Second Annual PPP TV News Trust Poll

[muttly]

It might have been self serving of the anchor to say that,but it also is accurate.

If it's accurate, the folks over at the Wall Street Journal probably don't know it, or they wouldn't have endorsed the PPP, I bet.

I'm going by memory,but she probably said "democratic " instead of "liberal PPP". but same difference.

So Democratic equals liberal? No wonder we have so much trouble communicating! They are NOT the same, and the difference does matter.

I hadn't heard their affiliation on any other news network when they refer to them.

Well you might have a problem with Fox News,but one thing they do that the other News Networks don't and that is to give the opposing view on EVERY show they have. IMO I think Fox gets bashed by them because they just can't stand the fact that a conservative leaning Network is killing them in the ratings.

Well the WSJ can endorse who they like I'll maintain my skeptism.

Liberals or progressives . That is what they call themselves.They are in mass in the Democratic party.

 

[RLENT]

It might have been self serving of the anchor to say that, but it also is accurate.

If they said said "liberal" (understood with the commonly accepted, current meaning) then I'm not sure it was actually accurate - particularly when considered in light of the following:

"Although being affiliated with the Democratic Party, PPP has not exhibited a Democratic bias in its polling results; according to Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com, PPP actually had a small pro-Republican bias in its 2010 polling results."​

Of course, I'm fairly sure that the above was likely not mentioned in the same breath .....

I'm going by memory, but she probably said "democratic " instead of "liberal PPP" but same difference.

Sigh ......

Well, now there's a thought that demonstrates a real high level of discernment ...

I hadn't heard their affiliation on any other news network when they refer to them.

How much do you watch anything other than Fox ?

Well you might have a problem with Fox News,

I've got problems with all of them.

but one thing they do that the other News Networks don't and that is to give the opposing view on EVERY show they have.

What Fox News (and almost all of the other news networks) do is largely limit their "views" to either one or two of the two (supposedly) diametrically-opposed permissible views within the "acceptable orthodoxy" of political discussion. Their election coverage within the past months is pretty much proof-positive of that.

If that type of a paradigm or construct is the best they can envision, and is something you are willing to accept, well hey - more power to ya .....

The fact is, is that it's actually "thought-stopping" ..... and and meant to be (with malice aforethought) "thought-limiting" .......

IMO I think Fox gets bashed by them

Fox gets "bashed" by who ?

PPP Polling ?

Or the other networks ?

If it's PPP, lease point me to anything where they are getting "bashed" .....

And then explain to me why whatever PPP said constitutes "bashing" ...

because they just can't stand the fact that a conservative leaning Network is killing them in the ratings.

Yeah .... well .... what do you think of the following ?

Be sure to note the dates: the 1st article is from September 29, 2010 ..... the 2nd article below is from today:

Fox News Viewership Plunges 21% While MSNBC Grows

Fox still dominates — but loses viewers

(I know, I know - Allahpundit and Ed have said it's all just a liberal conspiracy ....)

BTW, on the "Fox dominating" thing - they still get their clocks cleaned by broadcast (non-cable/satellite) nightly news ....

 

[RLENT]

There has been studies that the news rooms are overwhelmingly democratic/liberal. That includes editors and upper management.

Well, if you wanna do the "labelling" thing, I would say that they are overwhelmingly neocon ..... which puts Fox into the same bag as the rest of them ....

How ya like it now ?

 

[RLENT]

If it's accurate, the folks over at the Wall Street Journal probably don't know it, or they wouldn't have endorsed the PPP, I bet.

Kiddo,

Ya hafta understand what it is you are looking at here:

X = Y = Oranges = EO Soapbox = The Planet Saturn = Hurricane Katrina .... ad infinitum ...

It's an applying of labels ... with no differentiation ....

So Democratic equals liberal? No wonder we have so much trouble communicating! They are NOT the same, and the difference does matter.

It's a commendable and valiant effort to toss out the lifeline .... however don't expect the victim who has passed the event horizon into the blackhole of non-rational thought and is presently failing around inside to actually reach for it ....

 

[Turtle]

Well you might have a problem with Fox News,but one thing they do that the other News Networks don't and that is to give the opposing view on EVERY show they have.

The problem is, EVERY show they have consists of political commentary passed off as news. It's not news, and it can't be trusted. Most of the other networks are largely the same. They (all of them) have gotten so far away from the Five Ws of news reporting and honest, unbiased journalism it's pathetic.

Democrats trust everything but Fox. Morons.

Republicans don't trust anything but Fox. Morons.

And independents don't trust much of anything. Intelligent folk with a healthy skepticism and hunger for the truth.

 

[layoutshooter]

"None of the above. Labeling everyone [and the assumptions that go with it] isn't helping anyone communicate, and if we can't do that, how do we solve problems?
We don't. We get gridlock, while problems just keep getting worse, and we really really REALLY can't afford any more of that."

If you don't know what the political goals of a person is how are you going to vote for them? If you are opposed to government control, socialized medicine, you need to know where they stand. Candidates seldom say what they are.

Gridlock is good. The less congress can do the less damage they can do. It would be better if they ALL just went away and let us start over.

"Democrats trust everything but Fox. Morons.

Republicans don't trust anything but Fox. Morons.

And independents don't trust much of anything. Intelligent folk with a healthy skepticism and hunger for the truth"

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[muttly]

Well, if you wanna do the "labelling" thing, I would say that they are overwhelmingly neocon ..... which puts Fox into the same bag as the rest of them ....

How ya like it now ?

Yes I was waiting for the neocon reference. It doesn't go to long before you use it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Neo-Con, Neo-Lib, what's the difference? Today's politicians are Neo-Scum! Millionaires deciding what I need or don't need while protecting THEIR own interests at OUR expense.

 

[muttly]

The problem is, EVERY show they have consists of political commentary passed off as news. It's not news, and it can't be trusted. Most of the other networks are largely the same. They (all of them) have gotten so far away from the Five Ws of news reporting and honest, unbiased journalism it's pathetic.

Democrats trust everything but Fox. Morons.

Republicans don't trust anything but Fox. Morons.

And independents don't trust much of anything. Intelligent folk with a healthy skepticism and hunger for the truth.

There is always been political commentary passed off as news. ALL of them do it to a certain degree. Yes even PBS.
As far as your last point. Thank you berry much . I'm an independent.

 

[Turtle]

"There is always been"? Seriously?

I'm going to assume you meant, "There has always been political commentary passed off as news." But, no, not really, not even remotely like it is today, where commentary is passed off as news as a matter of course. There were television and radio broadcasts dedicated to commentary, and programs dedicated to news, and it was clear and unambiguous which was which. News programs (and newspapers) gave the Five Ws of Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.

• Who is it about?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

The problem with news shows today is the Why, where instead of simply reporting the actual facts of Why, they offer up manufactured speculative opinion of Why.

When a field reporter or an anchor gives their opinion on the story they are reporting, it's not news, it's commentary. If you ever hear "what this means is..." then it's not news, it's commentary. They're telling you what and how to think about the story. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends, people actually think these are news programs, and what's worse, many people get the bulk of their news from shows like these.
There are today hours upon hours of televised air time on the cable networks dedicated to the Iowa Caucuses and the political process, only minutes of which contain the Five Ws. The rest is commentary, and it's hard to pick the needle of news our of the haystack of commentary.

In the meantime, people are awash with commentary, and are awash with it in a passive manner where they just sit back and take it all in the same way they watch propaganda commercials for Swiffers, Tide, and prescription medication. And because it's absorbed into the brain passively, they believe it, and they go out and buy Swiffers, Tide, and prescription medication, just like they buy into the political propaganda, absorbed passively, and believe it. There's a reason certain advertising techniques work, and it's the same reason "conversational news" works to manipulate the passive viewer.

Today, where news broadcasts are either almost entirely commentary, or are so interspersed with commentary that it's hard to discern fact from opinion, people are being manipulated on a large scale, with many of them even refusing to believe they are being manipulated. It's both scary and pathetic. Frankly, you're better of getting your news from Twitter. <snort>

 

[layoutshooter]

Only small minds can be manipulated. It is hard to find "hard news" these days. One must learn to "read between the lines" these days. One must want too.

Die hard Republicans and Democrats don't care about reality, they vote as they are told. Independents are primarily made up of two groups. Group one, the smaller group, are looking for a "Quality" candidate. Group two, are just to wishy washy to make up their mind on issues so they claim to be "independent".

 

[Jefferson3000]

Then look up what the Wall Street Journal has to say about PPP ... worth considering since they don't have a dog in the fight .... still take it with a grain of salt ....

Just so you are aware, the WSJ is owned by the same parent company (Newscorp) as FOX News.

It's interesting to note that about 99% of what we view in news, TV shows, Hollywood movies and amusement parks are owned by only six corporations. They are the determining factor as to what most of America understands of the world around them.

 

[RLENT]

Yes I was waiting for the neocon reference. It doesn't go to long before you use it.

LOL ..... considering that I used it in a (sarcastic/sardonic) response to your use of "liberal", the above is mildly amusing ...

Difference might be that I did it knowingly and intentionally ...... rather than just reflexively .......

.... Moneybomb currently going vertical ....

Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website

Less than 26K To Go To Reach 286,351 Republican
SuperVoters in South Carolina with Super Brochures

Ron Paul Super Brochure - Super Voter Project​

 

[muttly]

"There is always been"? Seriously?

I'm going to assume you meant, "There has always been political commentary passed off as news." But, no, not really, not even remotely like it is today, where commentary is passed off as news as a matter of course. There were television and radio broadcasts dedicated to commentary, and programs dedicated to news, and it was clear and unambiguous which was which. News programs (and newspapers) gave the Five Ws of Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.

• Who is it about?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

The problem with news shows today is the Why, where instead of simply reporting the actual facts of Why, they offer up manufactured speculative opinion of Why.

When a field reporter or an anchor gives their opinion on the story they are reporting, it's not news, it's commentary. If you ever hear "what this means is..." then it's not news, it's commentary. They're telling you what and how to think about the story. O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends, people actually think these are news programs, and what's worse, many people get the bulk of their news from shows like these.
There are today hours upon hours of televised air time on the cable networks dedicated to the Iowa Caucuses and the political process, only minutes of which contain the Five Ws. The rest is commentary, and it's hard to pick the needle of news our of the haystack of commentary.

In the meantime, people are awash with commentary, and are awash with it in a passive manner where they just sit back and take it all in the same way they watch propaganda commercials for Swiffers, Tide, and prescription medication. And because it's absorbed into the brain passively, they believe it, and they go out and buy Swiffers, Tide, and prescription medication, just like they buy into the political propaganda, absorbed passively, and believe it. There's a reason certain advertising techniques work, and it's the same reason "conversational news" works to manipulate the passive viewer.

Today, where news broadcasts are either almost entirely commentary, or are so interspersed with commentary that it's hard to discern fact from opinion, people are being manipulated on a large scale, with many of them even refusing to believe they are being manipulated. It's both scary and pathetic. Frankly, you're better of getting your news from Twitter. <snort>

I meant there has always been commentary mixed with the news to a certain degree. If you could tell me a news organization that doesn't do that or from the past who hasn't done that, please tell me. Network News is like newspapers. You have your news and then you have your opinion page. Hannity, Oreilly are part of the opinion page. I understand the difference.

 

[muttly]

If they said said "liberal" (understood with the commonly accepted, current meaning) then I'm not sure it was actually accurate - particularly when considered in light of the following:

"Although being affiliated with the Democratic Party, PPP has not exhibited a Democratic bias in its polling results; according to Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com, PPP actually had a small pro-Republican bias in its 2010 polling results."​

Sigh ......

Well, now there's a thought that demonstrates a real high level of discernment ...


How much do you watch anything other than Fox ?


I've got problems with all of them.


What Fox News (and almost all of the other news networks) do is largely limit their "views" to either one or two of the two (supposedly) diametrically-opposed permissible views within the "acceptable orthodoxy" of political discussion. Their election coverage within the past months is pretty much proof-positive of that.

If that type of a paradigm or construct is the best they can envision, and is something you are willing to accept, well hey - more power to ya .....

The fact is, is that it's actually "thought-stopping" ..... and and meant to be (with malice aforethought) "thought-limiting" .......


Fox gets "bashed" by who ?

PPP Polling ?

Or the other networks ?

If it's PPP, lease point me to anything where they are getting "bashed" .....

And then explain to me why whatever PPP said constitutes "bashing" ...


Yeah .... well .... what do you think of the following ?

Be sure to note the dates: the 1st article is from September 29, 2010 ..... the 2nd article below is from today:

Fox News Viewership Plunges 21% While MSNBC Grows

Fox still dominates — but loses viewers

(I know, I know - Allahpundit and Ed have said it's all just a liberal conspiracy ....)

BTW, on the "Fox dominating" thing - they still get their clocks cleaned by broadcast (non-cable/satellite) nightly news ....

This has gotten way too conviluted. If you read my first post I didn't say this poll couldn't possibly be accurate, I was just being skeptical about it and offered information I heard on Fox News which turned out to be true. If you also look back at my first post I said other tv media are bashing Fox. I in no way was talking about PPP. If there was a poll funded by Dick Cheney asking questions about say the Iraq war wouldn't you like to know that fact in terms of questioning the accuracy of said poll? Hmmmmm?

 

[Turtle]

I meant there has always been commentary mixed with the news to a certain degree. If you could tell me a news organization that doesn't do that or from the past who hasn't done that, please tell me.

ABC, NBC, CBS, they all used to differentiate, clearly, news from opinion. None of them do anymore.

Network News is like newspapers. You have your news and then you have your opinion page.

No, they used to be like newspapers, but they aren't any more. Now they're glitzy and glossy where entertainment, news and commentary are all one in the same. Fundamental changes in the way journalism has been taught in schools since about 1969 changed all that.

Hannity, Oreilly are part of the opinion page. I understand the difference.

What about Fox and Friends in the mornings? Opinion or news? What about Robin Meade on CNN, same time?

 

[LDB]

I haven't trusted anyone since Paul Harvey.

 

[muttly]

ABC, NBC, CBS, they all used to differentiate, clearly, news from opinion. None of them do anymore.

No, they used to be like newspapers, but they aren't any more. Now they're glitzy and glossy where entertainment, news and commentary are all one in the same. Fundamental changes in the way journalism has been taught in schools since about 1969 changed all that.

What about Fox and Friends in the mornings? Opinion or news? What about Robin Meade on CNN, same time?

Fox and Friends. Opinion and news. When they interview guests about news topics they have each side represented. Special report with Brett Bair: first half hour news,second half hour opinions from opposing or different view points.The rest are either opinion shows and news shows from different personalities that might be considered conservative or liberal but each show has to have opposing views represented.

 

[Turtle]

Fox and Friends, opinion and news. My point exactly. And the opinion is so interspersed with the news that it's almost impossible to differentiate the two. Fox and Friends is virtually all commentary, where any news that gets delivered is so delivered expressly for the purpose of commentating on the stories. You can count on one hand how many news stories Fox and Friends reports on that is done so without commentary. That's done on purpose. It's textbook, literally.

As for always having opposing viewpoints, no, they don't. I've watched too many times where a single person will be interviewed, with no opposing viewpoint. Interviews about a news topic, incidentally, are not news, they are by design and by definition, commentary. I've also watched where they will interview someone and the interviewer actually gets combative with the person being interviewed, rather than maintain the unimpassioned objectivity of a reporter or interviewer.

On the rare occasions where Fox does present opposing viewpoints, it's always presented in the context of adversarial commentary, where the right gangs up on the left, because the interviewer is generally a part of the right. (Same thing happens on CNN, in reverse, and it's just as disgusting).

Don't be fooled, manipulated, hoodwinked into thinking Fox News is "Fair and Balanced" simply because they say they are. They're not. They give lip service to both, and it's done in the scope and context of the right-wing version of what is fair and balanced, which isn't fair and balanced at all.

As far as their ratings go, as if that's supposed to mean something, there are Reality TV shows with much higher ratings, none of which have anything to do with reality. Same as Fix News.

Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people. - Giordano Bruno

In other words, the number of people who watch Fox News is not evidence that they're fair and balanced, nor that they tell the truth, nor.... that's it's even news.

 

[RLENT]

How the game (and the audience) is played:

Gob Killed Earl Milford