Internet Gains Ground As Trusted News Source 214
Khammurabi writes "Yahoo is reporting that the younger generation is trusting internet news sources more and more. From the article, 'The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.' Also in the article is the factoid that Americans consider Fox News the most trustworthy national news program overall (coming in at 11%)."
Days of our Lives (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, internet is my most important source of news, but also the least trusted. It's like watching "Days of our Lives", you simply don't want to miss a single episode, but it's the same emptiness after each one of them. This is also the reason why we just keep on posting comments even if it's a dupe.
Source vs. Sources (Score:3, Interesting)
The question for me though is, how many of the people who read "internet news" are actively tracking down information from sources they respect (though not necessarily trust) vs. those who simply
Re:Source vs. Sources (Score:2)
Very few.
You know what some of the best news sources are? AP & Reuters. Most of the time, when you see a AP/Reuters sourced story, the news outlets took the original text and cut it down.
When something interests me and/or my BS meter starts pegging, I go to Google News to find multiple articles. The majority are normally word for word the same (Reuters/AP), but since some people pride the
Re:"We Report; You Decide" (Score:2, Insightful)
What about News for Nerds?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What about News for Nerds?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't either see mention of the grass-roots media growing in Egypt, outside government control. Small newspapers and even a few small TV stations are flourishing. Giving at least some insight into what has been going on which the government has been slow to report. People in Egypt trust satellite and internet over the government spoon-feed. At least the government isn't cracking down on them, like say, the fair and honest chinese government
Ah, but whom do you trust? (Score:2, Interesting)
Heard about this on the BBC this morning. One of the sites I get a lot of my info from, however even the BBC is under certain strain these days after fallout from accusations of the Blair government (The Bush-Blair memo, Hutton Inquiry, suicide of David Kelly) and is being restructured, so you never really know what your going to be left with. Cut-backs have certainly been visible in coverage.
I also visit Al Jazeera from time to time. Maybe there's some propaganda at work on the site, or maybe that's
Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2, Insightful)
An interesting and very, very sad tidbit. The country is in a war it never should have entered, China is financing USA debt, which will give it tremendous leverage, while the president continues to boost 'defense' spending at the expense of social programs, Iran is spearheading a move away from the Dollar for petroleum trading, and a lot more. It's only taken 5 years for some people to come around to the facts that this is not a forthcoming or
Your grasp of English SUCKS, pal.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2, Insightful)
No, he blamed them for the fact that it's taken "...5 years for some people to come around to the facts..." They didn't start the war. They were the cover so it could be started with less opposition.
News organizations don't stay in business when they blatently lie and misrepresent the core facts of an issue.
The existence of FoxNews makes this statement demonstrably false.
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2)
Would you care to provide a few concrete examples?
Preferably something at least as blatant as CBS's Killian Documents [wikipedia.org] from the Rathergate episode of 60 minutes. Or the exploding GM gas tank from NBC's Dateline.
And please restrict yourself to their factual reporting. Fox News' promise is not to get everything right. It's to give the top two sides of major polical issues equal coverage (something that used to be an FCC requirement for broadcast media.) If one s
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:4, Informative)
A news article on the Fox News website during October 2004 by Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News, contained three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures", "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy".
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040009 [mediamatters.org]Gibson falsely claimed that FISA court judges said Bush "didn't break any law" in authorizing warrantless domestic surveillance
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030007 [mediamatters.org]O'Reill
On March 23, 2003 the FOX News channel headline banners were rolling: "Huge chemical weapons factory found in Iraq... Reports: 30 Iraqis surrender at chem weapons plant... coal. troops holding Iraqi in charge of chem. weapons." On the next day the Dow Jones Newswires reported, that, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago.
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so fast. The major networks operate more as a collective institution than as a cut-throat competitive, diverse environment.
First, major news outlets are all huge
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2)
And the fact is that Fox news is misleading and missinforming their viewers, and that the level of this mininformation has been measured and documented. It is asounding the number of Fox viewers who believed that US forces had actually FOUND WMDs in Iraq, or even more amazingly believed that Iraq had actually USED WMDs against us.
Here are the full report [65.109.167.118] and the questionaire [65.109.167.118] of a survey
Re:Wow... that's a leap of faith (Score:2)
What was not found were the stockpiles of WMD that the world though was there.
Re:Ah, but whom do you trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting and very, very sad tidbit.
Actually, I find this very encouraging for the USA. As the article states, the numbers from each of the major regions polled were: 59 percent of Egyptians said Al Jazeera, 52 percent of Brazilians said Rede Globo, 32 percent of Britons said the BBC, 22 percent of Germans said ARD and 11 percent of Americans said Fox News
I'm p
Re:Ah, but whom do you trust? (Score:2)
Yeah yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Trusted news (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trusted news (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you read outside your own country? If not, why?
The beauty of the internet is getting past political and physical boundaries. I can read english language sites beyond the scope of political parties or central governments who would prefer to spin things one way.
Re:Trusted news (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Trusted news (Score:2, Insightful)
A bit like the US administration being highly critical of Al-Jezeera, during
How Fox News hurts my country (Score:4, Informative)
Did you say "almost untrustworthy"?
The difference is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trusted news (Score:2)
The Internet is also a better source of what I call controlled bias, where the bias is strong and clear enough that you can easily take it into account by reading something clearly biased the other way. For example, reading both rnc.org [rnc.org] and dnc.org [dnc.org] will provide a better picture than a news anchor who is trying (but invariably failing) to be neu
Because you can ignore whay you don't like (Score:4, Interesting)
The survey confirmed that media consumption is shifting online for younger generations, as 19 percent of those aged 18 to 24 named the Internet as their most important source of news compared with 9 percent overall.
It is much easier to find news sources on the Internet that overlook the things you want overlooked. I.e., if you have the opnion that the war in Iraq is going great and there are no problems, you can find a news source that will give you only information that supports that view. If you think the war in Iraq is a debacle/illegal/disaster/whatever, you can also find a news source to support only that view. It's nothing new. Poeple go where they hear the things they want to hear because it's easier than hearing everything and ignoring what you don't like.
overly simplistic understanding of media dynamics (Score:2)
I have never liked this line of reasoning; it simplifies an entire segment of society that people spend their entire lives trying to study/understand. If you are close-minded and believe that one information source is enough, or
Re:Because you can ignore whay you don't like (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Because you can ignore whay you don't like (Score:2)
More along the lines of "in news stories people do care about, a lot of us like to ignore facts contrary to our point of view".
What he's describing is just a form of cognative dissonance resolving itself. It's easier to just go somewhere you won't get facts you dislike, than to actively filter them out.
People who watch Keith Olbermann probably aren't watching Bill O'Reilly & vice versa. It's easier on the brain to deal with a v
shifting target (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:shifting target (Score:2)
Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, let me go out on a limb and predict where the slashdot crowd will direct their wrath on. Behold, Fox News.
I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top.
I doubt you'll hear a peep about Al Jazeera or the BBC on this thread.
Sounds like liberal bashing to me! (Score:5, Interesting)
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
Re:Sounds like liberal bashing to me! (Score:2)
Some of them tend to feel persecuted because of all the criticism their station recieves.
Mostly that feeling helps reinforce their existing beliefs. People that are persecuted together, stick together. Or something like that.
Re:Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:2)
I hate to rock your world, but not everybody who denigrates Fox is a "liberal". A lot of people just think Fox is strongly and consistently biased. Which it is.
(And to crudely paraphrase Anthony Burgess: to many Americans, "liberal" is all overtones and no fundamental note.)
Re:Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:2)
Re:Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:2)
Why is the ire and hatred over the top? It's a perfectly natural response to being constantly denigrated by that network. Furthermore, I'm a moderate -- yet according to Fox News, I'm a 'libtard' or something, because I disagree with their talking points. Fox News is helping to cause a fundamental shift in the political polarity scale, where moderate is the new liberal, and 'conservative' mean
Re:Begin Fox News Bashing!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps because Al-Jazeera is the only non state-run media organisation in the Middle East. And the BBC is arguably the most independent and un-biased news source in the world. Neither is without bias, cultural and selective, but Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, so much so that even other Fox programs acknowledge this. [slashdot.org]
Basic math for the stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
This means that 89% of the American public, according to this summary, do not think that fox is the most trusted name in news.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
.
.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's frustrating when such blatant statistical nonsense gets into an article summary, and then there's a whole mini-flamewar about it ("See, Americans are stupid!"/"What's so bad about fox news?!") without any acknowledgment that the original claim is a sham.
I don't think it's surprising, or even depressing, that Fox is the most trusted single news source, at least not when it only got 11%. Fox tries to present itself as the only really honest news source, and people who actually watch it are more liable to buy that. The more "balanced" :-P folks realize that you can't just trust one source for all your news, and are thus less likely to overwhelmingly go for one particular news source as the most trusted one. If you asked me that question, there are half a dozen sources that would spring to mind, none of which have a decisive advantage. I would rank Fox as my least trusted source (at least among the big players), but the most is much less defined.
All of which is just to say... among the Fox demographic, Fox news is likely to be the most trusted name. But among (say) the New York Times' demographic, there are a number of other news sources that would probably be similarly trusted. This isn't surprising, and I'm actually very encouraged that 89% trusts other sources more than Fox -- I'm rather cynical, and would have guessed a much lower number.
Re:Then Don't Watch It!!! (Score:2)
Next, with "resort to bashing Fox News." I'm not sure what you mean by "resort to." It's not like I've been throwing my whole bag of tricks at somebody, and having been thwarted at every turn, I finally decided to bash Fox News to achieve my objectives. My comment mentioned that I consider Fox
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:2)
More interestingly is that Fox News scored higher than any other news source in the US. That means no other news source has even 11% of Americans trusting it. That says a lot about the public's view of the news.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:2)
You can't conclude that from this article. It says that no other news source is trusted most by over 11% of those surveyed. There is no measure of distrust presented.
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly, because it was a single-answer free-response question. The fact that Fox News led at only 11% shows that in a nation awash in news sources, Fox News viewers are the most monolithic block of news comsumers in America. In other words, people who get their news from Fox are more likely to only get it from Fox - a finding supported by other surveys. I'm actually surprised that Fox News didn't poll higher,
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:2)
No. Consider the way IRV works: the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated in each round. For Fox to be eliminated, it's 11% must be the lowest total. Thus there can be no more than 8 other candidates at that point (because 9*11% = 100%). Yet 11% was the highest proportion of
Re:Basic math for the stupid. (Score:2)
Clearly, despite the summary, this percentage is determined by a survey, and will thus have some error, probably on the order of a few percent depending on the sample size. But in general, assuming the survey was honestly conducted, the result is probably pretty close, and thus still useful for discussion. It isn't use
Too general (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither of these claims are true in a generic sense. All of these are mere information channels containing good as well as bad information sources (definition of "good" and "bad" left as an exercise to the reader). It is up to the individual to discern which particular websites/channels/newspapers are worthy, and which are not.
Discriminating between fiction and non-fiction is one of the most important skills kids could and should learn.
let me clarify (Score:2)
Television is a poor news source since the 24 hour news channels are all utterly so worthless. I suppose the nightly news might still be good, but I wonder how many people still tune into that? It's just not that convenient for me.
When we say "class of things x is good," we mean that the well known elements are good. The elements that are most likely to effect anything are what they are judged b
Re:Too general (Score:2)
Yet many adults don't know them either.
The best way to learn that skill would be learning the "scientific method." Usually a magazine like the "Skeptic Enquirer" is the most newb friendly, and explain things quickly to the layman, giving examples. and reinforcing that learning.
I believe Aristotle can also be looked up for logic, but I don't know much about him, so I'd rather not make claims.
Basic
Internet News prevents marginalization (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure that any news is really news anymore; more and more news is colored by opinion. That is fine with me, but I would like to see more sources given tribute and more news reporters coming up with unique news rather than regurgitating the same stories over and over again. I figure why don't these major news outlets just run an RSS feed of the AP and be done with it?
For me, I prefer the news that was normally marginalized out of existance. It gives me a dose of unique opinions, and it also helps create interesting debate topics that help in relationship at home and my relationships with friends and customers.
I think more and more people are starting to think outside the box -- and the Internet is a great place to find every opinion. Are all of them newsworthy? Probably not.
With companies like BlogBurst.com bringing amateur news and opinions to large mainstream media outlets, we'll see more and more integration of the sidestream media, and maybe we'll see less and less need to rely on sources such as CNN and FoxNN.
Re:Internet News prevents marginalization (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats an interesting point you make. The question remains, did the box get smaller, or did people get wider views? As much as I would like to embrace the second option, I do believe that mainstream newschannels are actually shrinking the box (people want to be informed, but are not judgemental on what to be informed about, so news-makers can just as well narrow it down to just the usual wired stories or even less).
I work at a news/talk radio station... (Score:2)
At the top of every hour when the news guys are in (about 15 hours a day) they will select the best pick of local and national/regional/int'l stories to read over a 3 minute sp
The only news I trust.... (Score:5, Funny)
Schools attempt to fight this in some places (Score:2)
However,I found a school making a page for children to show them what a "fake" website on the Internet looks like. Here's the background behind one of the "fakes" [abandonedstuff.com], which is actually a real item I sell, but is clearly a joke as well.
Holy generalization, Batman! (Score:2)
Ugh, man, do not spread this tripe as fact.* I recall a documentary that mentioned that people who watch Fox News believe it is the most accurate while simulataneously being the least accurately informed members of the newswatching populace. The poll asked people to name their most trusted newssource. 11% of Americans named Fox News. The article summary is ambiguous on th
Extremists trust extremists? (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it that people give greater trust then to news that reinforce their own views (which is why I'm sure more progressives would swear by Slate and Salon instead)? I'd be curious to see how news organizations do against political/religious/ethnic/age background (though this study at least looked into age).
And which one is the most "accurate"? It reminds me of a study done back in the 2004 elections who shows that viewers of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" scored higher on current events and political events accuracy than watchers of any other news organizations (including Fox).
Either way, it's interesting to see the Internet rising, but that's not surprising as the population gets older. I know I rarely watch TV news anymore save for the "Daily Show" (and that's not for information, but for perspective so I can laugh at the world a bit) and Sunday talking heads shows (so my children can ask me why I'm telling the people in the TV to "answer the question, you hack!").
A mere eleven percent? (Score:2)
The way everyone's been spinning things, I honestly thought that you'd see much higher numbers than that for Fox - I mean, I was really expecting numbers three or four times as high So much for the "unwashed masses", I guess.
Trusted and untrusted sources (Score:5, Insightful)
Before everybody correctly points out that the Internet is not a reliable source, I would like to point out that newspapers are not really up to the standards they are purported to be. Every time I read a newspaper article on a subject I know well, I very, very rarely read anything insightful, and very often loads of bullshit. Most of the times, the writer probably had to finish an article and deliver X lines, and put a few "facts" together—possibly naïvely got from the Internet as well.
I tend to trust sources where readers can write down their views, integrate, and if necessary insult the writer. I trust Slashdot commentaries (the whole page, not single comments), an often-edited Wikipedia article or a high-traffic blog way more than an article in a newspaper, because if there is something to be known you will probably find it. Even if you have to wade through flame wars and moderators on crack, it's likely there.
There's no such thing as a totally reliable news source, anyway.
Faux news (Score:2)
Personally I gave up trusting the MSM (mainstream media) a couple of years ago and have developed my own preferences for sites to visit for news and world events. This is also more entertaining because one has to verify everything you read and not take it for granted - you naturally become a more adept critical thinker this way.
I think governments are pretty worried about this and are trying to find ways to red
Uh huh (Score:3, Funny)
Multiple sources hopefully... (Score:2)
Hopefully people aren't putting all their trust in Joe Schmoe's blog (or any other single source).
Modern Journalism (Score:2)
It's progressed until they've got 3 and 4 page articles to tell you something that can be summarized into 6 sentences (more ad exposure, maybe?). If seen some t.v. news reports (On Faux News, no less) do the same thing, but the internets are the worst.
Let's s
Re:Modern Journalism (Score:2)
To ride a recent wave... (Score:2, Funny)
Do their news sources know where Lousiana is? (Score:2)
Whatever online news sources they trust should be put on some sort of blacklist.
Hmm... (Score:2)
How many channels that have television news sources are there in the US? I can think of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC and BBC America, please correct me if I'm wrong. Let's leave out CNN Headline News, guessing that most people probably equate both channels as one and the same source. If Fox is highest at 11%, let's assume that the others average 9%, which implies a to
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Whoops! Sorry for the typo, I changed the text a couple of times, and this one slipped right past me. I meant to say, how many news sources are there in the US?
these are all pretty bad news sources (Score:3, Insightful)
What really bugs me, is just what kind of uninsightful hacks they have anchoring CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. I want the news to report politics, not to get political. These guys don't seem to get that, and think that to report politics means they have to pick a side, and demonize whatever party they don't like. I want them to report all the pertinent *events that actually happen* and let me make my own judgements. Anchors can render their own judgement on a situation when appropriate, but there's a clear distinction between that and the constant political hackery that goes on. Don't even get me started on the interviews they give...
Really, newspapers are the best source that I've seen, but not all newspapers. The Seattle Times is a really good paper, and family run so that they aren't totally beholden to corporate interests. They do a lot of investigative reporting, and I rarely see them putting sensationalistic trash (celebrity murders, hyped up disasters that aren't actually that important, etc) on their front page like many other sources. Many people across the country seem to read the New York Times, but I'm a little iffy on them. It seems that their reporters have been caught lying, and doing other unscrupulous things a number of times.
I haven't been listening to NPR recently, but I remember they used to give really good interviews.
Re:these are all pretty bad news sources (Score:2)
I suspect there are very few major news sources which haven't had problems like that (individual reporters lying in their stories). The main difference is that the NYT is constantly under scrutiny (being essentially the "paper of record" in the USA), especially now that many neo-conservatives seem to feel s
Re:these are all pretty bad news sources (Score:2, Informative)
NPR still does excellent interviews and, IMHO, is far and away the best all around source for unbiased (yes, I mean that) news easily available in the U.S.
I'm sure all the Republicans out there will flame me for calling NPR unbiased seeing as how Mr. Limbaugh et al have been screaming about it's alleged liberal slant for years now but if they do, it's because they haven't listened to it lately. Now, you are just as likely to hear commentary by someone from the Kato Institute as you are from any liberal org
House Hippos (Score:4, Interesting)
The ad shows a very small hippopotamus (3-4 inches long) in various scenes in a normal house.
The following claims are made in the ad, in a voice that looks like Attenbourough on BBC nature programs:
- house hippos are friendly, but will defend their territory if necessary
- house hippos live in bedroom closets, where they make nests
- house hippos sleep 16 hours a day
- house hippos come out at night when they search for food
- house hippos like to eat chips, raisins, and crumbs
The ad then says something like : "Do not believe everything you see on TV. Ask questions".
Read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], or see the UK version of it here [mediasmart.org.uk]
--
2bits
The Baheyeldin Dynasty. [baheyeldin.com]
FOX News? (Score:2)
I admit that I was surprised to see FOX News listed as America's most trusted news source. Among the many journalists I've spoken to, none appear to have any respect for the reporting they see on FOX News. The network clearly leans towards the political right in its coverage of national and world events. Despite the network's motto, FOX News is all to often 'fair' only to conservatives and 'balanced' between the center and the extreme right of the Republican Party. According to the New Yorker [newyorker.com], this was
I dunno... (Score:2)
Bah. I won't believe it until I see it on Fox News!
Re:Sad (Score:2, Redundant)
-Rick
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
And in their case "fair and balanced" also has nothing to do with "fair and balanced" either.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC is not unbiased either, just differently biased.
The real problem is the very assumption that there are unbiased news sources. If you think a news source is "unbiased", all it usually means is that the news source just happens to share your bias. Conflating shared bias with lack of bias is a very common failure of critical thinking. When people on every side of the political spectrum accuse news sources of being biased, they are all correct.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
The wierd thing is that individual reporters often have conflicting biases, so you end up with the BBC being accused of every form of bias simultaneously - it's Pro US, Anti US, Pro Isreal, Anti Isreal, etc. all at the same time..
Re:Sad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
The more informed know better. The correct answer to "Which national news program is the most trustworthy?" is "None of the above"
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Lost me on Fox News... (Score:2)
http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/ [thankyoust...olbert.org]
Re:Fox ??? (Score:2)
It's only the top 10 or 11 percent which are noticeably above and the bottom 10 or 11 percent which are noticeably- hey, wait a minute.
Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (Score:2)
Which neatly brings us back to Fox News.
TWW
Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (Score:2, Interesting)
But forget that. I suppose that it's better to have a fake news network that has blatant RIGHTWING sympathies then? Why would a mythical left-wing news source be "bad" but one that is blatantly right-wing be good?
FOX is anything but fair and balanced. You've said as much yourself.
Fox defenders are the very reason thinking people have turned els
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (Score:2)
Just one example: Limbaugh's Liberal Media Proof: Too Good to be True [fair.org]
Uncomfortable truths (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox news has risen to prominence because it is the singluar major news outlet that doesn't pander to leftist sympathies.
Or it could be that Americans want feel-good news. Good reporting digs up uncomfortable truths. After being barraged by many uncomfortable truths in the 60s and 70s, Americans ushered in the feel-good-about-America Reagan Era. Arguably it was America's collective desire to avoid complicated reality in favor of a more jingoistic and easily-digestible view of the world that led both to the rightward political turn of the last two decades, and the simultaneous rise of Fox News and breathless "as it happens" reportage devoid of context or depth.
You don't have to be a leftist to understand that America does actually make mistakes, but you do have to practice willful ignorance if you watch Fox and expect you're getting an unvarnished look at current events. As for the Washington Times, calling it "conservative-leaning" is like referring to the John Birch Society as "mildly conservative."
The most an information consumer can hope for is to be cognizant of the prejudices of the source. One can only hope that as the blogosphere and internet media evolves as an information source, the critical thinking skills of consumers experiences a similar evolution. Too many people believe what they are told and a free society will not long endure when so many of its citizens are damned fools.
Being cognizant of the prejudices of the source is vital. I definitely agree with you there. It's a pity that so many people still take most of their news from one TV network. TV is the most easily-manipulated, most infotainment-oriented, most passive news medium. I find it baffling that anyone could watch Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, or ABC, and think that they're being informed in anything but the most minimal fashion. Read one issue of the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the NY Times, and compare that to a week's worth of TV news viewing. The difference in the amount and quality of information received is staggering.
Sadly, I'm not sure that the blogosphere is much better than TV. Disinformation and spin can be passed through the blogosphere just as rapidly as via TV. When everyone's opinions are equal in weight, the opinions that fit our own predispositions and desires (as with feel-good Fox TV reporting) get amplified. Minority voices do get heard in the blogosphere, which is good. But ultimately we're still left with the fact that most of what we read on blogs is opinion, derived from primary sources in the mainstream media. If the MSM isn't doing its job and practicing good, in-depth journalism, bloggers can act as primary information gatherers, but it's not easy, particularly in places like war zones and Congressional office buildings.
Re:Why is Fox so trusted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... Unfortunatley, I don't have any blond missing daughters.
But seriously, I find Fox News offensive and I consider myself to be Independant Moderate (I used to vote Republican).
But there are so many inconstancies and just poor taste and blind support of government and fear mongering over terrorism, that I just don't want to watch them anymore.
Sure the rest suck,
Re:Well Hell (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look at the raw numbers (Score:2)