What Do Politicians, Used Car Salesmen, and Journalists All Have in Common?

The public hates them. Howard Kurtz summarizes in the Wash Post:

Public respect for the media has plunged to a new low, with just 29 percent of Americans saying that news organizations generally get their facts straight.

That figure is the lowest in more than two decades of surveys by the Pew Research Center, which also found just 26 percent saying news outlets are careful that their reporting is not politically biased. And 70 percent say news organizations try to cover up their mistakes. That amounts to a stunning vote of no confidence.

The new wrinkle is that Democrats are increasingly unhappy with a profession long viewed as liberal, with 59 percent saying news reporting is often inaccurate, up from 43 percent two years ago.

More here.

Comments

[FrBunny]

What Do Politicians, Used Car Salesmen, and Journalists All Have in Common?

They all work for Obama now? ZING!

[J.]

When you read the questions, you can just imagine the conservatives fuming at the thought of The New York Times, The LA Times, MSNBC, ABC, et al. and the liberals at "Faux News". So, it isn't surprising that there is an increase in distrust. It used to be just half of the population hated the media, now everyone can hate at least part of it... It is actually kind of funny that a comparatively minuscule number of conservative news outlets have garnered so much hatred and caused such a dramatic shift.

[Journalists]

We gorge on your delicious hate.

[Kyle Jordan]

"They all work for Obama now? ZING!"

Bravo. That was good.

[@]

I'm not sure if journalists are any more biased or less truthful now than in previous eras. But the communications revolution has made them much more visible. You can't turn over a rock without seeing thousands of them scurrying about. And with the advent of blogging, who isn't a journalist these days? Problem is, 99% of them aren't qualified to comment on the weather, let alone complex political and philosophical issues. The result is an avalanche of opinion.

[Jowly Journalist]

What other profession can a guy as fat as me keep trashy chicks on the printing floor?

Y'all need to stop guzzlin' that Haterade!!

[Coarsetad]

So liberals don't even like the liberal media.
Fascinating.

[R C Dean]

And, we have a first post thread-winner.

I'm not sure if journalists are any more biased or less truthful now than in previous eras. But the communications revolution has made them much more visible.

Bingo. I suspect the "legacy media" is pretty much operating on business as usual, while the media environment has changed dramatically around them.

Exhibit A: Van Jones. Left up to the legacy media, this commie truther would still be doling out billions in green jobs booty. However, the non-legacy media outed him and drove him from the White House.

It will be interesting to see if the multiple (I think we're up to at least three, now) tapes of ACORN aiding and abetting child prostitution break the plane into the legacy media.

[Art-P.O.G.]

If they never adapted that book to film, that's a travesty.

[John]

The problem for the media is that the Right hates them and the Left sees them as one of their own. You would think their biases would buy them some love from the Left, but it doesn't. Since the Left views the mainstream media as being on their side, no amount of bias, will ever be good enough.

It used to be that they could be as biased as they want but since they owned the news, no one could ever hold them accountable. Now that we have the internet, they can be held accountable. So, they can't claim to be unbiased anymore. And they end up being hated by everyone.

[Suki]

And, we have a first post thread-winner.

Yea FrBunny!

[Spoonman]

They all work for Obama now? ZING!

Pocketing that...

[Spoonman]

Er.

[Spartacus]

Public respect for the media has plunged to a new low, with just 29 percent of Americans saying that news organizations generally get their facts straight.

So, how can we be sure this number is accurate?

[coarsetad]

Actually I think this is a market phenomenon. Despite what anybody says aloud, I think most people would prefer to see a vindication of their political worldview, long before simply being presented the truth.
Truth doesn't sell, and probably never has.

Also I think these poll numbers are similar to polls about congress. In that, "the Media in general sucks, but my news source is always unbaised" kind of way.

[@]

Left up to the legacy media, this commie truther
would still be doling out billions in green jobs booty

The "legacy media" is the modern-day equivalent of the pre-Reformation priesthood: they could say and do as they pleased. They had a monopoly on men's lives and souls. The new media are the Luthers and Calvins, asking inconvenient questions, stirring things up, and not always for the best. There will be casualties, truth and civility being just two examples.

[John]

Anyone else notice that this item in Kurtz's collumn came right after he discussed the MSM totally dropping the ball on the Van Jones story? Gee, could one have to do with the other?

[Episiarch]

"Yellow Press"? That's just a racist insult of the Chinese press. Just because we're getting into a trade war with them doesn't mean you have to get all bigoted.

[Art-P.O.G.]

So, how can we be sure this number is accurate?

We have a runner-up to FrBunny's threadwinner.

[Brian Defferding]

This must mean we should start a government broadcasting news network! An American version of the BBC!

[Libertarian Linguist]

I've started noticing my liberal friends getting mad at CNN and the New York Times for being too conservative. One friend stopped watching CNN because she thought they were touting Palin, and just the other day someone declared that he was no longer reading NYT because they spent too much time promoting Glenn Beck.
I'm simply reporting here...

[John]

"I've started noticing my liberal friends getting mad at CNN and the New York Times for being too conservative. One friend stopped watching CNN because she thought they were touting Palin, and just the other day someone declared that he was no longer reading NYT because they spent too much time promoting Glenn Beck."

I have no doubt this is occuring. Your liberal friends look at the media as part of their team. Thus, the media will never be liberal enough for them.

[Michael Ejercito]

That 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush almost five years ago, relying on forged documents, very likely influenced public opinion of the media.

[Citizen Nothing]

On the other hand, your conservative friends (such as John) look at the media as the enemy. Thus, the media will never be conservative enough for them.

[Tony]

John you seem to know an awful lot about what goes on inside the heads of liberals.

Liberals have never counted the media as being on their team. We looked on in exasperation as all the supposedly radical lefty publications sold the Iraq war like a bunch of administration sheep.

The liberally biased media is entirely a bogeyman of the right. It has allowed outlets like FOX to grow increasingly radical in the name of balancing out the vast liberal conspiracy that gives marching orders to all the rest. But what's really been occurring is a steady pull to the right of all news media. Threatened with accusations of bias, mainstream sources do their best to present a he said/she said formulation regardless of which side has facts on its side.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Looking at the book cover, I concur that a fat Richard Nixon would make a terrible editor-in-chief.

[FrBunny]

Liberals have never counted the media as being on their team. We looked on in exasperation as all the supposedly radical lefty publications sold the Iraq war like a bunch of administration sheep.

"We" evidently excludes Representatives and Senators. Or did their support earn them a ticket off the "liberal" train?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Tony, I'm not sure if any of what you just said happened actually happened. I mean, WTF?

[John]

Tony is off his meds today. But, he does prove my point. Nothing the media does will ever convince Tony they are liberal enough.

[BakedPenguin]

We looked on in exasperation as all the supposedly radical lefty publications sold the Iraq war like a bunch of administration sheep.

The Nation, Utne Reader, and Mother Jones' solid defense of Bush and Cheney in 2003 was odd to behold. But then again, I was on a lot of drugs at the time, and I suspect you were, too.

[R C Dean]

We looked on in exasperation as all the supposedly radical lefty publications sold the Iraq war like a bunch of administration sheep.

I suspect that Tony is probably referring to the "mainstream" media outlets and their lack of full-throated opposition early on to "declaration of war" on Iraq. Of course, if you posit that the mainstream liberal media will mirror the mainstream Democrat position, it all becomes more clear, since there were lots of Dem votes for that war as well.

[Warty]

Shut the fuck up, Tony.

[Tony]

since there were lots of Dem votes for that war as well.

Ah the ever useful catchall get-out-of-jail-free card for the actual warmongers--you know the ones calling anyone not supporting the war an unpatriotic radical who wants america to be blown up by terrists.

[Nipplemancer]

Tony, you're so right. I think you convinced me in the error of my freedom loving ways. Heil Tony!

[Ska]

So, principled opposition, too much to ask for?

[Attorney]

Welcome to Hell. We've been waiting for you.

[J sub D]

Art-P.O.G. -

Please E-mail me. (I don't do MySpace/Facebook stuff)

In advance, thanks.

[Tony]

Nothing the media does will ever convince Tony they are liberal enough.

I'm fine if it just reports facts. It is the right that has created this almost postmodern conception of the news media as being not capable of reporting facts, just representative of one ideological bias or another. This is a deep irony: it's the right that for a long time complained about relativism in academia, yet it was the right who created the "alternate universe" media that appointed itself as a counterbalance to the supposedly liberal slant of legitimate news. FOX never meant "fair and balanced" to mean what it sounds like, it means giving affirmative action to conservative ideas that they felt were underrepresented elsewhere. Regard for truth plays no part in this.

[R C Dean]

Ah the ever useful catchall get-out-of-jail-free card for the actual warmongers

Observe, if you will, the use of the non sequitur to avoid engaging on the issue at hand.

[SugarFree]

Please E-mail me. (I don't do MySpace/Facebook stuff)

The Love Boat
Soon will be making another run.

[Jaosn WOods]

ROTFL, aint that the truth!

RT
http://www.privacy-web.pl.tc

[John]

"I'm fine if it just reports facts."

Of course any reporting of facts you find inconvienent or views you don't think deserve a hearing, counts as conservative bias. Again Tony, you don't think anyone but you has a right to be heard and think that anyone who gives any point of view in the least bit divergent from yours is being a shill for the other side and needs to be silenced.

Your nothing if not a typical liberal.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Damn, SugarFree, that was so funny you got anonymity bot calling me gay! But just remember, not all guys are as "close" as you and Episiarch.

[fresno dan]

The problem is not that the media gets the "facts" wrong. They accurately report plane crashes, tornadoes, and baseball scores.
The problem is the questions they DON'T ASK. Are test scores lower in inner cities because the teachers are paid less, or because students don't study?
Is there more crime because there are more guns or less respect for human life?
How is it that two of the most heavily regulated industries, housing finances (Fannie andn Freddie) and banking both failed so miserably despite all the "oversight?"

[SugarFree]

Is phone sex with another guy gay? What if one of you uses a girl's name and talks an octave higher?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Is phone sex with another guy gay? What if one of you uses a girl's name and talks an octave higher?

It depends. Are you tele-pitching or tele-catching?

[JB]

Read the whole article and you can see Kurtz's utter disdain for Beck and him forcing the Van Jones story on the MSM.

He just hates that little bitches like him don't have the power any more.

[!]

An American version of the BBC!

We could call it Public Television, for the people.

What if one of you uses a girl's name and talks an octave higher?

Now that is really gay. If your next question is a wonder about wearing dresses and heels then I don't think we are collectively wise enough to explain.

[SugarFree]

Are you tele-pitching or tele-catching?

I was asking on your behalf. I didn't want you to be embarrassed unduly.

[J sub D]

Is phone sex with another guy gay? What if one of you uses a girl's name and talks an octave higher?

It's only gay if you go back after the truth is revealed.
Kinda like getting a TV BJ.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Kinda like getting a TV BJ.

Unless the TV BJ is just that good. :::makes ashamed face:::

I was asking on your behalf.

:::shakes fist at Sugarfree. "You shall pay dearly!"

[SugarFree]

TV BJ? Oh, TV BJ. I see.

[!]

:::shakes fist at Sugarfree. "You shall pay dearly!"

I shall send out the Suki beacon so she does not miss another duel.

[Art-P.O.G.]

What? I'm a huge Serena fan! You shall pay dearly...further or something.

[SugarFree]

I shall pay "more dearly," perhaps?

[John]

Art,

You just like Serena because she can crack wallnuts between her butt cheeks. Granted, that is a rare and valuable skill for a woman if you are into that sort of thing.

[Art-P.O.G.]

You just like Serena because she can crack wallnuts between her butt cheeks.

And she has a very good sense of couture. And she inspires...feelings in me.

I shall pay "more dearly," perhaps?

If you can find any dearly in your wallet, sure.

[JW]

I shall send out the Suki beacon...

Where can we get on of those things? Is it anything like a grail light?

[MNG]

This is like when people say they are dissatisfied with "Congress" but love their representative, or they think "schools" suck but think highly of their school.

For many people "the media" sucks because it doesn't inform as well as their fav media outlet.

[John]

"For many people "the media" sucks because it doesn't inform as well as their fav media outlet."

There is some truth to that. But that is pretty thin gruel to media outlets losing millions.

[Andy]

coarsetad/MNG are right - people hate the truth, especially when it doesn't jibe with their world view.

[MemphisTom]

One of my liberal but good professors mentioned something like 94% of news media responded as considering themselves "liberal" in a survey. I'd imagine that even attempts at objectivity slip into liberal consensus.

I may be crazy, but I detect a difference in the word choice and inflection of Katie Couric when she talks about Obama, like she's trying to be unbiased while talking about a high school crush.

[Tony]

I'd imagine that even attempts at objectivity slip into liberal consensus.

Very possible. It's equally possible that the trashing the journalism profession has had from the right over the decades has caused them to overcorrect for a liberal bias.

[economist]

The media is always in the tank for the left, except when the left happens to be right. Not very common, but it happens. So basically the mainstream media serves as a good bellwhether for what NOT to believe.

[!]

Where can we get on of those things? Is it anything like a grail light?

Pretty much. I was presented mine after surviving a weekend in the castle Anthrax. Sorry, it is not for sale.