Gallup: Public Confidence in Papers, TV News Falls to All-Time Low

Editor and Publisher ^ | 6/10/05 | E & P staff

[NormsRevenge]

NEW YORK Public trust in newspapers and television news continued to decline in Gallup's annual survey of "public confidence in major institutions" in the United States, reaching an all-time low this year.

Those having a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers dipped from 30% to 28% in one year, the same total for television. The previous low for newspapers was 29% in 1994. Since 2000, confidence in newspapers has declined from 37% to 28%, and TV from 36% to 28%, according to the poll.

However, some other institutions fared far worse this year, suggesting a broad level of cynicism or malaise.

Confidence in the presidency plunged from 52% to 44%, with Congress and the criminal-justice system also suffering 8% drops. Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court fell from 46% to 41%. The 22% confidence rating for Congress is its lowest in eight years, and self-identified Republicans have only a slightly more positive view of the institution than do Democrats.

The military topped the poll with a 74% confidence rating, with the police at 63% and organized religion at 53%. Big business and Congress (both at 22%) and HMOs (17%) brought up the rear.

Read another way, the numbers aren't quite as bad for newspapers. Of those surveyed 24% say they had "very little" confidence in them, while 1% said "none." By far the highest number, 46%, said "some." This means (looking on the brighter side) that 75% had some, quite a lot, or a great deal of confidence in newspapers.

[NormsRevenge]

Meanwhile, those who believe the sky is falling is up 3 points to 11%, and belief in the tooth fairy is at an all-time high of 90%.

[FoxInSocks]

Of those surveyed 24% say they had "very little" confidence in them, while 1% said "none." By far the highest number, 46%, said "some." This means (looking on the brighter side) that 75% had some, quite a lot, or a great deal of confidence in newspapers.

And read yet another way, 71% had none, very little, or some confidence in newspapers.

[Pop Fly]

Not surprising news at all, people on all sides politically are turning to the more unfiltered news on the internet.

[Steve Van Doorn]

President Job Approval 51% (Rasmussen) 6/10/05

[cubram]

I have no confidence in this poll.

[Republican Red]

I don't even have confidence in this article being correct.

[in hoc signo vinces]

Don't forget Santa Claus is taking it in the shorts...with belief in him down to 51.9% from 90%.

Largely do to Liberal bed wetting and prozac O.D.s as that Bush has been in office for almost 5 years....

[beansox]

From readin this article you could also say that Americans are more trust worthy of President Bush than they are the Supreme Court adn all of Congress!...its all about what you want to highlight in your story, and of course gallup spun it the other way!

[FlipWilson]

What I just LOVE about this, is that the MSM is out there reporting/spinning the numbers regarding approval for congress as showing that the dems will retake congress in 2006.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"President Job Approval 51% (Rasmussen) 6/10/05"

President Job Approval 44% (ABC Poll)

Means nothing if you are polling based on population. NY, CA, MI and PA will always have the most people in the poll because they have the highest populations. Turns out they also vote Democrat.

Run the same poll based on equal people from every state and see what you get. It will be something to the effect of 72% for and 28% against.

[Tall_Texan]

I'm very disappointed in this. The mainstream media should be much lower.

[colorado tanker]

And read yet another way, 71% had none, very little, or some confidence in newspapers.

Exactly! Even I would answer "some" and I'm pretty cynical about the MSM.

[ForGod'sSake]

Confidence in the presidency plunged from 52% to 44%...

These people just can't help themselves can they? Plunged, PLUNGED I say!

Every silver lining has a dark cloud???

FGS

[jmaroneps37]

Now the pace is quickening. The decline of the ratmedia has now become measurable by the month. By 2006 it will be by the week and by 2008 by the day. Right now the only tv sets with cnn on are INSTITUTIONAL: Post Offices, Cruise Ships nursing homes medical centers etc, who probably get the feed free!

[ForGod'sSake]

Now the pace is quickening.

I hate to get my hopes up but it does seem that way. The mere fact they are steadily losing the confidence of their viewers/readers is good enough for me.......for now. Not true; actually it can't happen soon enough to suit, but I'm cultivating my patience.

FGS

[Landru]

"Every silver lining has a dark cloud???"

HA!!
Jeepers, I dunno. :o)

Let's just say this about the li'l *rag* we made the mistake of subscribing to when we moved to our new mountain top retreat on the mistaken assumption it'd play to the mainly "conservative" population.

First it's published from a little pissant backwater town close to us called West Bend, in Wisconsin, presumably the town's name was inspired by a westward turn in the Milwaukee River, I'm told.
In any event essentially it's a Milwaukee Urinal wannabe calling itself, The Daily News. {i know, i know, *original* name, eh?}

Lemme speak to you of just a few slippery shenanigans the lice at this shithole pull even the blind -- or cavemen if you prefer -- couldn't help noticing, OK?

Once ya get past the atrocious spelling, grammar & obvious complete LACK of copy editor(s) and/or editing, these clowns get virtually all their version of our "daily news" from -- you guessed it -- The Associated Press, or Associated Quislings as we know *it*.

On the front page will appear an AP derived article reporting *something* negative -- anything as long as it's negative in nature *&* tone, mind you -- and one plainly recognizes the same old same old Liberal-Socialist shtick insofar as spin, slant choice of "hot" button words etc, and that's "OK" because *I* expect such smear.
Butttttttt then one gets to the *back* page of A section and lo' & behold Mr.C, there it is reprinted again for a second go-around.
I kid you not, just in case the main byline turneds you off, the same article appears, usually in a condensed form again on the back page.
And this hasn't been a once in a while occurrence, it happens nearly every other day!!

OK, then there's the likes of Thomas Freeman's bullshit, always accompanied by an insulting *cartoon* critical of the political right and/or their political reps.
*Always*, and always on the right side as you hold the paper open, with that skinny broad Ann what'shername and/or Thomas Sowell's et al column appearing on the left side of the spread, and kind of out of direct view.
Guess I'm being silly, huh?
These *observations* merely [a] *coincidence* of laying out pages and of course the machinations of a lunatic, a madman!!
Right? ;^)

Here's a sample of Friday's "Nation/World" page...

"Bush Approval Dips To New Low" -- "Senate GOP Ponders Raise In Retirement Age" -- "Sexual Abuse Scandal Surpasses $1 Billion For Catholic Church" -- "Blackout Of Ideas - Congress Hasn't Made Solid Energy Policy" -- Watergate's Hero"
~& most *everything* *courtesy* of The Associated Quislings.
Get the picture? :o)

Had enough?
I haven't.
Permit me to lift a couple of quotes from a couple of the more *special* articles appearing on the "Opinion" page" to drive home the point.
And I sure hope you've an air sickness bag close at hand my old friend, because you're gonna need it.

Talking Trash, Raising Cash For The Democrats
Howard Dean doesn't mind talking trash, but the folks who made him chairman of the Democratic National Committee knew that going in. There was, notably, that famous scream and the promise of courtship of "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks."
This week he was at it again, saying of the GOP, "It's pretty much a white Christian party" which, in fact, it pretty much is but coming from him is an insult. [emphasis mine] Scripps Howard

Or try this tidbit appearing on the "Guest Views" page where their subscriber's letters are *supposed* to appear.

Watergate's Hero
-More than three decades after Watergate, some of the president's men still show an extravagant and illogical loyalty to their former boss.
-Vanity Fair magazine reported that W.Mark Felt, who in the '70s was the No.2 man at the FBI, was also the Washington Post's anonymous source known as Deep Throat. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Post reporters whom he assisted, confirmed it.
-Felt is 91 and fading. Nixon is gone. Watergate a fading memory. Felt's family persuaded him to step into public view and finally accept the accolades he is due. For the most part that is what he has received. There are notable exceptions. ...
-Felt, Woodward, Bernstein and many more ranging from other secret sources to the U.S. Supreme Court helped resolve the disgrace emanating from the Oval Office. Partisans of Nixon's day may always deny that any good came of the Watergate story. most of us know better. -Daily Camera, Boulder, Colo.

I'm sorry my friend, I cannot go on.
Too taxing.
But this little "small-town" rag is just dripping with this kind of base, obscene crap and if there's an, as you say, "...silver lining has a dark cloud"?
It'd have to be Boulder CO's rag is worse than ours given the fact ours felt it necessary to print garbage from the other guys.

In any event, nice seeing ya my friend!!
Still *watching*, Mr.C, and still repulsed by what I see when it comes to our illustrious Liberal-Socialist quisling media and the Liberal-Socialist quisling mediots infesting it.

There *is* some good news to all this baloney, though.
Yup.
And it was the pathetic sot Donald Trump who brought it to me, too.
Two words.

Daily News?
My beautiful bride & I have talked it over, discussed you & our future.

I'm sorry, but.

...you're fired!

[ForGod'sSake]

You sir are a hardy soul. Thanks(I think) for transcribing some of the excrementitious details from your local rag. At the very least you'd think they'd be willing to consider changing the name of their fishwrap to The Daily Democrat, eh? S'pose not; honesty in advertising is likely a foreign concept to them. ;^) I don't suppose you've sent any "letters to the editor" yet? Would they print it?

...you're fired!

One more nail in their coffin maybe?

Dammit Dan! There was an aside I wanted to run by you, but I stopped to make coffee and, well,......oldtimers???

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

NOW I remember ;^)

Back in the early days of the republic and for many years afterward, there were competing pamphlets/newsletters, etc vying for the hearts and minds of Americans. Whahoppined? I think as the urge moves me, I'd like to take a look to see what I can see re what dynamics might have been or may be at play.

Now, how's Michael Jackson, the runaway bride et al making out? JK.

FGS