On January 27 2010 11:25 Virtue wrote: it's traditional news you know with the anchor and crap that's alright it's a notable bias but over all is a trustworthy program not really top of my list on just because it has a bias, journalism needs to be fair all the time not most of it.
On January 27 2010 11:13 Jibba wrote: It's interesting that no one in this thread has asked about sample size, sample demographics, polling methods, etc. I think everyone is pretty stupid, not just Americans.
1,151 voters (74% white, 63% 46 and older, 9% 18-29) and it was an automated phone survey (Do you trust ABC? Press 1 if yes, 2 if no, 3 if unsure, etc.) Within that, 14% Liberal, 47% Moderate (self-reporting Moderate means absolutely nothing), 39% Conservative, with just 36% Dems, 35% Republican and 29% Independent (most Independents are right-leaning.)
So it's a poll comprised mostly of white, old, conservatives who actually have the free time to complete a ridiculous phone survey. What did you think the outcome would be?
This is a really good point. I just assumed that the poll was incorporating a more balanced demographic due to the reputability of the institute behind it. These are pretty shoddy stats.
On January 27 2010 11:25 ktp wrote: CBS's 60 minutes had a incident last year where they not only used photo's from an unreliable source, but doctored the photo to make the people in it look more menacing. They apologized for the source of the photo, but never explained why they decided to make their heads and arms all giant and bloated. The segment was on internet hacking, and these kids are obviously a deadly "cyber gang."
Wow that's pathetic.
I used to watch CNN for my dose of American news, but the quality of their reporting seems to have really deteriorated in the last few years (twitter feeds, anyone?). What would you guys recommend for a professional and neutral news source?
What i don't get is why "Fox turned out to be the only one with a positive score, at 49% yes to 37% no. CNN was at 39%-41%, NBC 35%-44%, CBS 32%-46%, and ABC 41%-46%."
Why is Fox news 49% and not a range like 39-41% etc lol this report seems to be bais imo.
personally i trust Brian Douglas Williams bitches!
I used to watch CNN for my dose of American news, but the quality of their reporting seems to have really deteriorated in the last few years (twitter feeds, anyone?). What would you guys recommend for a professional and neutral news source?
As far as TV news, PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer is the only decent one, but PBS usually has a liberal slant as well. For written, you've got a lot more options. CSMonitor is my choice for online news, but that's largely because they've got the best international coverage, I don't go there for domestic stuff.
EDIT: I mean PBS the station does, with programs like Frontline. I don't watch enough Newshour to see how it is.
On January 27 2010 11:13 Jibba wrote: It's interesting that no one in this thread has asked about sample size, sample demographics, polling methods, etc. I think everyone is pretty stupid, not just Americans.
1,151 voters (74% white, 63% 46 and older, 9% 18-29) and it was an automated phone survey (Do you trust ABC? Press 1 if yes, 2 if no, 3 if unsure, etc.) Within that, 14% Liberal, 47% Moderate (self-reporting Moderate means absolutely nothing), 39% Conservative, with just 36% Dems, 35% Republican and 29% Independent (most Independents are right-leaning.)
So it's a poll comprised mostly of white, old, conservatives who actually have the free time to complete a ridiculous phone survey. What did you think the outcome would be?
This is a really good point. I just assumed that the poll was incorporating a more balanced demographic due to the reputability of the institute behind it. These are pretty shoddy stats.
On January 27 2010 11:25 ktp wrote: CBS's 60 minutes had a incident last year where they not only used photo's from an unreliable source, but doctored the photo to make the people in it look more menacing. They apologized for the source of the photo, but never explained why they decided to make their heads and arms all giant and bloated. The segment was on internet hacking, and these kids are obviously a deadly "cyber gang."
Wow that's pathetic.
I used to watch CNN for my dose of American news, but the quality of their reporting seems to have really deteriorated in the last few years (twitter feeds, anyone?). What would you guys recommend for a professional and neutral news source?
In order for polls to be accurate, they can't pick out a certain amount of certain demographics, they just call houses randomly. If the only people who answer the polls are old, white folks that is not their problem.
Please... Why would you post this after the past week in American politics. I have been feeling horrible in the light of Mass, the couple of supreme court decisions, and now this 'spending freeze' that cuts funding for social programs but not our wars. I don't understand why conservatives aren't pleased with Obama. I saw on bb today a California school district banned the Miriam-Webster dictionary because it defines oral sex...
And now you tell me this?! When I move to Japan this summer, I'm not coming back. I may not like it there and go looking for somewhere better, but this country is fucked.
Wow, they really know there geography... How does it even happen that they get their map wrong? And that nobody in the entire studio knows where Iraq and Egypt are?
As for being trusted, they are 100% reliable and consistent in their coverage.
On January 27 2010 11:13 Jibba wrote: It's interesting that no one in this thread has asked about sample size, sample demographics, polling methods, etc. I think everyone is pretty stupid, not just Americans.
1,151 voters (74% white, 63% 46 and older, 9% 18-29) and it was an automated phone survey (Do you trust ABC? Press 1 if yes, 2 if no, 3 if unsure, etc.) Within that, 14% Liberal, 47% Moderate (self-reporting Moderate means absolutely nothing), 39% Conservative, with just 36% Dems, 35% Republican and 29% Independent (most Independents are right-leaning.)
So it's a poll comprised mostly of white, old, conservatives who actually have the free time to complete a ridiculous phone survey. What did you think the outcome would be?
This is a really good point. I just assumed that the poll was incorporating a more balanced demographic due to the reputability of the institute behind it. These are pretty shoddy stats.
On January 27 2010 11:25 ktp wrote: CBS's 60 minutes had a incident last year where they not only used photo's from an unreliable source, but doctored the photo to make the people in it look more menacing. They apologized for the source of the photo, but never explained why they decided to make their heads and arms all giant and bloated. The segment was on internet hacking, and these kids are obviously a deadly "cyber gang."
Wow that's pathetic.
I used to watch CNN for my dose of American news, but the quality of their reporting seems to have really deteriorated in the last few years (twitter feeds, anyone?). What would you guys recommend for a professional and neutral news source?
In order for polls to be accurate, they can't pick out a certain amount of certain demographics, they just call houses randomly. If the only people who answer the polls are old, white folks that is not their problem.
PBS is a professional, unbais source.
I mostly agree, although methods and questions weren't very good. They chose a method most likely to attract that demographic. Still, it's up to the website reporting it to actually convey the rest of that information instead of just making terrible blanket statements like "Fox is most trusted news in America."
On January 27 2010 11:35 ShoreT wrote: In order for polls to be accurate, they can't pick out a certain amount of certain demographics, they just call houses randomly. If the only people who answer the polls are old, white folks that is not their problem.
Well, essentially it is their problem if this skews the results. I wasn't advocating altering their phone polling so as to have certain demographics quotas; that would likely make it worse. Phone polling is flawed in and of itself due to the filter of who has a phone, who answers their phone more often, and who will participate in surveys.
I honestly didn't know Fox still reported the news. I assumed they still only had talk and opinion shows from a bunch of foaming at the mouth retards who rather than talk about issues, just attack each other in allotted time frame.
edit: This is not only Fox news. So many shows have turned into this and rather than actual discuss issues and report the news, it becomes propaganda machines for whatever guests they have on these ridiculous shows.
On January 27 2010 10:48 Jazriel wrote: Isn't FOX news the one that had the U.S. laws changed so they could broadcast false information without being legally responsible when they said that the false information is correct?
Oh wait, it is. Americans are dumb, what else is new?
Yes. Supreme court ruled that news organizations need not report the truth. They can lie as much as they want. Fox won that case.
I don't trust ANY news, but I respect people like Glenn Beck because even though I might not agree with them I believe that he believes in what he says. I liked him when he was back with Headline News and I think that unfortunately a good deal of his doom and gloom type of talk is more true that I want it to be. I just think that money and power twists the nutsacks of every news organization to make exciting news rather than factual news.
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/loligee.png)
