Trust in media is at record lows

[rambot]

How do you think they're doing that?

By saying "don't trust the news" and people saying "ok". And then not trusting the news.

 

[probinson]

By saying "don't trust the news" and people saying "ok". And then not trusting the news.

Do you really think Republicans posses that kind of influence over independents and democrats?

 

[rambot]

Do you really think Republicans posses that kind of influence over independents and democrats?

I think it's a personality trait that is exploited more than it's a particular polticial bent

 

[stevil]

OK. That may explain why Republicans distrust the media. But do you think that's why 71% of independents and 42% of Democrats have little or no trust in the media?

I presume half the independants are right wing and watch Fox News etc.

In terms of the Democrat voters or registered folk. I'm not sure. What is normal?
It would be very unusual if you had 90-100% of people trusting media.

And when people are answering the question "Do you trust media?", it may come down to how each person interprets and addresses the question. Because of course, not all media is the same. Fox News is different from CNN which is different from Facebook and different from X etc. And then even within a media corporation, different personalities are different from each other.

Personally, I think USA 24x7 news channels is a bad idea. I think there isn't enough actual news so they fill in the space with lots and lots of opinion. Lot's of talking heads giving their opinons about events and also you have certain people who are politically bent one way or another. Like Rachel Maddow, she is definatley a left wing political commentator. I wouldn't say she isn't trustworthy, it's just that she criticises on the right wingers, but then you get people like Hannity, Carlson who are right wing opinion show people but they actively lie, wholesale generalise, throw out derogatory nicknames like "radical left", "socialist left" etc. At least Maddow is very specific and detailed when she complains about specific schemes or specific people.
But if you are to get a true gage of what is going on, you really should have just a 1 hr news show, that also includes the weather. This way they stick to reporting on the facts and don't just report on bad things from one specific party.

Anyway, I think if I was to be asked if 24x7 news media is to be trusted, I certainly would grade them on a scale.

 

[probinson]

I presume half the independants are right wing and watch Fox News etc.

I'm sure that some of the independents are right wing, but probably not "half". As an independent, I have conservative political viewpoints, but I don't watch Fox News at all (which I realize you believe is the root of all evil).

In terms of the Democrat voters or registered folk. I'm not sure. What is normal?
It would be very unusual if you had 90-100% of people trusting media.

Perhaps. But 42% of Democrats is a rather high percentage to have little to no trust in the media, wouldn't you agree?

And when people are answering the question "Do you trust media?", it may come down to how each person interprets and addresses the question. Because of course, not all media is the same. Fox News is different from CNN which is different from Facebook and different from X etc. And then even within a media corporation, different personalities are different from each other.

Sure. All of that comes into play. But there is no denying that trust in "media", however you define it, has been on a downward trend since they began asking people this question in 1972.

Personally, I think USA 24x7 news channels is a bad idea.

I agree.

I think there isn't enough actual news so they fill in the space with lots and lots of opinion.

Indeed. All 24/7 "news" channels are guilty of this.

Lot's of talking heads giving their opinons about events and also you have certain people who are politically bent one way or another. Like Rachel Maddow, she is definatley a left wing political commentator. I wouldn't say she isn't trustworthy,

I would.

it's just that she criticises on the right wingers, but then you get people like Hannity, Carlson who are right wing opinion show people but they actively lie, wholesale generalise, throw out derogatory nicknames like "radical left", "socialist left" etc.

Also not trustworthy.

At least Maddow is very specific and detailed when she complains about specific schemes or specific people.

Maddow, Hannity, Morning Joe, Carlson... all untrustworthy IMHO.

But if you are to get a true gage of what is going on, you really should have just a 1 hr news show, that also includes the weather. This way they stick to reporting on the facts and don't just report on bad things from one specific party.

The 6 o'clock news was once a staple in American homes. Once upon a time, reporters were at least somewhat objective. But as you've pointed out, we've moved on from those days and the news has become a product to consume. Ratings matter more than the news. It's quite the conundrum. The result is a severely degraded trust in media by the populace.

Perhaps the answer is simple. People don't trust mass media because mass media has proven itself to be untrustworthy.

 

[stevil]

Perhaps the answer is simple. People don't trust mass media because mass media has proven itself to be untrustworthy.

I don't think that is the case.

There are many mass media stations that have shows and journalists with lots of integrity. You just need to learn who to trust.
And that is not about who says stuff that you like. But who says stuff that is mostly not found to be lies or decieptful, and who is wiling to say bad stuff about both sides, (right or left).

Quite often when I hear something that is interesting and attention grabbing I do a bit more research to find out if it is true or not.
I've not known Maddow to lie about anything, I don't watch her all the time, so I'm not saying she has never said anything incorrect. But I think she would do herself big favors if she also applied her talents to investigting dubious Democrats as well.

Shep Smith from Fox News had lots of integrity, Chris Wallace was a bit more biased than Shep but he tried to act with integrity.

The opinion show folks an Fox News are really bad. They dressup what they do, to look like news, but they don't actually do news. They are completely propaganda. I haven't seen anything as ludicrous as Tucker on any mainstream media network.


But really, when I try to find out what is going on in USA politics I see clips on youtube and I generally watch the first couple of minutes and then skip all the talking heads offering opinions parts of the clip which goes on for the next half hour.
And as I've said already, for new and important information I then seek to verify or debunk it from other sources.


I also think many people from the USA right don't trust media because there is lots of news that they don't like hearing. They don't like hearing that the Republicans were going to lose the 2020 election so they got all upset when Fox News correctly called it. They hate hearing about the violence of Jan 6, they hate hearing about Trump and the fake electors scheme, so if a media source shows that stuff, they will call it "fake news" and turn the channel.

 

[probinson]

I don't think that is the case.

I do. The media as whole has an absolutely dreadful track record.

There are many mass media stations that have shows and journalists with lots of integrity. You just need to learn who to trust.

Yeah, that's pretty subjective. Integrity? Nah, I think their "integrity" only goes so far as their agenda permits in many cases.

Quite often when I hear something that is interesting and attention grabbing I do a bit more research to find out if it is true or not.

You and I are alike in that regard.

I've not known Maddow to lie about anything, I don't watch her all the time, so I'm not saying she has never said anything incorrect. But I think she would do herself big favors if she also applied her talents to investigting dubious Democrats as well.

But that would require the aforementioned "integrity" you spoke of. Maddow is a partisan hack, just like Hannity. Their function is not to objectively report the news but to cheerlead for their party.

Shep Smith from Fox News had lots of integrity, Chris Wallace was a bit more biased than Shep but he tried to act with integrity.

I think everyone tries to put on a show of integrity. And I would agree that there are personalities that I find more trustworthy than others. But whether you realize it or not, you're articulating a big part of the problem. I don't believe something because it comes from news personality A and disbelieve it because it comes from news personality B. When people say things that are verifiably true, that's good enough for me. Their "track record" doesn't even come into play. You've illustrated that the news, much like politics, is very much a cult of personality. So, the media being a product for consumers, caters to that demand. People will believe something just because Maddow or Hannity said it.

The opinion show folks an Fox News are really bad. They dressup what they do, to look like news, but they don't actually do news. They are completely propaganda. I haven't seen anything as ludicrous as Tucker on any mainstream media network.

Ofr course you haven't. But I could say the same of Maddow. The few times I've watched her, it was nothing but pure propaganda.

But really, when I try to find out what is going on in USA politics I see clips on youtube and I generally watch the first couple of minutes and then skip all the talking heads offering opinions parts of the clip which goes on for the next half hour.

I never watch the talking heads. Their opinions mean nothing to me. When the debate is over, the TV gets turned off.

And as I've said already, for new and important information I then seek to verify or debunk it from other sources.

That's good. It also illustrates that you have little trust in what the media tells you.

I also think many people from the USA right don't trust media because there is lots of news that they don't like hearing. They don't like hearing that the Republicans were going to lose the 2020 election so they got all upset when Fox News correctly called it.

I get why you're trying to make this a partisan thing, but that explanation ignores the 42% of democrats that have little to no trust in the media. I can all but guarantee you that they loved hearing that Republicans lost the 2020 election, and yet they still have little to no trust in the media.

They hate hearing about the violence of Jan 6, they hate hearing about Trump and the fake electors scheme, so if a media source shows that stuff, they will call it "fake news" and turn the channel.

That could be because the hysteria about January 6 has been blown completely out of proportion. I mean, Harris has equated it to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. That's sheer lunacy, and anyone not completely consumed by propaganda knows that while what happened on January 6 was shameful, it does not belong in the same conversation as the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history.

 

[probinson]

Certainly Democrat supporters by and large didn't go off the deep end in covid conspiracies about a plandemic, and haven't gone off the deep end about lawfare.

It's interesting you mention COVID.

Did you know that in September 2021, Democrats were the least informed in their beliefs regarding the risk of hospitalization COVID posed to them? Take a look.

How the Public Understands Hospitalization Risk​

For both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, very few adults reported a correct answer, which is less than one percent. See the discussion in the appendix for details about the correct hospitalization rates and efficacy estimates. Only 8% of U.S. adults gave correct answers for the unvaccinated population and 38% for the vaccinated population.​

​

Partisanship was a strong predictor of accuracy, but party accuracy varied by whether the respondent was assessing the risk of the vaccinated or unvaccinated populations.​

​

For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19.​

​

​

U.S. Adults' Estimates of COVID-19 Hospitalization Risk

Americans' estimates of both the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 and the efficacy of the vaccine for the disease vary widely by their political affiliation and vaccination status.

news.gallup.com

Do you want to take a guess as to why Democrats' perception of the risk of hospitalization was orders of magnitude higher than the actual risk? Because they were fed a steady diet of COVID fear propaganda from the media at the behest of the government.

A recent House Report shows that the US government spent over 900 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money in ADVERTISING for COVID. The results of that campaign above are striking. Only 2% of Democrats were able to accurately assess the risk of hospitalization from COVID.

IMHO, COVID is a much bigger factor than politics as to why trust in media has dropped across the political spectrum.

 

[stevil]

That could be because the hysteria about January 6 has been blown completely out of proportion. I mean, Harris has equated it to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. That's sheer lunacy, and anyone not completely consumed by propaganda knows that while what happened on January 6 was shameful, it does not belong in the same conversation as the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history.

Jan 6 was an attempt to take over your entire country/

Pearl Harbor was just a way to remove some military capability of USA in a local region.

 

[stevil]

It's interesting you mention COVID.

Did you know that in September 2021, Democrats were the least informed in their beliefs regarding the risk of hospitalization COVID posed to them? Take a look.

That's interesting. I kept up with stuff on Covid as it unfolded. I never heard of people thinking that half the people that get infected end up in hospital.

It's not a big deal though if people thought this.
It's not like they are refusing to socially isolate or refusing to get vaccinated, or going around confronting people wearing masks, insisting they take the masks off.

If people took the disease more seriously, you might have had hundreds of thousands of more people alive in USA today.

A recent House Report shows that the US government spent over 900 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money in ADVERTISING for COVID. The results of that campaign above are striking. Only 2% of Democrats were able to accurately assess the risk of hospitalization from COVID.

IMHO, COVID is a much bigger factor than politics as to why trust in media has dropped across the political spectrum.

It was politics that turned right wingers against measures to save lives during the pandemic, that turned right wingers against the media.
USA was a real embarrassing mess during the pandemic. I cringe even now when I think about how badly many USA right wingers behaved at that time.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Trust anywhere is all time low.

 

[probinson]

That's interesting. I kept up with stuff on Covid as it unfolded. I never heard of people thinking that half the people that get infected end up in hospital.

Yep. Why do you think people thought that, particularly Democrats? How did the Democrats get it so wrong?

It's not a big deal though if people thought this.

Nonsense. Risk mitigation should be vastly different for a disease in which fewer than 1% of people end up in the hospital vs. a disease where >50% of people who get the disease end up hospitalized. That you think that's not a "big deal" tells me that you are not good at risk assessment and mitigation.

It's not like they are refusing to socially isolate or refusing to get vaccinated, or going around confronting people wearing masks, insisting they take the masks off.

No, but there were examples of people being tased and forcibly removed from a high school football game because they weren't wearing a mask. There were also examples of people being arrested for walking along the beach all by themselves. Sheer lunacy.

If people took the disease more seriously, you might have had hundreds of thousands of more people alive in USA today.

"More seriously"? Are you kidding? Schools were closed. They masked 2-year olds in daycare centers. You couldn't dine out. There were one way aisles in supermarkets. Governments closed outdoor playgrounds, filled skate parks with sand, put 2x4s across basketball hoops. There were countless evidence-poor recommendations based on pseudoscience that people largely complied with.

It was politics that turned right wingers against measures to save lives during the pandemic,

I didn't realize you were on board with all of the pseudoscience that took place during the pandemic. Most of the "measures to save lives" were nonsensical and devoid of any logic or scientific rigor. It was pure hysteria.

that turned right wingers against the media.

Again, it's not only "right wingers" that have historically low trust in the media. I know that is what fits in your narrative, but that's not what the data shows.

USA was a real embarrassing mess during the pandemic.

On that we agree, but for different reasons I am sure.

I cringe even now when I think about how badly many USA right wingers behaved at that time.

 

[probinson]

Jan 6 was an attempt to take over your entire country/

Pearl Harbor was just a way to remove some military capability of USA in a local region.

Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack on our country in which more than 2,400 people were killed.

See what I mean? You're trying to downplay Pearl Harbor to make the disgrace of January 6 seem worse than it was. It seems the media propaganda has been quite effective on you.

 

[stevil]

Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack on our country in which more than 2,400 people were killed.

See what I mean? You're trying to downplay Pearl Harbor to make the disgrace of January 6 seem worse than it was. It seems the media propaganda has been quite effective on you.

I'm not down playing Perl Harbour, it was an act of war.
I just think Jan 6 was worse, as it was an attempt to change by force who runs your entire country

 

[stevil]

Yep. Why do you think people thought that, particularly Democrats? How did the Democrats get it so wrong?

I don't know. I can't remember any media or democrat claiming that half the infected people will end up in hospital.

 

[probinson]

I'm not down playing Perl Harbour, it was an act of war.
I just think Jan 6 was worse, as it was an attempt to change by force who runs your entire country

That's an interesting take.

Read that back to yourself without your agenda, and see if you can figure out why many people think that the Jan 6 reporting has been blown way the heck out of all proportion.

 

[probinson]

I don't know. I can't remember any media or democrat claiming that half the infected people will end up in hospital.

Are you trying to pretend like the media wasn't suggesting that no one would be safe? Allow me refresh your memory.

If you still can't figure out why people severely overestimated the risk COVID posed to them after watching this compilation of coordinated media propaganda, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[stevil]

Are you trying to pretend like the media wasn't suggesting that no one would be safe? Allow me refresh your memory.

I've watch the first 2 minutes of that video and I pretty much agree with most things in it so far.
Does it get to the part were it is saying that over 50% of people get hospitalised?

If you still can't figure out why people severely overestimated the risk COVID posed to them after watching this compilation of coordinated media propaganda, I don't know what to tell you.

Initially people on the USA right severely underestimated the risk of Covid. Many thought it was just like the flu, or thought it was going to miraculously just go away, many just straight out refused to wear masks or socially isolate, and many refused to get vaccinated. Their stubbornness likely caused 100's of thousands of USA people to die unnecessarily.

 

[stevil]

That's an interesting take.

Read that back to yourself without your agenda, and see if you can figure out why many people think that the Jan 6 reporting has been blown way the heck out of all proportion.

I think some people watched Tucker's cherry picked video pretending it was a normal tourist visit, where police came and kindly have people a guided tour.

 

[probinson]

I've watch the first 2 minutes of that video and I pretty much agree with most things in it so far.

Really? That's sad.

Does it get to the part were it is saying that over 50% of people get hospitalised?

"No one is safe" is the prevailing theme of that video. No one had to directly claim that over 50% lf people would get hospitalized, but that was the result of telling people, incorrectly, that "no one was safe".

If you don't think it was the incessant fear porn peddled by the media, why do you think that over half of Democrats in the survey overestimated the risk of hospitalization by so much?

Initially people on the USA right severely underestimated the risk of Covid.

if you say so.

Many thought it was just like the flu, or thought it was going to miraculously just go away, many just straight out refused to wear masks or socially isolate, and many refused to get vaccinated.

Masks did little to nothing to slow the spread of the disease, Fauci admitted that social distancing just sort of appeared out of thin air, and those who had already had COVID and recovered saw either a negligible benefit from vaccination or were subjected to unnecessary harms.

The response to COVID was an unmitigated disaster because public health authorities and governments incessantly lied about the benefits of these dubious measures while completely ignoring any of the harms and the media amplified those claims. "You won't get COVID if you get this vaccine" was a demonstrable lie from health authorities from day one. Once it became clear that vaccinated people were getting COVID just as frequently, if not more, than unvaccinated people, trust collapsed. That's probably why COVID vaccine uptake is so low now, with less than 20% of the population complying with the recommendation to get "boosters" each year. Sadly, this lack of trust from COVID recommendations now carries over to ALL public health recommendations. There is no one to blame but themselves for peddling such dubious claims.

Their stubbornness likely caused 100's of thousands of USA people to die unnecessarily.

I know you need to believe that for your shaky narrative to hold water, but it's just not true.