http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... al_126.pdfFox the most trusted name in news?
A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major
television news operations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News.
and:Read the full report and the title of this paper should be "Older White America will only trust Fox." Look at the cross-tabs and you will see a dramatic pattern between age and race for each of the networks. Also, the sample over represents whites and those whoa re 45 and over. Acording to 2008 census estimates, whites account for 66% of the population, but 74% of this sample. Ages 45 and over account for 52% of the voting age population, but 63% of this sample.
aid yes. Again, it is not what you believe. It is what is true that matters.he majority of Americans believe in creation over evolution. But belief is no substitute for knowledge. A Pew Research poll was done a year after the second Iraq War began and a question was asked, "Was Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11." If you got your news from PBS only 10% responded yes. If you got your news from Fox, 67% s
There are at least 3 things that call this study's conclusions into question:
1) 63% of those polled were OVER 46 years old!
2) 74% of people polled were white.
3) 86% of people polled did NOT identify as Liberals.
And you're surprised FOX gets the best numbers? Congratulations, your statistics mean absolutely nothing. Great job! Why dont you take your next poll in NYC and ask if the Yankees are going to win the series next year? It would be just as valid.
That's the sort of thing that truly shows what a network is doing. I'd like to see more of that kind polling on politicized "facts". The old "death panels" bit comes to mind. I'm sure there are others.A Pew Research poll was done a year after the second Iraq War began and a question was asked, "Was Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11." If you got your news from PBS only 10% responded yes. If you got your news from Fox, 67% said yes.
and:Look at the partisan and ideological split in the full results.
Republican: 35%
Democrat: 36%
Independent: 29%
Ideology:
Liberal: 14%
Moderate: 47%
Conservative: 39%
Among polls that release information about party identification, the overwhelming majority of them have larger Democratic advantages and most have smaller conservative advantages in their samples. Since we're talking about ideologically-driven news organizations (MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc), don't you think that the higher number of conservative Republicans in your poll relative to most others is problematic for your conclusions?
(Incidentally, the more interesting poll was the one that found that Fox News viewers are five times more likely to believe that alien abductions have occurred than to believe in Evolution. Scary stuff.)
What comments are you referring to?ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:From the comments:
3)1) 63% of those polled were OVER 46 years old!
2) 74% of people polled were white.
3) 86% of people polled did NOT identify as Liberals.
Just registered voters voters might explain some of the discrepancy.PPP conducted a national survey of 1,151 registered voters on January 18th and 19th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
It doesn't render the poll invalid, but it does suggest that the results should be adjusted according to demographics. Good pollsters will always do it.There are at least 3 things that call this study's conclusions into question:
1) 63% of those polled were OVER 46 years old!
2) 74% of people polled were white.
3) 86% of people polled did NOT identify as Liberals.
And you're surprised FOX gets the best numbers? Congratulations, your statistics mean absolutely nothing. Great job! Why dont you take your next poll in NYC and ask if the Yankees are going to win the series next year? It would be just as valid.
Partisan TrendsToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Again:Look at the partisan and ideological split in the full results.
Republican: 35%
Democrat: 36%
Independent: 29%
Thats funny. Must be the Fox News Democratsand:(Incidentally, the more interesting poll was the one that found that Fox News viewers are five times more likely to believe that alien abductions have occurred than to believe in Evolution. Scary stuff.)
:
Infidel, go to http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com ... trust.htmlInfidel wrote:I am still confused about these 'comments' you are referring to
One of the commenters gives the breakdown for Independents:Langer went through our poll and nitpicked a bunch of stuff he didn't like from a demographic standpoint, generally because it didn't line up with his polls. You could go through and do that with any poll (and none of it would have significantly impacted the overall conclusions)
Independents
trust distrust net
Fox 41 44 -3
CNN 33 45 -12
CBS 22 51 -29
NBC 22 52 -30
ABC 21 53 -32
Lidless wrote:You guys really need to start watching BBC...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/still-rollin ... uary-ever/Still Rolling: Fox News Has Its Best January Ever
Fox News had its best January in the history of the network, and was the only cable news network to grow year-to-year.
FNC also had the top 13 programs on cable news in total viewers for the fifth month in a row, and the top 13 programs in the A25-54 demographic for the first time in more than five years.
• FNC grew in double digits in both total viewers and the A25-54 demographic from January 2009. In prime time, it was up 22% in total viewers and 51% in the demo. CNN was down 34% and 37% and MSNBC down 26% and 38%. In total day, FNC was up 16% and 28%. CNN was down 34% and 41% and MSNBC down 28% and 39%.
The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts. (CNN and MSNBC have no comparable flagship evening news show; more on Fox's polarizing talk shows momentarily.)
So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.
In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)
Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.
It turns out that Fox's coverage of President Obama has been even more negative than its coverage of candidate Obama: From Inauguration Day to Oct. 10, only 27% of Special Report's comments on the president were favorable. That sounds like proof positive of Fox's negative intentions. But if Fox hasn't lost its anti-Obama edge, it has certainly lost its distinctiveness. During the same period only 35% of the evaluations on ABC, CBS, and NBC were positive. So from the administration's point of view, Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals.
Moreover, distressing as it may seem to a president used to unusually friendly coverage, this negativity is surprisingly normal. CMPA's earlier studies found that the broadcast networks gave almost identically negative coverage to George W. Bush (37% positive), Bill Clinton (34% positive) and Ronald Reagan (37% positive) during their first seven months in office.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... rt_LichterAccording to the CMPA website, "Dr. Lichter holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Minnesota. He has taught media and politics at Princeton, Georgetown, and George Washington universities. He also served as a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow, postdoctoral fellow in politics and psychology at Yale University, and Senior Research Fellow at the Research Institute for International Change at Columbia University." [2]
However, it fails to mention that between 1986 and 1988 Dr Lichter held the DeWitt Wallace Chair in Mass Communications at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.fair.org/reports/lichter-memo.htmlThe Center for Media and Public Affairs, a conservative media research group, timed the release of its study of public TV programming to coincide with the congressional debate over public broadcasting reauthorization. The group’s report lends what appears to be empirical support to those who claim that PBS is biased to the left: "On the social and political controversies addressed by PBS documentaries across a full year of programs," it concludes, "the balance of opinion tilted consistently in a liberal direction."
An examination of the group’s findings, however, demolishes this conclusion. The study relies on methodology that ignores the overwhelming majority of material in PBS documentaries. It then draws sweeping conclusions based on the remaining, out-of-context material, and frames these conclusions in ways that are often misleading or deceptive.
