Posted on 08/10/2007 12:00:05 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed. And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.
Snip
Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Anything for money mentality...modern news.
Good to know that I “tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole”.
Already posted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878993/posts
The last thing we need is a more "caring" media.
We need caring from our friends and family.
We need facts from the media.
MSM biased, inaccurate and uncaring—duh!
I’m a former reporter and newspaper editor. I spent 20 years in the media in Oregon, California, and Alaska. The results of this poll don’t surprise me - in fact, it’s a large part of the reason I quit the profession. If I told you some of things I witnessed during my time in the media, you’d think it was satire or fiction. The elitism, snobbery, and Marxist ideological cant were sometimes unbelievable and often excruciating.
One of the beautiful things about this republic, however, is that the voices reflecting the community find a way. Back in the day, it was the use of the printing press to create pamphlets. There was a day when newspapers were that voice, too, and it was a rough-and-tumble mess shot through with yellow journalism and slanted presentation - with the different that those words were clearly presented as the bias of the writer. Now we have the marriage of telephone and radio to give us talk radio and Internet sites such as this one. It’s also true that the mainstream media DOES reflect their community - in academia, in government, among elites. There are readers served well by the New York Times. It’s a small group, though.
Back when I started as a reporter I remember the old guys. Reporters used to be crusty men (almost always) who were failed novelists or cynical drunks. They were fun to hang with, often crude, and held onto their right to a free press like a soldier in a foxhole. As a result, they were in touch with the community (usually at the local watering hole) and in touch with what was known as the working class (since they were often broke or poorly paid). As those guys died away, they were replaced by college-educated former hippies who advocated a viewpoint that came from academia. The local watering hole was replaced by an upscale fern bar. The contacts reporters had shifted from the cabbie and the guy on the street to the guy in a cubicle in a government department. The other change came from the places where reporters went to die. In the old days, reporters became editors and publishers, or held onto their positions into old age. In this era, reporters move on to jobs in government or academia (to which I plead guilty - a pension and a good salary are powerful incentives). All of these changes mean that reporters are no longer well connected to the communities that they serve.
No problem. Talk radio and the Internet are taking up the slack. The print newspaper will go by the way of poetry journals. It will not be missed.
No kidding. I am listening to the Senate hearing involving the border agents who are in jail for shooting the drug smuggler. It varies greatly from what I read in the papers...to put it mildly.
Without question todays reporters and editors are completely contemptuous of the average folks. They don’t like the fact that we don’t share their view of the downtrodden.
Since most cub reporters do the night court beat to cut their teeth, they are exposed to, and feel sorry for those who become ensnared in the criminal justice system. They see right before their very eyes the injustices that their professors told them existed. They look for solutions to the misery they see before them, and never closely examine the choices that the person made that got them in to trouble in the first place. For to examine the choices made by the defendant would involve making a judgment about the quality of those choices. And one thing a journalist cannot be is judgmental.
Maybe it was timing, but I'm curious as to how you got into the profession.
I started out as a journalism major in the 70's and actually collected a few awards and moved into an editor's position on a campus newspaper. But after getting close to enough credits to graduate, I concluded I'd never get into a professional position without becomming a Marxist, a dedicated butt-kisser or both.
Besides, I had enough math and science credits to go into an alternative field that actually paid modestly, so I ended up with a double major at graduation. Of course, I also ended up getting work in the non-journalism degree (surprise, surprise).
But, I've sometimes wondered "What if?"
In other words, those who are better informed have a lower opinion of the MSM than those who are informed by the MSM. Well, duh!
So how come they still vote for the democrats since the MSM is nothing but their propaganda arm
I’d gleefully add “mendacious” to that fine list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.