New Study shows American public's thoughts on mainstream news after the election. - Polidicks

[quote]Most voters turn to cable news for political coverage, and Fox News remains the top channel for these viewers. But voters still remain dubious of much of the political news they are getting. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, in a typical week, 75% of Likely U.S. Voters say they watch cable news networks for their political news at least occasionally. That includes 21% who say they do so several times a week and 25% who watch every day. Twenty-four percent (24%) say they rarely or never watch cable news networks for politics. (To see survey question wording, click here.) These findings are similar to those measured last July. Among those who tune in to cable news networks at least occasionally, 42% say Fox News is the channel they generally watch, compared to 35% who turn to CNN and 19% who prefer MSNBC. These findings, too, are little changed from last year. Among cable news network viewers who watch Fox News most often, 50% say they trust the political news they are getting. That compares to 43% of MSNBC viewers and just 33% who tune in mostly to CNN. Among all voters, only 37% trust the political news they are getting, while just as many (36%) do not. Twenty-six percent (26%) are not sure. Voters shared a similar distrust in political news last year, but just 33% trusted the political news they were getting during the 2014 midterm election season. More frequent viewers of cable news are more trusting of the political news they are getting compared to those who tune in less often. Among those who watch cable news for politics every day, 48% say they are most likely to watch Fox News; 28% prefer CNN, and 22% lean toward MSNBC. The older the voter, the more likely he or she is to watch cable news networks for politics. Those under 40 are more likely to watch CNN, while older voters prefer Fox News. Most Republicans (72%) watch Fox, while 50% of Democrats would rather view CNN. Voters not affiliated with either party are evenly divided between the two. Unaffiliated voters are less trusting of the political news they receive compared to Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters say the media, not the candidates, set the agenda in the presidential campaign, and 74% believe the media was more interested in controversy than in the issues. Most also didn’t trust media fact-checking during the campaign. Fifty-five percent (55%) of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely that so-called ‘fake news’ sites on the internet impacted the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. After Clinton alleged in the second presidential debate that Russian hackers were trying to influence the election, 56% of voters said it was more likely that many in the media were working to get Clinton elected than that the Russian government was working to get Trump elected.[/quote] My personal favorite is CNN at the bottom of being trusted by only 1/3rd of their viewers. [url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/cable_news_viewers_still_turn_to_fox_first[/url]

Disclaimer: Breitbart, Infowars, Prisonplanet, etc are all still extremely shit and have zero credibility. Too many people seem to think the MSM being shit must mean right-wing alternatives are not.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51637386]Disclaimer: Breitbart, Infowars, Prisonplanet, etc are all still extremely shit and have zero credibility. Too many people seem to think the MSM being shit must mean right-wing alternatives are not.[/QUOTE] To some people 'untrustworthy' seems to mean 'not extremist enough'.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51637386]Disclaimer: Breitbart, Infowars, Prisonplanet, etc are all still extremely shit and have zero credibility. Too many people seem to think the MSM being shit must mean right-wing alternatives are not.[/QUOTE] MSM media generally has a bias to it to some degree but the shit they publish is always true and well sourced breitbart and similar sites publish literal opinion pieces that aren't even true sometimes

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51637386]Disclaimer: Breitbart, Infowars, Prisonplanet, etc are all still extremely shit and have zero credibility. Too many people seem to think the MSM being shit must mean right-wing alternatives are not.[/QUOTE] Well said there, but you should include the left-wing sites like Vox, Huffington Pos, and Slate among others. It ain't exclusively a right-wing problem.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637425]Well said there, but you should include the left-wing sites like Vox, Huffington Post, and Slate among others. It ain't exclusively a right-wing problem.[/QUOTE] Huffpost pretty much belongs in the dumpster but Vox is pretty decent usually (biased af but I havent seen them habitually downright lying like huffpost or breitbart.) No idea about slate.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637334]My personal favorite is CNN at the bottom of being trusted by only 1/3rd of their viewers. [/QUOTE] I don't think it's surprising. Fox and MSNBC both push a more clear agenda where as CNN is more moderate. In terms of fact based reporting I'd imagine they come out ahead of the other two. [QUOTE=Camdude90;51637407]MSM media generally has a bias to it to some degree but the shit they publish is always true and well sourced breitbart and similar sites publish literal opinion pieces that aren't even true sometimes[/QUOTE] This is why even as someone who generally leans left, I trust Fox over Huff Po, Think Progress, Slate, Salon etc.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51637432]Huffpost pretty much belongs in the dumpster but Vox is pretty decent usually (biased af but I havent seen them habitually downright lying like huffpost or breitbart.) No idea about slate.[/QUOTE] Slate seems okay most of the time, but there's a lot of editorial content. I tend to stay away from it. For hard news, though, they do a good job. Some decent journalists working there. I'm more of an NPR guy, myself. They're biased, sure, but they've got a commitment to the job that I respect. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51637498]I don't think it's surprising. Fox and MSNBC both push a more clear agenda where as CNN is more moderate. In terms of fact based reporting I'd imagine they come out ahead of the other two. This is why even as someone who generally leans left, I trust Fox over Huff Po, Think Progress, Slate, Salon etc.[/QUOTE] This is also an interesting point. When you ignore the punditry that goes on at Fox, and you only look at their hard news coverage, they're actually fairly decent. They're pretty fair during their no-opinions programs. The problem is, they drown it in all the other schlock of the 24-hour news cycle, and their credibility withers as a result.

[QUOTE=Camdude90;51637407]MSM media generally has a bias to it to some degree but the shit they publish is always true and well sourced[/QUOTE] I would STRONGLY disagree. We saw tons of what were essentially fake, or extremely skewed, news stories picked up by the MSM.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637334]My personal favorite is CNN at the bottom of being trusted by only 1/3rd of their viewers.[/QUOTE] Some of people who were driven from Fox and MSNBC to the alternative media were probably driven from CNN to Fox/MSNBC before that. The media is like a mountain with crazy people going down the sides until they reach the bottom.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51637546]I would STRONGLY disagree. We saw tons of what were essentially fake, or extremely skewed, news stories picked up by the MSM.[/QUOTE] Fake news is a problem endemic to the industry, since we haven't exactly figured out how to properly fact-check social media and micro-news sources yet. Personally, I think a moratorium on these sources should be issued, at least temporarily, but our president-elect only seems to communicate through Twitter, so that's unreasonable.

rasmussen doing a survey about untrustworthy media? how ironic

[QUOTE=CanUBe;51637635]rasmussen doing a survey about untrustworthy media? how ironic[/QUOTE] Why do you say that?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637645]Why do you say that?[/QUOTE] Like Breitbart and related fake news sites it's known for it's alt-right bias. [t]http://junkcharts.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341e992c53ef0128768ee95b970c-pi[/t]

Rasmussen isn't the best and got shit on by 538 during the 2010 election but Nate Silver says they're not really that biased, just not great at polling. [URL]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-biased/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51637663]Rasmussen isn't the best and got shit on by 538 during the 2010 election but Nate Silver says they're not really that biased, just not great at polling. [URL]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-biased/[/URL][/QUOTE] And how the tables turned with this election with Rasmussen being way more accurate about the chances.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51637432]Huffpost pretty much belongs in the dumpster but Vox is pretty decent usually (biased af but I havent seen them habitually downright lying like huffpost or breitbart.) No idea about slate.[/QUOTE] I always thought the HuffPo bashing was just the usual right-wing hate of left-wing media, until I read a few of their articles and felt like gouging my eyes out from how garbage they were.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637723]And how the tables turned with this election with Rasmussen being way more accurate about the chances.[/QUOTE] Not really. Black swans are a thing. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] This election was a complete mess and I'm not surprised that the outcome was completely unforeseen. Just because they happened to be right doesn't mean they predicted anything.

All American news is shit

[QUOTE=sgman91;51637546]I would STRONGLY disagree. We saw tons of what were essentially fake, or extremely skewed, news stories picked up by the MSM.[/QUOTE] But if proven fake they often withdraw their article. Everyone makes mistakes. There was even that fox news guy who apologized recently. Meanwhile breitbart was rebuked by the Weather Channel about global warming and tried to start a childish fight. There's no integrity

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637723]And how the tables turned with this election with Rasmussen being way more accurate about the chances.[/QUOTE] Probability doesn't work like that.

[QUOTE=froztshock;51637782]Probability doesn't work like that.[/QUOTE] Nope, but just shows how this system of statistics can work in the long run where the once held standard is no longer right.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637791]Nope, but just shows how this system of statistics can work in the long run where the once held standard is no longer right.[/QUOTE] ...what?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637791]Nope, but just shows how this system of statistics can work in the long run where the once held standard is no longer right.[/QUOTE] What standard?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637791]Nope, but just shows how this system of statistics can work in the long run where the once held standard is no longer right.[/QUOTE] 538 was 100% right in their predictions. Not understanding statistics and probability has very little to do with this, but 538 was correct with their call on the election. Like, I hate this analogy, but it's the only one I have. You're playing Xcom. You have a 99% chance to hit a target out of cover from a flanked position. In reality, that 99% chance to hit, is a 1% chance to miss. You fire. You miss. You weren't lied to, you just rolled a 1. Same thing here.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51637836]538 was 100% right in their predictions. Not understanding statistics and probability has very little to do with this, but 538 was correct with their call on the election. Like, I hate this analogy, but it's the only one I have. You're playing Xcom. You have a 99% chance to hit a target out of cover from a flanked position. In reality, that 99% chance to hit, is a 1% chance to miss. You fire. You miss. You weren't lied to, you just rolled a 1. Same thing here.[/QUOTE] If one reads the 538 blog rather than just looking at the percentages for hillary vs trump, their explanations were pretty damn solid and fair throughout without requiring any statistics knowledge.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51637847]If one reads the 538 blog rather than just looking at the percentages for hillary vs trump, their explanations were pretty damn solid and fair throughout without requiring any statistics knowledge.[/QUOTE] Not to mention they were like "don't forget about polling errors" every five seconds. [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/[/url]

Either way, 538 won't be getting the same amount of attention it did previously.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637877]Either way, 538 won't be getting the same amount of attention it did previously.[/QUOTE] Why? There were pretty much spot-on both times. Trump had a greater chance of winning according to them than I would have getting heads twice if I flipped a coin twice. It's not like they were unfair to the guy. For the Republican primaries, sure, they were off until it was down to a couple people. But those primaries were incredibly turbulent and insane so I find that to be a bit more excusable.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637877]Either way, 538 won't be getting the same amount of attention it did previously.[/QUOTE] Why? Trump won, they didn't say "Trump can't win". They gave him a low shot. Because, he had a low shot. Just because a long shot became a reality doesn't mean anyone was wrong on the math.