More people than ever distrust traditional news media, according to a new Pew study.
In this year’s survey, 63 percent of respondents said news articles were often inaccurate and only 29 percent said the media generally “get the facts straight” — the worst marks Pew has recorded — compared with 53 percent and 39 percent in 2007.
Seventy-four percent said news organizations favored one side or another in reporting on political and social issues, and the same percentage said the media were often influenced by powerful interests. Those, too, are the worst marks recorded in Pew surveys.
Of course, part of the problem is unbiased reporting is humanly impossible. We're all the products of our backgrounds, experiences and education that shapes our perceptions, our own sense of reality. News reporters make decisions every day based on their own perceptions. What is objectively true to one reporter is not necessarily true to another. Yet, news consumers have been educated to believe news reporting should be objective.
Because objectivity is impossible, people tend to believe the only objective news reporting is that which conforms with their own views. That's why so many Republicans believe Fox News is "fair and balanced," and on the left, only MSNBC tells the truth.
One of the enduring questions of the electronic-news era is this: are we deeper into an age of greater acrimony amongst partisan combatants because they see only one version of truth; or will the opportunity for more voices to be heard eventually lead to more open dialogue and a greater understanding of the issues of the day?
Howard, I saw this piece this
Howard,
I saw this piece this morning and was intrigued by it. I was going to post it here, but you beat me to it.
Which is why we need places
Which is why we need places like The Batavian. Not only can I find news stories, but then there are comments where someone can dispute or support the story with more info. Everybody, support this site.
Too often, we define networks
Too often, we define networks or newspapers based on certain figures. For example, the New York Times is always labeled liberal merely because it has a mostly liberal collection of columnists. I have never believed in judging a newspaper by its columnists. But since we live in a society where we judge every book by its cover, that is exactly what happens.
Saying that the MSNBC represents the left and Fox News represents the right is a bit misguided. Do the very involved progressives watch MSNBC? Sure. Do the very involved conservatives watch Fox News? Absolutely.
Why does MSNBC represent the left? Because they have Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on every night from 8 to 10 p.m. Why does Fox News represent the right? Because they have/had Brit Hume, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.
The only difference is that Fox News is all conservative, all the time. In MSNBC's case, you start the morning off with "Morning Joe" and then have a mixed bag until later in the day. That is why, even as a progressive, I have hard time labeling MSNBC a progressive network. They are some of the time, but definitely not most of the time.
Here is one more thought: People confuse "objectivitiy" with "fact." I think there are some reporters out there (perhaps most reporters) who don't tell the whole story in order to give both sides equal footing. While that may be objective, it isn't honest. That is why truth and factual information should be placed above objectivity.
Robert, Fox News started with
Robert, Fox News started with a conscious effort to appeal to Republicans. That's why they adopted the "Fair and Balanced" motto -- it was a total sop to the right, who have long complained that CBS, CNN, the NYT, etc., were left leaning and not telling the whole story. When they started to have ratings success and MSNBC was struggling, MSNBC executives made a conscious decision to pander to the left of the spectrum.
The open partisanship is something new in the history of television journalism (not, though, in the history of journalism -- there's was a time when most cities of any size had a Republican paper and a Democratic paper.
As newspapers became monopoly institutions in their markets, they dropped the overt partisanship because it could cost them advertisers.
Howard, Now that was "fair
Howard,
Now that was "fair and balanced".
Fox news is definately skewed
Fox news is definately skewed to the right, but like them or not, thier reporting is currently not only the highest rated of all others combined but is having the most influence on how Washington reacts. Fox was the only network covering the Van Jones controversy. They didn't report anything that didn't turn out to be true and as a result he was forced to resign. When a czar is forced to resign, that is a major news story. Fox news was the only network uncovering consistent and widespread corruption within ACORN and as a result the Senate voted yesterday to cut off all tax payer funding and remove them from conducting the 2010 census. As 100's of thousands of mostly peaceful protesters descended on Washington this past Saturday, Fox was the only network not treating it as just a blip on the radar.
Fox is not always fair and balanced, but they are alone in covering many recent news stories that in the end turn out to have important content with real consequences.