
"Most people do not know PBS is tax funded and wouldn't, unless they watched it."
Wrong. That's why it's called the PUBLIC broadcasting service--it is funded with PUBLIC funds.
"The American public called PBS the most trusted institution and the best use of tax dollars. The majority of people surveyed believe that public broadcasting receives 'too little' funding from the federal government and that money given to PBS stations from the government, corporations and individuals is 'money well spent.'"
PBS has far more Peabody Awards than Fox News has.
VB
http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005-...
VB this poll was conducted in 2004 reported in 2005. It was done BEFORE Rather sunk CBS/60 Min.
Polls are snapshots of public opinion AT THE TIME THEY ARE TAKEN.
That's why polls are done on daily weekly monthly yearly basis, things CHANGE.
Another day of "boy meets world" here on Nutscape. (Changing the name doesn't change reality)
INJEST:
"Polls are snapshots of public opinion AT THE TIME THEY ARE TAKEN."
Wrong. Most pollsters would say that polls are not best used as accurate snapshots of public opinion, but rather are best used to track trends over time. Individual polls, like the SHU study, lack credibility because results can be so easily manipulated with leading questions and improper sampling. Unless the SHU poll's results are corroborated and repeated by other independent polls, the SHU poll remains an outlier.
Pew Research, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Roper Polling, USA Today, and Globescan all arrived at a different conclusion than the SHU study, used larger sample sizes than the SHU study, and agree with the observation that Fox News trails NPR, PBS, and CNN in Peabody Awards. The fact they all agree not only lends their studies credibility, but also shows an overall trend of the public preferring BBC, NPR, PBS, and even CNN for accuracy over Fox.
Roper poll, tell us what you want the poll to show and we will make it so.
In PBS we trust, according to PBS survey.(In The Loop)
Broadcasting & Cable, February, 2004 by Eggerton, John
That popular blue PBS logo must be turning red. According to a Roper poll commissioned by the Public Broadcasting Service, PBS is the most trusted organization in America, beating out the three branches of government and the rest of the media. Remember, PBS commissioned it. PBS came in second only to defense spending as a value proposition.
This means PBS PAID for the poll that shows PBS #1
THE ROPER POLL
UFOs & Extraterrestrial Life
Americans' Beliefs and Personal Experiences
Prepared for the SCI FI Channel
September 2002
Many Wonder What Government Really Knows
About Other Intelligent Life
A Majority Already Believe in the Extraterrestrial
UFO Experiences Are Not Foreign to Americans
Starting to see the pattern here?
INJEST:
"This means PBS PAID for the poll that shows PBS #1"
So you're accusing PBS of bribing Roper for a positive poll? FYI, in order to bribe another company, you must have more money than the other company. But Roper is part of a huge corporation and dwarfs PBS in comparison. Had the results come out differently, Roper would have nothing to lose by publishing this data. However, if Roper did decide to skew the results of the poll, they would have everything to lose.
"RoperASW, an NOP World company, is a leading global marketing research and consulting firm with headquarters in New York and offices in London. Bringing together some of the most renowned U.S. and European research firms in a unified global network, NOP World is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UK-based United Business Media plc."
Is all you have innuendo? If you're going to accuse an internationally-recognized polling firm like Roper, you had better have more hard proof than this.
"Polls are snapshots of public opinion AT THE TIME THEY ARE TAKEN."
"Wrong. Most pollsters would say that polls are not best used as accurate snapshots of public opinion, but rather are best used to track trends over time."
Lame, semantics. Snapshots of public opinion placed in a matrix shows "trends". Trends based on "public opinion snapshots".
That's why polls are done on DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY, YEARLY basis,
THINGS CHANGE.
Example: a public opinion poll conducted on March 10th 1948 is only valid for March 10th 1948, it is not valid for June 4th 2001.
Most people also understand that polls that show the "Entity" that paid for the poll in favorable light are bogus.