Actually, they're not my little smoke and mirror charts, nor are they Pew's little smoke and mirror charts, they are Nielsen's little smoke and mirror charts. The second and third charts, true enough, only show ABC, CBS and NBC, so they are limiting in scope. I include them here to show the trend in more detail. But the first chart is an aggregate of all news shows, cable included, and it came from Nielsen as well. But regardless, they do not confirm your claim that, "the 5 major networks news programs viewership has increased ten fold over the last decade or so." They confirm just the opposite, in fact.
The Pew Research Center, while funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, and are separate organizations. The Pew Research Center provides research into trends and attitudes on various issues, and their research is widely regarded as unbiased and viable based on their methodology. What the Pew Charitable Trusts do with that information is another story, but the research itself is used by corporations and businesses, including advertisers, in many ways.
The Pew Research Center's contribution to my post was how the Internet has overtaken newspapers as primary source of news. Yeah, boy, that's real Earth-shattering liberal bias right there, I'm tellin' ya. Good grief, it doesn't matter what political bent the Pew Charitable Trusts has, the Pew Research Center asked people where they got their news, and people answered. Biased or not, it's as simple as that. The survey also showed demographic breakdowns, most notably of young people, who more and more are getting their news from the Internet. Just as the Internet has overtaken newspapers as a primary source for news is somewhat obvious and self evident to most people, the fact that more and more young people are getting their news from the Internet rather than from TV is also pretty obvious to most people. For example, some of the most popular apps for smartphones are news apps that get news from the Internet.
Yes, there are still millions of Americans that are getting their news from TV sources.I have stated no differently. Television news is still the primary news source for most Americans. But the millions that are watching cable news shows (middle-to-low single digit millions), plus the millions who are watching the traditional broadcast news channels (mid-to-upper single digits, with a low double-digit now and then), do not in any way equate to a ten fold increase over the last decade or so.
I would love to see charts or some other facts that show television news viewership that has increased at all over the last decade, and would be just schoolgirl giddy over one that showed a ten fold increase. You wanna blow my post out of the water, that's how you do it, not with some tangential straw man argument about the liberal bias of Internet news readers and those who research this stuff.
True enough, people who use the Internet as their sole source of news will, in no small part, be seeking out stories that they already agree with, at least insofar as political news. But that's true of both liberals and conservatives. The Internet is neither liberal or conservative, it is everything, and those who get their news from the Internet are not mostly liberal. World Net Daily is one of the most daily viewed Web sites. The Tea Party was born on Ron Paul's Website, and then nurtured on market-ticker.org. The Tea Party owes its continued existence to the Internet. The Tea Party is not a liberal group. Nether is Chef Dennis. Just look at EO, which is a very wide sampling of America (and a few of those Canadians), and is mostly a conservative bunch, with a few token snotty liberals thrown in.
Even though I have satellite TV in the truck, I still get most of my news from the Internet, and I am not even close to being liberal. Mostly, I'm middle of the road pragmatic and refuse to be told what to believe. Rather then us the Internet to seek out stories that have a bias or viewpoint that I already agree with, the Internet allows me to seek out opposing points of view and more information about a story than I can get in a few minutes of a television news broadcast. I don't think I'm at all unique in my approach to Internet news. I'm probably quite typical. While some get on the Internet to seek out biased information, the same people do the same when watching Fox News and MSNBC.
The Pew Research Center, while funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, and are separate organizations. The Pew Research Center provides research into trends and attitudes on various issues, and their research is widely regarded as unbiased and viable based on their methodology. What the Pew Charitable Trusts do with that information is another story, but the research itself is used by corporations and businesses, including advertisers, in many ways.
The Pew Research Center's contribution to my post was how the Internet has overtaken newspapers as primary source of news. Yeah, boy, that's real Earth-shattering liberal bias right there, I'm tellin' ya. Good grief, it doesn't matter what political bent the Pew Charitable Trusts has, the Pew Research Center asked people where they got their news, and people answered. Biased or not, it's as simple as that. The survey also showed demographic breakdowns, most notably of young people, who more and more are getting their news from the Internet. Just as the Internet has overtaken newspapers as a primary source for news is somewhat obvious and self evident to most people, the fact that more and more young people are getting their news from the Internet rather than from TV is also pretty obvious to most people. For example, some of the most popular apps for smartphones are news apps that get news from the Internet.
Yes, there are still millions of Americans that are getting their news from TV sources.I have stated no differently. Television news is still the primary news source for most Americans. But the millions that are watching cable news shows (middle-to-low single digit millions), plus the millions who are watching the traditional broadcast news channels (mid-to-upper single digits, with a low double-digit now and then), do not in any way equate to a ten fold increase over the last decade or so.
I would love to see charts or some other facts that show television news viewership that has increased at all over the last decade, and would be just schoolgirl giddy over one that showed a ten fold increase. You wanna blow my post out of the water, that's how you do it, not with some tangential straw man argument about the liberal bias of Internet news readers and those who research this stuff.
True enough, people who use the Internet as their sole source of news will, in no small part, be seeking out stories that they already agree with, at least insofar as political news. But that's true of both liberals and conservatives. The Internet is neither liberal or conservative, it is everything, and those who get their news from the Internet are not mostly liberal. World Net Daily is one of the most daily viewed Web sites. The Tea Party was born on Ron Paul's Website, and then nurtured on market-ticker.org. The Tea Party owes its continued existence to the Internet. The Tea Party is not a liberal group. Nether is Chef Dennis. Just look at EO, which is a very wide sampling of America (and a few of those Canadians), and is mostly a conservative bunch, with a few token snotty liberals thrown in.
Even though I have satellite TV in the truck, I still get most of my news from the Internet, and I am not even close to being liberal. Mostly, I'm middle of the road pragmatic and refuse to be told what to believe. Rather then us the Internet to seek out stories that have a bias or viewpoint that I already agree with, the Internet allows me to seek out opposing points of view and more information about a story than I can get in a few minutes of a television news broadcast. I don't think I'm at all unique in my approach to Internet news. I'm probably quite typical. While some get on the Internet to seek out biased information, the same people do the same when watching Fox News and MSNBC.
No, I don't know what you mean. You think I'm "making a statement" against you personally. Don't flatter yourself. I'm not. If you think my charts are flawed and biased, then please refute them directly with unflawed and unbiased charts. I took issue with the absurd and ignorant statement that TV news viewership has increased ten fold over the last decade or so, when every single verifiable source that can be found says otherwise. Common sense says otherwise. Everything else in your post I agree with, except I think you're a little hard on Phil. Television news is just as biased as many Internet news sites. But at least on the Internet you can actively, quickly and easily get access to more information about a story, including several viewpoints, and can separate the wheat from the chaff far easier than you can with the passively received television news casts. With television news, you can believe it or not, think it's biased or not, largely based on preconceived beliefs and opinion, but on the Internet, generally speaking, you can go and find out the rest of the story, getting a little more towards the actual truth of the story, even if what you find out differs with your own bias and opinion. Apparently, gone are the days of television news reporters giving us the 5 Ws without interjecting personal commentary or slant. It's hard, if not impossible, to get beyond that with television as sole source of news. The Internet at least allows those who want them, to dig down and get the 5 Ws. It does require effort, however, unlike the passivity of watching television and having your mind blanketed with what to believe by journalists who don't even know what journalism is, and think good journalism is good ratings.
), but I disagree with you on this. You and Diane seriously need to get a TV in that rig and try to keep up with Americas network news media. Contrary to what your belief is, a very small percentage of America relies on "the internet" or "Sirius & XM" radio for their daily news. Whether it be local, national, or political, the 5 major networks news programs viewership has increased ten fold over the last decade or so. I challenge you to spend 1 month flipping through channels during newscasts taking in and observing what it is you are seeing. After that 1 month, you will realize the statement of "They contribute to provide true and reliable information to their readers", and I am including "viewers" to your statement (the rampant misreporting is blatant in both the print outlets as well as the televised airwaves), is totally wrong and that Edward R Murrow is more active rolling in his grave today than a hamster on meth spinning on his exercise wheel.