U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High - Surprised?

by Quietman ~PWCM~JLA Posted 2012/09/21 17:30:29

Related Topics: Mitt Romney, Obama, Barack Obama, Republican, Election, Newspaper, Republicans, Independent, Time, Media, President Barack Obama, Presidential, 2008, Poll, Survey, Presidential Election, Romney

Read More

35 votes
Read all 48 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	1 vote	3%
	No	34 votes	97%

Trend since 1997: In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV, and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views -- 20 percentage points -- is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 -- as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.

This year's decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. The 31% and 26%, respectively, who express a great deal or fair amount of trust are record lows and are down significantly from last year. Republicans' level of trust this year is similar to what they expressed in the fall of 2008, implying that they are especially critical of election coverage.

Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.

+13

Add a comment above

No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2012/09/21 20:40:30

No

+6
Could it have something to do with the fact that the administration has been lying about
the facts around the death of the Ambassador Stevens for nine days before admitting
it was a terrorist attack? And believe it or not, 0bama lied about it to Uni vision yesterday
in response to a question about why there was no increased security at the Libyan
Consulate when the Libyan president said days ago the our government had been
warned of an impending attack on the Libyan Consulate 2-3 days before 9/11.

Blatant lies........ does he think those people of Uni vision don't know what is going on
in this country and the world........... and doesn't he know these questions and answers
would be available on the Internet for all Americans to see? Does he really think
there are enough morons in this country that will reelect him...... even after
all these blatant lies and with his policy of appeasement of Islam failing all
over the Muslim world............. On the TV we see our embassies being attacked
all over the world..... anyone with a TV and half a brain knows what is happening,
and it isn't what POTUS says is happening.
>> See Replies

More polls by Quietman ~PWCM~JLA

Bevos 2012/09/24 12:31:59

No

+1
Not at all. When you lie and spread untruths, people tend to not believe you anymore!!!

reply
texasred 2012/09/23 23:16:29

No

+1
Not just no, but Hell No! All you have to do is watch the MSM and be halfway informed to know they're blowing smoke up everyone's butt.

reply
♥dreamer-leigh♥ 2012/09/23 17:27:00

No

+1
Not surprised at all ..the majority of the media are liberals anyway and spin most all of their reportings, fact or fiction...one needs to read between the lines and do the research being the fail most times in giving the facts!

reply
Racefish 2012/09/23 16:30:27

No

+1
People see and resent certain organizations such as MSNBC, CNBC, and others actively promoting instead of reporting.

reply
Link 2012/09/23 13:47:52

No

+1
No, I'm not surprised at all...

Ya know, you pick a TV show by whether it's the genre you like, and if you like it specifically...

Well, MSM is much the same thing (at least when it comes to politics and Gov't and issues): You pick the media you pay attention to by whether or not it fits in with your personal views...

I pick the news (which I rarely watch) by whether or not the anchors and weathergirls are cute or not...

reply
RobertChristopherLaity 2012/09/23 11:36:09

No

+1
Even FOX news hides things about Obama.

reply
SoCalEx-Dem 2012/09/23 06:38:15

No

+1
The only surprise involved is that they reported this fact. It won't make any difference in the reporting, the main stream media will still promote its propaganda.

reply
Ken 2012/09/23 04:09:22

No

+2
What a laugh, they are even lower than the Congress and Obama.

reply
Dave 2012/09/23 02:46:34

No

+2
All the Media does is cover up for Obama while making Romney sound like a bad guy for simply telling it like it is.

reply
heirsoftheking 2012/09/23 02:07:36

No

+1
How do I feel about the mainstream media?

reply
keeper 2012/09/23 00:57:34

No

+2
D*U*H~~

reply
Aqua Surf 2012/09/23 00:41:51

No

+3
It's like living in 1930's Germany. We know we're being lied to and they have all the control. Horrible, helpless feeling.

reply
sglmom 2012/09/22 06:39:28

No

+4
When one is now viewing PRAVDA
as more open and worthy of reading than the msm in the USA ..

THAT Definitely states ..
our own media ..
is nothing more than just advertising agency ....

reply
burningsnowman 2012/09/21 23:51:49 (edited)

No

+5
It's embarrassing anyone still falls for them.

reply
No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2012/09/21 20:40:30

No

+6
Could it have something to do with the fact that the administration has been lying about
the facts around the death of the Ambassador Stevens for nine days before admitting
it was a terrorist attack? And believe it or not, 0bama lied about it to Uni vision yesterday
in response to a question about why there was no increased security at the Libyan
Consulate when the Libyan president said days ago the our government had been
warned of an impending attack on the Libyan Consulate 2-3 days before 9/11.

Blatant lies........ does he think those people of Uni vision don't know what is going on
in this country and the world........... and doesn't he know these questions and answers
would be available on the Internet for all Americans to see? Does he really think
there are enough morons in this country that will reelect him...... even after
all these blatant lies and with his policy of appeasement of Islam failing all
over the Muslim world............. On the TV we see our embassies being attacked
all over the world..... anyone with a TV and half a brain knows what is happening,
and it isn't what POTUS says is happening.

reply
Pedro D... to No nons... 2012/09/26 07:51:57

+1
Take a look at how France24 reported it.

http://www.france24.com/en/20...

A few more missing pieces fall into place.

As best I can gather, the Ambassador was captured either at the Safe House or the "Office" - (being neither an Embassy nor Consulat but under State Department control - more like an Al Qaeda pay station and travel agency). After about 6 hours the Ambassadors body was then returned to the "Office" where it was eventually removed and taken to a local hospital.

reply
No nons... to Pedro D... 2012/09/26 15:33:14

+1
I had heard it was 8 hours that the Ambassador was MISSING!

reply
Pedro D... to No nons... 2012/09/26 16:09:35

+1
Nothing adds up. My best conclusion is that it was a professional hit by the State Department.

reply
No nons... to Pedro D... 2012/09/26 16:21:26

+2
I think not, but I do believe the US got a warning three days before and
did nothing to protect the Ambassador, his staff and those two x-navy seals, who weren't employed by the US but by the Brits. They went to help the
ambassador and died a heroic death...... no thanks from the 0bama
administration.

reply
Pedro D... to No nons... 2012/09/26 16:43:50

+1
He was the boss man. It was his job to heed warnings, unless he didn't get any warnings. But no awareness, unlikely. Next, he didn't go to the Embassy, that was in Tripoli, he went to an Al Qaeda Liaison Mission in Benghazi, not even a Consulate. Why? Who sent him? That would be the State Department. He was on a job. Why, after he arrived was a trap laid for him? Who gave the perpetrators all the inside info (France 24 said they had inside info and there were 2 attacks). He was the guy doing all the liaison with the Al Qaedas and little Al Qaedas. He wasn't a victim in the portrayed sense, he was a big boy dancing with the devil, but was a victim in the sense that he was thrown under the bus. He was the target and someone helped the perpetrators find their target.

reply
No nons... to Pedro D... 2012/09/26 19:33:04

+1
You know, I thought I had heard that he had travelled from Trippoli not
long before 9/11....

reply
Pedro D... to No nons... 2012/09/26 20:48:32

+1
Just came across this guys blog, puts a lot together.

http://issuesoncall.blogspot....

reply
No nons... to Pedro D... 2012/09/26 22:32:35

+1
Good one.......thanx

reply
HOMBRE 2012/09/21 20:03:23

No

+6
I saw a over sea news organization uni vision question Obama with the hardest question in 3 1/2 years. It even made the lame stream alphabet news story. They mention that Obama got hard questions. You know the kind they should have been asking all along.

reply
Striker 2012/09/21 19:45:50

No

+6
The internet has destined "The media" to extinction, so far as printed media, at least. Just as eMail, FAX, UPS and such will bring an end to the USPS.

But this post is about distrust; I agree it's increasing. The question is *WHY*, another part of the question is not mentioned, which is "Why so "progressive""? Simple answer is that the failing media are so because they hope for government takeover or subsidies to continue their blather. Thus siding with the marxists is their best and only hope. Their only other way of getting survival income is via selling advertising. That alone is driving their audiences away, so I guess they want to have government steal for them.

reply
Max 2012/09/21 19:20:39

No

+4
I am surprised however that a significant amount of people are informed enough to have a reason to distrust the media.

reply
Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/09/21 19:17:16

No

+5
Why be surprised - when the NYT does not cover Libya and the lies told by this administration for over a week, when there is no coverage of Obama screw ups, when 23.1 Americans are unemployed, under employed or given up, when unemployment remains above 8% for 43 straight month, when gas and food has doubled and tripled, and when the Department of Labor Statistics tell us that from the day Obama took office through the present that NET 300,000 jobs have been created in the private sector and this administration say everything is fine and moving forward - they wonder why we can no longer trust them to report anything.

Journalism has been dying for years but was buried in 2008 - nothing since then has even revived it at all.

reply
ack 2012/09/21 19:09:51

No

+5
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a half a brain how fricken biased the main stream media has become. Unless you're a liberal then you don't have a brain.

reply
Boo 2012/09/21 18:43:24

No

+5
The media is more and more obvious in their bias the closer the election gets! They obviously think people are stupid. I guess the Obama supporters are, but not the general public.

reply
Aqua Surf to Boo 2012/09/23 00:47:58

+4
The LWM thinks to intimidate us with propaganda, trying to make us believe that Obama will win, so we might as well stay home on election day. Don't do it. GET OUT AND VOTE!

reply
heirsof... to Aqua Surf 2012/09/23 03:18:19

+4
Amen, Amen, and Amenny! That means "many Amens."

reply
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/09/21 18:36:14

No

+5
Had to happen sooner or later.

reply
Dwight-AFCL>dogsbody 2012/09/21 18:22:31

No

+5
People trusted Uncle Walter to be honest untill he retired and then was honest. When asked if he missed being CBS anchor for so long Walter Cronkite responded that he missed "Managing the news".

In other words, the man so many people trusted for so long missed Deciding What People Needed to Know.

reply
Dave to Dwight-... 2012/09/23 02:48:21

+3
Walter was a closet Liberal, but at least he did flaunt it like the media whores of today.

reply
Dwight-... to Dave 2012/09/24 14:48:17

True!!

reply
heirsof... to Dwight-... 2012/09/23 03:20:12

+2
Walter wouldn't make it today as far as trust goes, just like the original King Kong movie wouldn't make it today either.

reply
Dwight-... to heirsof... 2012/09/24 14:47:48

LOL!! Nice comparison, and truthfull too.

reply
Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO 2012/09/21 18:03:17

No

+1
and yet corporate media of FAUX, CNN, MSNBC and major networks still exist and those on the right still use the "liberal media" excuse and those on the left embrace their spin as well. Amazing.
When will people finally discard corporate news as nothing more than a propaganda tool used by both political parties?
Remember the cowtow of the media to the Bush administration when they stated "we wont get access" unless they reported whatever line of bs was shoveled at the time.
So much for the 4th estate.

reply
beachbum 2012/09/21 18:02:25

No

+6
That's like asking if someone is surpised if it's hot in August.

reply
Scott 2012/09/21 17:59:23

No

+5
I don't think anyone that bothered to read a post with this title would be the least bit surprised

What's really got me stymied is that the media knows this too. They know their viewer / readers are down, way down. But they only get worse. We know too that they are in cahoots with one another - we heard one of their little planning sessions, to make sure they all followed a specific line of questioning. The media has no shame.

So, they know they are killing themselves and the country. I'm missing something. What's in it for them? What's their motivation?

reply