Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
Post Thanks / Like
Belief Growing (49%) That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
smart money says it'll be up to 75% by Ocotber....
[QUOTE][B]Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Monday, July 21, [/B]
The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.
Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
A plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain.
Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.
As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.
In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to trust campaign information from family and friends than from reporters. Democrats are evenly divided as to who they would trust more.
A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.
A survey conducted earlier this year found that 30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.
These results are consistent with earlier surveys finding that large segments of the population believe the media is biased It is also clear that voters select their news sources in a partisan manner. During Election 2004, CNN viewers heavily favored John Kerry while Fox Fans preferred George W. Bush.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
[QUOTE]In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure.
A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is. [/QUOTE]
Very very sad. But this is where our media is today. As distrusted by the population as it has perhaps ever been.
[QUOTE=Warfish;2637555]Very very sad. But this is where our media is today. As distrusted by the population as it has perhaps ever been.[/QUOTE]
isn't it ironic that they help beat the drum for war and get everyone in a frenzy over bs made-up "evidence" and increase the [i]appearance[/i] of a threat... other to then over-report negative stories in an attempt to stop the same illegal invasion that they themselves helped make happen?
[QUOTE=Tanginius;2637565]isn't it ironic that they help beat the drum for war and get everyone in a frenzy over bs made-up "evidence" and increase the [i]appearance[/i] of a threat... other to then over-report negative stories in an attempt to stop the same illegal invasion that they themselves helped make happen?[/QUOTE]
While you and I disagree how much "drumbeating" there was, it DOES shine a spotlight on one distatseful reality of modern media:
If it bleeds, it leads.
If it's going to get a reaction (i.e. more viewers/readers) it will get issued, likely with top billing, theme music and a great little logo to go with it.
Media for Profit is proving itself to be a very bad concept. Ironic as it is, media (i.e. the News, not the rest) may be better for us all as a non-profit-mandated business sector.
I.e. Want a News TV network? Great, no profit. And No "opinion" shows. Just report the news, and do so in an unbaised form. Get too baised, and you loose your broadcast license and some other group will get THEIR shot to give us fair unbiased news.
And while we're at it, how about we actually hire some reporters, instead of using the friggin AP for every ounce of news. Thats far too much power in the AP's hands IMO.
Oh, and Want an Entertainment Network? Great, good luck......but no news shows, only "opinion" shows, and make all the bank you can with yer American Idol, Rush Limbaugh and Air America. No fairness Doctrine, it's all entertainment. If folks want their news from it, thats their choice to choose who to watch.
Sounds extreme, I am sure, but a Nation without a reliable trustworth media, or worse with a media filled with what we have today (opinion and sensationalism masquerading as "news") is the first step down a very unpleasant road. And I simply don't think ANY of our media can be trusted today. Maybe it's a part of the ongoing UnCivil War, and maybe it'll only get worse, and maybe it cannot even be fixed now......but we ought to try.
I have to admit, I am at a loss at this point. But I know what we have today is very very bad and horrdily untrustworthy.
I guess he shouldn't get the money HE put in to it back.Maybe Meeeshelle Obama will give back the grant money she got for her education at taxpayer expense, and then trashes the county and instituions that afforded her such.
America loving war hero earned part of his S.S. money in a prison of war camp, Meeeshelle the America hater was given a quarter million dollar education, who should give what back?