Fallacy: Fox News is the most trusted

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 56 total)
  • Author
  • #8104
    Deane Johnson

    I can LP. When you hang out on this forum too much, you get to believing the whole country is also dumb and liberal. Just doesn’t happen to be true.


    Of course FOX is capturing a big slice of the “TV actually matters” pie.

    Won’t last.


    As always, it’s worth going directly to the polling results, rather than some news outlet’s “interpretation” of the results. SPOILER: PBS is actually the most trusted news source overall.

    Fox News once again most and least

      trusted name in news

    PPP’s 5th annual poll about trust in TV news continues to find what it does every year: Fox News is both the most trusted and least trusted name in news.

    35% of Americans say they trust Fox News more than any other TV news outlet, followed by 14% for PBS, 11% for ABC, 10% for CNN, 9% for CBS, 6% each for Comedy Central and MSNBC, and 3% for NBC. It leads the way because of its continuing near total support among Republicans as the place to go for news- 69% of Republicans say it’s their most trusted source with nothing else polling above 7%. Meanwhile Democrats are split between a lot of different outlets when it comes to who they have the most faith in- PBS at 21%, CNN and ABC at 18%, and CBS and MSNBC at 12% all poll in double digits. It’s interesting that while Fox News and MSNBC are often thought of as equivalent, Fox News is by far and away the most trusted source of GOP voters while MSNBC is only tied for 4th among Democrats.

    Fox News also leads the ‘least trusted’ list in our annual poll. 33% give it that designation to 19% for MSNBC, 14% for Comedy Central, 11% for CNN, 5% for ABC, 4% for CBS, and 2% each for NBC and PBS. That’s largely because 57% of Democrats give it their least trusted designation, with only Comedy Central at 18% also hitting double digits with them. MSNBC leads the way among Republicans at 38%, but CNN at 17% and Comedy Central at 13% both hit double digits as well. It’s interesting to note that Republicans seem to hate MSNBC more than Democrats like it.

    When you look at the 8 outlets we tested individually, only one is clearly trusted by a majority of Americans. That’s PBS, which 57% say they trust to 24% who don’t. Most Democrats (80/6) and independents (49/31) trust it and it at least gets an even split with Republicans at 38%.

    Voters are closely divided about most of the rest of the outlets- Fox News comes in at 44/42, CBS at 39/37, CNN at 40/40, NBC at 39/39, and ABC News at 37/38. In Fox’s case 75% of Republicans trust it while only 20% of Democrats do. For all the rest of them around 60-70% of Democrats trust them, but only around 20% of Republicans do.
    The two outlets that poll the lowest on trust are Comedy Central (29/38) and MSNBC (34/44). In both of their cases the share of Republicans trusting them drops down to about 10%, even as a majority of Democrats still express faith in them.

    Finally for fun we did some more specific testing of voter attitudes about Bill O’Reilly and Stephen Colbert. O’Reilly has a 41/37 favorability rating, which is actually better than we found for every potential Republican Presidential candidate in the results we released yesterday. Colbert is not as well known as O’Reilly, with 58% name recognition, but has a better net favorability with those who are familiar with him at +16. 37% see him positively to 21% negatively, with 43% not having an opinion either way.

    A hypothetical Presidential contest between the pair would be a toss up, with O’Reilly getting 38% to Colbert’s 35%. Colbert has a lot more room to grow though since 31% of Democrats would be undecided compared to just 20% of Republicans. Colbert does win one contest with O’Reilly though- by a 38/13 margin voters say he has better hair and there’s a bipartisan consensus on that with even Republicans narrowly saying that Colbert wins the hair wars.


    Shit like this helps to reinforce that “least trusted” moniker:

    Bill O’Reilly: Obama had ‘nothing to do’ with killing Osama bin Laden
    “Fox News host Bill O’Reilly argued on Wednesday that the killing of Osama bin Laden should not count as a foreign policy victory for President Barack Obama because Obama didn’t pull the trigger himself.

    “He had nothing to do with that,” O’Reilly told Democratic strategist Jessica Ehrlich. “That was U.S. intel and the NAVY Seals taking him out. He just said ‘do it.’”

    “It happened under his watch,” Ehrlich countered.

    “So what?” O’Reilly asked dismissively.”


    Obama had his people do the intel, chewed on it, slept on it, and said to pull the trigger.

    That’s his job. He listened to his advisers, weighed his options, and gave the go-ahead.

    So, yes, Obama had everything to do with taking out Osama bin Laden, even if he didn’t pull the trigger, because it was his command. Hence, “Commander In Chief”.


    Facts, schmacts…Who cares, as long as you can hate on the black guy in the WH?

    Deane Johnson

    Good one duxrule. When all else fails, trot out the race card.


    Thank you.

    Andy Brown

    Anyone that watches Faux news and believes what they say deserves it.

    For generations in the U.S., there has been a sort of a gentleman’s agreement in terms of what constituted professional behavior among journalists. There used to be a sense of shame when members crossed those lines into unprofessional behavior. Bosses called out those employees, people were fired, and ethics panels were summarily convened to make certain the transgressions didn’t happen again. Fox News, though, has walked away from all of that.

    Journalism is not difficult to practice, nor is it tough to identify. Journalists aren’t licensed, and anyone can try their hand at it, as the Internet has made clear. So there is no higher authority declaring what is and isn’t journalism. But the craft, like obscenity, is instantly recognizable in its true form.

    There is no governing body, either within journalism or without, that regulates the product. The only collective deterrent from producing bad journalism, aside from rather lax U.S. libel laws, is a collective sense of shame, a shared feeling that making a factual error — or worse, purposefully pushing false information under the guise of journalism — was both unprofessional and unacceptable.

    Faux News does not share that sense of shame, because it’s not part of the larger journalism brotherhood. Fox News doesn’t feel like rules such as fairness, accuracy, neutrality, and independence apply, which is obvious since Fox News breaks those rules with stunning regularity. In fact, its programming day seems designed to break the traditional rules ad nauseam. That’s what it’s built to do. And if nothing else, Faux News is ruthlessly efficient. Whatever it takes to get ratings.

    So, Faux News has altered the game by unchaining itself from the moral groundings of U.S. journalism. And guess what? There is no industry shame being rained down on the outlet.

    A legitimate news organization does not:

    •Source its research to “conservative blogs.”
    •Purposefully present stories out of context.
    •Regularly declare “Victory!” when a White House initiative fails.
    •Ignore a breaking news story that embarrasses the Republican Party.
    •Invite fringe conspiracy theorists to appear on news shows.
    •Suggest during a news program that Democrats voted to “protect pedophiles, but not veterans.”
    •Routinely accuse the president of the United States of being like Adolf Hitler.
    •Describe itself as the “voice of the opposition.”
    •Air more than 100 commercials promoting partisan political rallies.
    •Show 22 clips of health care reform opponents who attended town hall forums, and none of health reform supporters.
    •Purchase full-page newspaper ads to spread falsehoods about the news competition.
    •Invade the privacy of second-grade students.
    •Promote violent political rhetoric.
    •Fail to fact-check a murder story before airing allegations about it.
    •Allow a news anchor to suggest a Supreme Court nominee is guilty of “reverse racism.”

    Faux is not “news” and it certainly is not responsible journalism.



    Posting from a source that is even farther to the right than Fox News is hardly credible, Broadway.


    Isn’t Breitbart dead? Why is he still such an asshole?


    >>is hardly credible
    can’t get more lefty extreme than mediamatters…
    Breitbart lives on!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 56 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.