Fox News has surpassed CNN in the minds of Americans as the most trusted TV news organization, but the public’s overall perception about the believability of media news reports, including those by Fox, has plummeted.
Details:
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsrooms/poll_reveals_overall_declining/index.h tml

The article is ONE media sided! The title of the article is "Pole reveals overall declining trust in news media" but nowhere is mentioned Radio or Newspapers! How does Radio fit in here? I always hear how large the Public station audience is, what about NPR? How did they fare? I for one get most of my national news from Radio and I'll bet I'm not the only one.

Fox News isn't even news, it's opinionated coverage of current events.

I get my news from a variety of websites, along with local news coverage on TV and the internet, the Oregonian, and cable TV news channels. The radio is the last place I would go for news.

Fox News -- We Report; We Deside. The WORST in objective news coverage.

IMHO, the only real use RADIO and TV have, is to scope the current hot discussion. From there, hit the net, and sort the rest out for yourself.

The article ends with the quote, “We are moving toward an era of advocacy journalism,” which I think is at the heart of the problem. Why should I trust or depend on a news outlet, whether it be broadcast, print, or the Internet, if what they present gives the impression of being slanted to promote a certain viewpoint? That approach is almost like that used by the creation "science" crowd, wherein they cherry-pick information that promotes a set of pre-conceived paradigms (i.e., the earth was created as described in the Bible).

I don't think that there is any deficiency in radio, television, the Internet, or print media as forums for presenting news. I think that the problem lies in what is being put into these media as "news."

I find that "advocacy journalism" bit very interesting.

Frankly, I think the idea of each of us placing trust in our media, to the level we once did (and some of us still do!), a dangerous one. Much has changed and consolidated.

Advocacy is not a bad thing, when people are honest about it. Cite your facts, tell your story, differentiate that opinion from the known facts as best you can, and people can take away from that what they find valuable.

It's news, with context.

The big issue is clarity. If the presentation is not clear, in this advocacy fact mixed with opinion bit, then there is a problem as the consumer might confuse opinion with fact, and as a result then becomes far less informed, or worse, wrongly informed, which defeats the purpose of having the media in the first place.

Why depend indeed!

Without clarity, one really should not be depending on them much at all. With it, then it's a reasoned choice, leaving diversity at issue only. In the highly consolidated media world, diversity, in terms of this advocacy, is not as robust as it could be.

However, if we reached some sort of acceptance on bias (every freaking source has it --all of them!), educated people on that (learn to differentiate fact from opinion), and encouraged discussion about that (ok to disagree, debate, tolerance, etc...), then large media entities could still make money, and be diverse!

Lots more, I suppose.

The take away for me, over the last 15 years, has been a growing awareness of bias, that it's everywhere, and my response has been diminished trust. I still find media of value, but do not place primary decision making trust in it these days, particularly when it's often quite easy to consume and differentiate a few sources online.

If most of us are thinking for ourselves, advocacy in the media is no big deal. We are not there yet, but could be...

Is that the right way to go, or do we push to make everything bland again?

Infotainment (advocacy), is compelling! It's more compelling than similar programs that do not engage in the advocacy component so much. If it's clear, I suspect it will inform to a degree higher than we see from the older ways.

Obviously people confuse news with commentary.

In the case of Fox News I'd say their NEWS coverage is pretty balanced. It is their COMMENTARY that is biased, but they let you know cleary the bias of each individual participating in the COMMENTARY SEGMENTS which make up the bulk of their programming.

TV news is not the only place the line between NEWS and COMMENTARY is blurred. Newspaper is notoriously bad about inserting commentary into headlines or actual news stories without mentioning the biases of those writing, editing, or being quoted for a "NEWS" story.

I personally dont find FOX NEWS to be more biased than CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, Etc.

Any history buffs would be able to dispel the notion that this "trust" we have in the unbiased accuracy of the news product dispensed upon us has any merit whatsoever.

The US media has a colorful history of staunch and competetive bias going back as far as and before the American Revolution.

This is nothing new. We should stop acting all shocked about it when someone tries to use the power of their media voice to influence and control public opinion.

It is and has been the norm since this country was founded.

We should not believe that just because someone in the media does not disclose their biases that there are none.

That would be just naive

I once saw a statistic that a majority of students taking Journalism are doing so because they want to "MAKE A DIFFERENCE"

Obviously most journalists are out to MAKE A DIFFERNECE first, get the facts out on both sides, well if they have space and time sure.

Reporting should be just that..... reporting. That means, tell me what happened. No opinions, just the facts, not interpretation of the facts. No emotions, just raw data.

Sadly, that is not what is happening today, particularly on the political front. I think where they primarily do it correctly is when they go out and cover a fire, traffic accident, flood damage, etc. When it comes to politics, well, let's just say that there is no objectivity in any of it.

I generally get my quick update headlines from the radio and then get my main info from reading reliable sources, taking into account the prejudices of the source, be it the Oregonian, WSJ, other papers..... and the internet.. most of which you can't trust. To rely totally on radio, you miss the meat. I don't watch tv news as a general rule. They only cover what they can get a crew to or from some other source. Therefore, what they may pose as a level of importance may not really be correct. It depends on what they can get video of.....remember, television is a visual medium. How many stories with any meat do you see covered on tv with the anchor just sitting there with no video or meaningful video?

The people on this board are generally more aware and savvy than the general public when it comes to information. They tend to use more sources and reliable ones. The general public only knows what they get from 10 second sound bites on TV that are carefully selected and edited.

Back in the early days, when we listened to Top40 radio, it was live and local most of the time but it had news on the hour and half hour with weather and other info. There were no 20 straight tunes or music all the time or three in a row, etc. The dj at that time (on AM radio) was busy all the time and talked/ad-libbed between every record. That seems to be a lost art these days, not some aren't capable, but it just isn't done anymore.

Reporting as just reporting , primarily attributed to yester-year, is just an illusion. Opinionated or biased Journalism on TV and radio and in print "back in the day" existed as it does right now. The way "they" did it was more subtle than it is now and it got far less attention.

The difference back in the 40s, 50s and most of the 60s was that the great majority of adults thought alike when it came to National and World politics, Republicans and Democrats alike. That generation was too busy flying after the same American Dream to argue much about our presence in the rest of the world or even our presence internally as Americans, they tended to believe the official govt version of most anything. The 70s and 80s brought big changes of course.

Lots of opinions and "spins" around these days due to the variety of media sources.

I think the reason Fox News beat CNN is because Fox is more comforting to the general viewer. You're not going to see as many stories on the environment and planet problems.

FAUXNews: We decide YOU COMPLY!

Why all the hate Trix?

Fox is no more biased than any other TV news outlet...

Just that its not YOUR bias of choice.

Tragically, I believe this is true of way too many news consumers of all political stripes: The best news outlets are the ones that tell them what they want to hear.
And the Internet will make it more so. As people tailor their news feeds to filter out anything that doesn't fit pre-conceived notions, they'll have no idea how those notions fair in the marketplace of ideas.
It's an extension of a warning I read about net consumption back in the stone age of 1996: You can find every piece of news in the world about beekeeping; if you don't occasionally read a mainstream paper or watch a newscast, you'll have no idea about beekeeping's place in society.

I think studies have shown that Fox News definitely is more biased (not just the commentaries) than the other outlets. Still, I don't hold much trust in the rest of the media anymore, anyway. Even the New York Times has fallen from grace - after the Judith Miller/WMD series I for one will never completely trust them again.

As for "advocacy journalism," that's hardly new in America - rather, we've had an era the last 50+ years where the media has attempted to appear as unbiased as possible. But in the 19th and early 20th century, most popular newspapers were blatantly Democratic or Republican and their coverage was slanted one way or another. One way to look at it is that the media is still much less biased now than it was a century ago. But I still don't trust it. :-)

Andrew

notalent has it down. ALL NEWS is biased. There is no way on God's green earth that a person can EVER just read the story as it happened. They will spin it their way, whether through simple voice inflection or more complex writing.
Calling out Fox is dumb.
Calling out Katie Couric is smart, cause she's dumb.
What "studies"? Any studies about another news agency is going to be biased somehow.

Fox news, not the commentary, but the news stories and their presentation, are biased. Just reading the wording on their news ticker should be all you need. This is a fact. Granted, all news has some bias, but Fox News clearly has an agenda towards the right, where other news organizations are a tad more moderate.

I would say that if you are liberal it would be harder to detect a liberal bias in a news product. If you are a conservative viewing a liberal biased news product then it would be easier to spot the bias.

The same holds for the reverse.

If you are liberal it will be easier for you to spot any bias in Fox coverage and less easy for you to notice the bias at CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC etc.

Just like that statistic that 80% of people believe that they are "above average" I bet somewhre around 80% of the population believe that the rest of us think (or should think) like they do.

Actually I think it's more about whether you believe that media news has value. It doesn't. TV news is just another program that has to sell. If ads fall, pressure is applied to cover different stories. Ratings is ALL that matters.
TV news is strictly mass appeal where the lowest common denominator reigns. If you are able to think for yourself you already get your news from multiple sources and sort it out on your own. If you actually put all your stock in what any one news service reports, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

It is all biased.

Just because you happen to agree with it does not make it less biased.

It also does not necessarily make it a bad thing. it is exactly what Andy says. a product driven by ratings.

Fox news succeeds because most of the major news players have been targeting a liberal audience.

Fox chose to target those who arent already being targeted by the other mainstream media outlets.

No different than if a market has 8 rock stations and no dance stations and someone decides maybe they could get ratings if they change to a dance format.

It totally makes sense given that the national split is about 50/50 conservative/liberal. why no national news outlet targeted the conservative half sooner is curious.

The "national split" is certainly not 50/50 conservative/liberal. More like 80% moderate, 10% liberal, 10% conservative. Let's remember that 1/2 of eligible Americans don't even bother vote so we can guess they are neither liberal nor conservative...

Andrew

> As for "advocacy journalism," that's hardly new in America

This is true. Recalling one of my high school history lessons, the most famous examples of "advocacy journalism" in the U.S. were the pro-regulation "muck-rakers" of the late 19th century.

I've found the A.M. Sperber biography of Edward R. Murrow to be a fascinating read because it goes into detail about all of the philosophical and regulatory issues that he ran into in his career as a news broadcaster. In his early days, he tried his best to be objective, although being human, he certainly had his opinions about world events. Part of that self-imposed drive to be objective was due to his beliefs about the proper role of a reporter and another part of that was due to regulatory pressures from the FCC (the Mayflower and Fairness doctrines). I acknowledge that reporters, being human, are not going to be 100% objective; however, I agree with Murrow that it is a proper ideal to strive towards.

In the end, even the great Murrow faltered as a completely objective news reporter; in his last major documentary, "The Harvest of Shame," he implores viewers that it is their moral duty to help fight against the injustices faced by migrant farm workers.

I'm with Andy Brown... Without this degenerating into something that belongs on the "other" side, I consider myself a "moderate"... I'm conservative on some issues, and liberal in others. That's something here in Arizona that's been a challenge in the last few years, but is slowly improving as more people move into Arizona from other places in our great country. It's tended to take and gradually lessen the once huge Republican majority this state had. As a result, the strident conservatives haven't been able to shout down the other side as easily...("You're a LIBERAL!!!!") but it sure as H-E-Double Hockey Sticks has been AWFULLY noisy up to this point!

As a result, my armor went up a long time ago. I'm of the camp that has the perception of "Fox News...Fair and balanced...(as long as it leans to the right.)" Is it true? Well, in my book it is! As a result, I totally ignore the local Rush Limbaugh station. Too doggone much shouting! Too conservative for me to take them seriously, and they delight in stirring up the pot rather than get a constructive dialog going to try and solve a community issue. All this in the name of ratings vs. community service.

Air America is on a peanut whistle signal in this market. When I *can* hear them, they're no better than their brethren on the opposite side of the aisle. So a pox on BOTH their houses...

If I *want* shouting, I'll incite a riot between ASU and U of A fans!

Journalism is a craft and a practice... Out of necessity, pursuit of the almighty dollar has always made the pure practice of the craft in broadcasting less than harmonious. Congrats to the decreasing numbers of these practitioners, "journalists," that recognize their responsibility to report the facts, and leave anything that's "opinion" plainly labeled as such.

And Alfredo, thanks for pointing out that Ed Murrow was, indeed, "human"...

I get my information from some radio top-of-hour newscasts, internet versions of a couple of trusted newspapers, the newsprint version of my local neighborhood daily, and local TV newscasts on four different stations. And regardless of what any politician, news source or rabid motormouth talk jockey thinks, trust me...*I* WILL be The Decider...And I'll do it in a way that our government leaders could only DREAM of!

It ain't easy, is it? But ya gotta do what ya gotta do...

(Thanks for hearing me out at my soapbox...I'm stepping down, right now...)

A great deal of the perceived "mistrust" of the news media must somehow be connected to the blurring of hard news & entertainment news, to attract ratings and sell advertising. It also does not help that news veterans are often replaced with less expensive and younger "outsiders of the market", surely diminishing credibility and comfort levels with listeners/viewers.

BREAKING FUAXNews:

A blonde co-ed is missing. Now back to the missing Marine and his love affair with animals.