Attachment 20485
I was shocked. USA Today is more trusted than CNN!
Printable View
Attachment 20485
I was shocked. USA Today is more trusted than CNN!
Surely it depends on what they think - I doubt in the UK those who read the Daily Mail trust the Guardian; I imagine in the USA being so much bigger and so much more polarised leads to more polarised results. I try to read from those publications I disagree with to get the views of those outside my "bubble".
~:smoking:
I thought Yahoo was a search engine? And the Yahoo News section just showed articles from outside news sources.
I don't know America Today, but CNN is pretty bad..'
They say that USA Today is somewhat like The Sun in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Dutch equivalent of the Sun is the biggest here, not that they can't be trusted but I don't like their style, I dislike screaming headlines. The 'quality newspapers' really aren't that though. It's ok to be biased that I don't mind, but don't pretend to be something you aren't, they are mostly lifestyle-magazines with good articles but for news you have better optionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Well clutch my pearls!
The government deliberately lied on immigration:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-t...-terror-report
Yippee!
The gov't gets in the game of "fake news":laugh4:
Of the top 7, 5 are foreign (4 English) and two are Public Radio/TV (British-Lite in style).
In other words, we have this funny tendency to trust Journalism outlets that still report the malfing facts and clearly separate them from their opinion stuff.
You think I have been deriding the US News Media and US journalists in general without any basis?
You have little idea how good your news outlets are compared to ours.
US News is catered toward whatever audience already watches them. Each network caters to people that love and need their echo chamber to confirm whats wrong with the other. Watch MSNBC only and you'll be sure the Republicans are all evil, watch Fox News and you'll be sure that the Democrats are trying to pioneer the downfall of America. CNN leans left but not as blatantly as MSNBC.
When we still had Al Jazeera America I'd switch to watching that when we'd be stuck on some stupid small story that was getting 24hr coverage despite being relatively unimportant (Prince, Kardashians, etc...).
The evening news is pretty much the most comprehensive and trust worthy but unfortunately only watched by the elderly it seems. I regularly watch PBS Newshour and BBC, sometimes I'll watch NHK if PBS is airing it. I do switch between the 3 cable news networks during lunch though to see the differing coverage of the same story. On my phone I switch between reading the news from the following apps: PBS Newshour, BBC News, France 24, Deutsche Welle, ORF.
I think one of the reasons British news is so trusted is probably because it doesn't fall into the trap of over covering one story. When CNN is giving their minute by minute coverage or count down of some event you can miss a hell of a lot of news that's only covered in the ticker scrolling the bottom of the screen. British news casts cover the whole world of events instead of our purely domestic focuses (Catalan thing was barely covered on cable news networks).
The worry for me is that the two most extreme networks have the highest viewership rates despite being 'untrusted'
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic...st-2017/339773
RATINGS
Fox News and MSNBC Are No. 1 and No. 2 Most-Watched Cable Networks in August
Quote:
Americans continue to be enthralled by cable news, and it continues to show in the ratings department. Each of the big three cable news networks finished in the top 5 across basic cable across total day viewership (6 a.m. – 6 a.m.)
During the month of August 2017, Fox News topped all of basic cable in total day viewers, per Nielsen data. This is the 14th straight month Fox News has accomplished this feat. Additionally, FNC was the most-watched basic cable network in prime time, notching a monthly total viewer victory in prime time six of the past eight months.
Fox News also posted audience growth in August 2017 relative to its August 2016. The network was +6 percent in prime time viewers, and +7 percent in total day viewers from last year.
With Adults 25-54, Fox News posted +25 percent growth in prime time, and +28 percent growth in total day.
MSNBC continues to thrive ratings-wise in 2017. The network finished August 2017 No. 2 basic cable both in prime time and in total day viewers. The network posted +63 percent prime time viewer growth, +55 percent growth in the prime time demo, +54 percent growth in total day viewers, and +40 percent growth in the total day demo versus August 2016.
CNN had a solid month in its own right, finishing in the top 10 in total viewers, both in prime time and in total day. The network posted +41 percent growth in total prime time viewers, +54 percent growth in the prime time A25-54 demo, +22 percent growth in total day viewers and +39 percent growth in the total day demo versus August 2016.
Armed with a re-vamped lineup in the afternoon and early evenings, CNN’s sister network HLN held steady in total prime time viewers but posted +2 percent growth in total day viewers from Aug. 2016.
Additionally, here are the five most-watched basic cable networks of August 2017:
Top 5 Basic Cable Networks of August 2017 (Prime Time)
Fox News (2,206,000)
MSNBC (1,835,000)
USA (1,499,000)
HGTV (1,429,000)
TBS (1,258,000)
Top 5 Basic Cable Networks: August 2017 (Total Day)
Fox News (1,345,000)
Nickelodeon (1,165,000)
MSNBC (1,002,000)
CNN (832,000)
Adult Swim (809,000)
Was free speech a mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
No, there are journalists that do seek truth and try to air it. That might however mean telling people things they don't want to hear which is why it's drowned out by other news. It's more profitable to cash in on peoples pre-existing bias. In the mean time people get to choose which truth is true to them. Even with the faults of our media I'm glad we don't have an official news outlet. I'd hate to see how President fake-news would use such a network to undermine our current flawed outlets.
Having occasionally looked at Tass and People's Daily I'm quite content with free though flawed speech.
At least you know who is biased, the official news-outlet has the nickname 'state-channel'', for a reason. Confidence is still too high though
@all: Can televised/video format ever be the equal of the old written word?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_News_UpdateQuote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
:creep:
They're untrusted in polling because everyone has an opinion on them (market penetration).Quote:
The worry for me is that the two most extreme networks have the highest viewership rates despite being 'untrusted'
Printed media are definitely preferable. Because one can't sleep with a TV or a computer monitor covering your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
A wimpful display. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Here's the real deal, in all its North Korean glory: https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump...0461276665725/
Compare the two "girls" to these two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU53KD1DB8Y
If you need a hint, the similarities begin with the fake smiles. :sweatdrop:
No, but nobody ever said freedom came without a price.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Can any of them ever beat the healthy anarchy that is the internet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So the internet has neither word nor video and anarchy is healthy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, that much has been quite clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I just read Emperor Trump's Twitter feed. Its the only information that turns out to be true in the end. The whole time I imagine a bunch of beta cucked Euro-weenies shaking and whimpering in a fetal position as the amount of brutal harsh truth incinerates their drug dilated pupils more than when they watch their women being brutalized by third world invaders. It makes my nipples perk up like a pair of mint cone ice creams flipped upside down and plunged on the forehead of some high school band nerd getting pummeled by an entire horde of steroid using jocks....
In this case, we should probably take price literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ8EAwRauoMQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNj89ohoYQ0Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Wec7DPVqEQuote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Your "emperor" should enact a tariff on glass houses.
Don't taunt wolves from within glass houses; they'll right smash the sucker to get at your meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Fight them abroad so you don't have to fight them at home.
Better yet, facilitate them fighting each other - don't block them those that wish getting there, ensure they never leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
~:smoking:
Machi-award for Rory
TV news is dying. Press F to pay respects.
FFF
F for Fluff you very much. I don't need no bedtime-story moms
I think it could, it just takes more effort on the part of the journalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Most Journalists now have seen too many movies. As a generalization they are more worried about being the resistance than getting a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
So completely concur than I am annoyed at not having posted this myself. I am bested by a younger and more agile mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Ah, but no one can match your wisdom and experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I know for a fact that Strikes doesn't take a strong position on any issue until he sees your stance.
Perhaps. Save for his love for cher Louis, in which none were as avid or faithful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
In these harsh times, the media the Americans trust the most is their tribe's propaganda:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/demo.../01/what-video
MAINSTREAM MEDIA, EMBRACE YOUR LIBERALISM
Quote:
Conservatives have used this same basic method for decades now, treating liberal bias in the mainstream media as a fact, and a conspiracy in and of itself. For just as long, mainstream media institutions have gone to great lengths to refute the right’s liberal-bias accusations, and make good faith efforts to appease their critics. It was arguably this self-defensive reflex that drove leading news outlets to generate a kind of equivalence between Donald Trump’s campaign promise to turn America into a racist kleptocracy, and Hillary Clinton’s email practices at the State Department. By noting that both candidates had question marks hanging over their heads, they could (they believed) preempt accusations of liberal bias from the right.
The conciliatory approach has never worked, and because the accusations themselves are deployed in bad faith, it, importantly, can not work. The goal of movement conservatism is not to make media more representative of American politics at the margin, but to destroy journalism as a mediating institution altogether. What might work instead, though, would be for the targets of right wing criticism to embrace the liberal epithet (in a manner of speaking) and then treat the endless right-wing bleating about partisan bias as so much obnoxious noise.
Quote:
The first step toward ending the soccer-flop-style relationship between mainstream media and its right wing antagonists is for journalists to accept that the fight is over, and conservatives have won.
[...]
Step two is for journalists to accept that while their organizations aren’t “liberal” in the American-partisan sense of the word, the vocation itself is “liberal” in a more profound and important sense, which is why the right wants to crush it... It is increasingly clear that asymmetric polarization is the wrong metaphor for what has happened in American politics.
[...]
[Bannon's] understudy Matthew Boyle has boasted that his organization’s goal is nothing less than “the full destruction and elimination of the entire mainstream media,” through the “weaponization of information.”
[...]
While he has consciously rejected the underpinnings of the liberal west, it is impossible to watch Fox News in prime time, or Devin Nunes at the helm of the House Intelligence Committee, or Rush Limbaugh bellowing at dittoheads, and not conclude that they have done the same, consciously or otherwise.
But what incentive do corporate-owned media have to dispense with lip-service to "fairness" and "civility"? The financial/executive/managerial elites have a stake in encouraging broad deference to professionals and professional institutions (cf. Clinton vs. Sanders), and their version of a chivalric ethos provides a superficial legitimacy. "Meritocracy" and noblesse oblige are also (classically) liberal.Quote:
The job of the mainstream media isn’t to cast judgment on people with different value systems, but journalists can’t do their jobs well if they aren’t aware that the value systems of mainstream journalism and American conservatism are different and in conflict. It should be perfectly possible to apply the neutral rules of modern journalism to both American political parties while accepting that Democrats (and journalists and scientists) descend from the enlightenment tradition, while Republicans (and their allies in conservative media) descend from a different, illiberal tradition—and that this makes the parties behave in different ways.
It is why the right has felt comfortable spending the past weeks fabricating whole-cloth conspiracy theories about the FBI and setting about to cajole and intimidate impartial journalists into taking the theories seriously—or at least into offering liars big platforms to spread disinformation. Journalists have spent decades responding to this kind of manipulation with varying levels of appeasement, hoping to escape the curse of the liberal epithet. They should try embracing their own particular kind of liberalism instead, and letting their bad faith critics scream into the void.
Illustration of problems with CNN and corporate media in general: "optics over substance". Chris Cillizza recently joined CNN as one of its top political reporters:
Quote:
His refusal to discuss something that goes beyond the realm of optics is almost fanatical.
Q: Chris, does the Constitution exist?
A: Maybe you misunderstand what I do. I’m not here to debate whether or not the Constitution is a factual object. I’m here to discuss how politicians are received when they debate whether it exists as a document or not.
Quote:
“I’m a reporter…I don’t think about what the government should or shouldn’t do.”
Chilling, like a capitulation to Karl Rove in 2004:Quote:
“I don’t understand what you mean by principles.”
And of course, certain political philosophies of the first half of the 20th century.Quote:
The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'
I wasn't aware that Paste Magazine had gotten into politics coverage. In fact they put out some good rhetoric.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...rebirth-o.html
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...am-raises.htmlQuote:
West Virginia had enough. Everything which followed grew from that single fact. You can rewrite and reframe the debate in a thousand different ways, but that’s what it finally comes down to: the teachers fought back, and the teachers won. Strikes get the goods.
Their victory is wonderful news, and welcome tidings in a cold season. Already, the Right is trying to shift the debate: the teachers winning means we have to take money away from Medicare. It’s bullshit, and they know it. They’re using the same old playbook: divide and conquer. They are preaching the same moth-eaten sermon: “There’s a limited amount of money for the plebs to share.” It won’t work anymore. The lie is falling apart, like the pieces of a dying octopus. Capital can only grind so hard and so far before it hits a spine. There’s a limit to how far you can push people before they become militant. That moment was reached in coal country last week.
[...]
Chesterton once suggested the English commonwealth did not “rest on the kindness of the rich to the poor. It rests on the perennial and unfailing kindness of the poor to the rich.” And so it is in modern America[...] Physical might, physical power, is always on the side of the ruled. It is simply impossible, even with a great military, to rule millions of people, unless you have their cooperation. And that cooperation is coming to an end. If the teachers can strike, anyone can strike. The teachers of West Virginia do not exist by the grace of the state; the state exists by the grace of the teachers.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...f-trump-s.htmlQuote:
Yemen is f*cked beyond anyone’s understanding of anything being f*cked. The U.S. left after our airbase was overrun in the war years ago. The country’s central government simply can’t care for its people. The war has erased the infrastructure. Untold thousands have died in a famine that threatens literally millions of people. Medical care is as scarce there as fresh water, which is also cause for violence. Who knows how many terrorist, insurgent, foreign, and government forces are fighting each other. It’s a proxy war for Iran and Saudi Arabia, which has scattershot bombed the hell out of the place, including hundreds of innocent civilians (using American weapon systems; Trump just sold them billions worth). As for us, we’ve carried out untold clandestine drone strikes there for years and years[...] So yes, even though al Qaeda and a bunch of other groups operate in Yemen with impunity, this is one place where it’s beyond me why we’re investing anything besides trying as hard as we can to stop hundreds of thousands children from dying of hunger. That’s all I have to say about that.
Quote:
If you think the Clintons should be investigated, prosecuted, and jailed, eat shit. You and I are made of different bones, fundamentally different people who exist in different realities, and yours is insane and dangerous and should implode.
Karl Rove would be a guy who spouts off 50 words of ignorant nonsense to justify his 'Where there is a will, there is a way.' style of geopolitics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Never was all that much of a fan of Rove. He was deemed a political genius for steering Dubya to three successful election wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
1. Like the Bush family was ever short of donations to allow for solid funding....Not much of a high bar here, was it Karl.
2. Like winning with the President's son, in Texas, with a platform of slightly compassionate conservatism, was gonna be tough. GOP stronghold outside the 4 big cities AND a little tad of leftism to pick off a few middle of the roaders. THIS was brilliance?
3. Bush went up against Al Gore in 2000, with a Ralph Nader to siphon off leftist votes from the most boring Dem nominee in decades -- a man who managed to lose his home state -- and Rove still managed to "brilliantly engineer" a near defeat. The win in Florida was well below the numbers siphoned off by Nader. This is brilliance?
4. Bush's re-election put him up against a NE liberal Brahmin Kerry, in an election barely over 3 years after the 9-11-01 horror and a huge slice of the electorate motivated by worry over terrorism, and Rove still managed to "brilliantly engineer" that election down to the point where a few thousand Ohioans voting the other way would have seen Bush ousted.
5, He helped steer Dubya so well that the TEA party movement erupted as grass roots GOP members begged for someone who would actually try to push for conservative domestic policy agenda items....
Frankly, I am wondering why even Fox News paid this guy one cent for his political insight. I have always suspected that "turd-boy" was a less ironic nickname than either Karl or George thought.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: Gore won his home state in a landslide. He took 85% of the vote in DC. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Fox News Latvia* is reported to be a Kremlin mouthpiece.
UPDATE: *Technically not a thing, and the report is on Fox programming (Fox TV) other than Fox News. Also, the guidelines were withdrawn soon after the publication of the report.
Meanwhile, Sean Hannity and Fox & Friends.Quote:
According to a letter to the translators of Fox programs which has been obtained by LETA, the translators have to follow Russian subtitling guidelines requiring glossing over or “softening content” concerning accidents, homosexual relationships, “anti-Russian propaganda”, narcotics, extremist activities and suicides.
For instance, the translators are instructed to “soften” all negative language about the Russian military and space program, policies of the Russian president and government, while positive texts about same-sex relationships have to be made more generalized so they could be attributed to relationships of any kind.
Hot dog, looks like my heretofore-unpublished totally-original joke has become timely!
In Soviet Russia, government dictates state TV.
In Trump's America, state TV dictates government.
Isn't Fox News the news channel of the Fox Broadcasting Company or are Americans just really into furry animals? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I am, got two housecats and a lynx(heś not scary)
What? Yes? Sort of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Why?Quote:
Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC, Fox does not currently air national news programs (morning, evening or overnight) or newsmagazines – choosing to focus solely on its prime time schedule, sports and other ancillary network programming. The absence of a national news program on the Fox network is despite the fact that its parent company, 21st Century Fox, owns Fox News Channel, which launched in August 1996 and currently maintains near-universal distribution within the United States via pay television providers. Fox News is not structured as a news division of the Fox network, and operates as a technically separate entity within 21st Century Fox through the company's Fox News Group subsidiary. However, it does produce some content that is carried by the broadcast network, which is usually separate from the news coverage aired by the cable channel; in particular, FNC anchor Shepard Smith anchors most prime time news presentations on the Fox network, especially during political news events (which are anchored by Bret Baier on Fox News Channel).
Just so people apprehend what I did wrong with the post above, let me be clear that when I first posted I knew that the report concerned Fox TV and not Fox News Channel (FNC) programming, but I chose to frame it as FNC because I liked how it set up for my Russian Reversal joke, which was (along with the influence of FNC on Trump's thinking/policy) the main point of the post.
That's, you know, a lie. Bad form and neither necessary to nor excused by being secondary to something else.
I didn't edit out or reword the first line for the sake of transparency. It's wrong to be deliberately or even carelessly misleading.
I still like my apt joke though. It's not a great joke, but it's pretty good.
I probably looked that connection up before, but I was really just curious whether they were all related or whether two seperate corporations would name their channels fox. It's nothing important, you may continue. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Speaking of jokes, here's a high-level Twitter troll we should respect.
Attachment 20686
I would feel really uneasy in his teachers comfort-zone