Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Fox Ascendant! The Old Gray Lady Down.

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Fox Ascendant! The Old Gray Lady Down.
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After the past few weeks of disinformation from the New York Times - the single source of all news about the US to over 90% of Europe - a Rasmussen poll shows 51% of the US chooses Fox news as the best source of fair news. The Times is mistrusted more than she is trusted.

"The data reflects more than a generalized distrust of media reporting. The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News Channel, and local newspapers all were seen as significantly more reliable than the Times."

They still have a damned-good crossword puzzle though.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lambert,

the poll author suggested that the loss of trust was likely due to the recent scandals the the NYT has experienced that have been widely reported.

The poll author didn't provide any information on the methodology so the poll is not particularly useful. (The link to methodology is an advertisment for the technology method,,,).

Given the obvious bias represented in descriptions of various poll results, I don't have much confidence that the surveys were done in such a matter as to generate accurate data.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And let's not forget, if the poll is to be believed, the WSJ is less reliable than CNN.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LetterRip, I'm not sure how much more information you want from the pollster to assure its accuracy. You are correct that the link to "methodology" reads like an ad for its services - however it also explains that methodology. One of the statements made was: "the automated survey process is identical to that of traditional research firms such as Gallup, Harris, and Roper. However, we use a single, digitally-recorded, voice to conduct the interview " I guess that means it is a normal poll done as unbiasedly as such polls are supposed to be.

It did not assign causes to the NY Times lack of trust - only mentioned that recent stories have been a problem for the Times. The science of demographical research is pretty mature, and I don't think this particular poll is any less useful than most polls.

The poll said: "All data is from a national telephone survey of 1,000 adults conducted by Rasmussen Reports on July 14 and 15, 2003. The margin of error for the full sample is +/-3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."

It also says the WSJ is better trusted by investors than are the others listed. I really don't see any corruptive taints.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
nemes_ie
Member
Member # 804

 - posted      Profile for nemes_ie   Email nemes_ie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As someone living in Europe, I'm surprised to discover that 90% of my news about the US comes from the New York Times. I never realised that the NYT had hacked into CNN, Sky, etc and adjusted their views. I never realised that my own national papers' foreign correspondents were in the pay of the NYT. [Smile]

Anyone care to justify this, rather strange, comment above?

GS

Posts: 312 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your statement is wrong, Lambert. The NYT is not "mistrusted more than it is trusted."

If you look at the percentages, there is a significant number of respondents who apparently had no opinion. For instance, Fox News was considered reliable by 72% of the respondents, while 14% considered it unreliable. That leaves a good 14% who had no opinion.

If you look at the percentages of those who had an opinion, the reliability of Fox News jumps to 72/86 = 83.7%.

The NYT had a whopping 31% of respondents who had no opinion (probably because they had never read it, not realizing how many articles from the Times they read in their local newspaper). If you take that into account and measure the reliability from those who responded, the NYT goes to 46/69 = 66.6% reliability.

It is still considered less reliable than Fox, but a 2/3 majority of those who responded believe it to be reliable.

Looking only at those who responded with an opinion also explains the WSJ's low reliability count. A full 30% of respondents had no opinion. WSJ actual reliability is 59/70 = 84.2%, better than Fox News. And CNN still has a 75.8% reliabilty according to the survey.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward Son,

excellent point.

Lambert,

quote:
I guess that means it is a normal poll done as unbiasedly as such polls are supposed to be.
My comment on methodology meant that they don't provide the actual questions asked, the possible responses that were available, and the order that the questions were asked. Also they don't provide the sampling methodology.

All of that information is available from Gallup, Harris, Roper, Pew, etc. when they provide their methodology section, it is the expected behavior when conducting a survey. Not providing such information is usually a sign of either ignorance (they don't know enough about surveying to realize that the information ought to be included), incompentence (they knew but forgot to include it, or were to apathetic or lazy to do so), or deliberate deception (ie the surveys questions are biased, and rather than reveal the bias, they don't reveal the information).

Of course that doesn't mean that I reject the survey results out of hand. It just means that I don't consider the information as solid or useful as I might with survey that provided such information. And that my acceptance of such results is very tentative (at best).

LetterRip

[edit - added paragraph]

[ July 23, 2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, if I were the WSJ and only a measly 3 percentage points seperated me from CNN when *investors* are polled about which is more reliable, I would think that I would have some serious thinking to do about what I was doing wrong. Seems like it should be a lot more.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Wayward Son, but your math is correct and I rephrased the title of the link poorly. It was just plain old 46% for and 23% against.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 891

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not surprised the WSJ's rating is so low. For the most part it's an excellent publication, but it's editorial page is populated by biased jerks who will print any unsubstantiated thing that supports their causes. That drags them down considerably.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
fugu, unsubstantiated? I don't recall any such editorials. As a matter of fact, many WSJ editorials are certainly full of subjecture about what MAY happen, but the facts that prompts them are usually based on concrete and totally substantiated facts.

Omigawd, man - you're in a science fiction author's forum. Please don't denigrate subjecture based on hard facts and then call it unsubstantiated. It may or not happen as predicted, but how bad have WSJ predictions actually been? If you compare with the same sorts of editorials from the New York Times, who has more unsubstantiated editorials? As I posted earlier, the Times had unsubstantiated news stories on page one. The WSJ has not been smeared with that disgrace yet.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1