Why most conservatives don't trust the MSM...

[healthmyths]

So the President Trump scores low on University of Missouri journalism institute’s trustworthiness survey
Trusting News Project Report 2017

More than two-thirds of those sampled (67.3%) reported being “likely”
(34.8%) or “very likely”
(32.5%) to believe mainstream journalism organizations
while 32.7% or respondents reported being “unlikely” (17.3%) or “very unlikely” (15.3%).
Data were collected in the February and March 2017 using an online survey made available to users (N = 8,728) of the digital media platforms of twenty-eight different newsrooms across the United States.

So the authors congratulate themselves on supposedly so scientific so methodical research...
YEA...
So here is what they explain as to how they came up with the figures...
In addition to the demographic variables described above, respondents were asked to report their political ideology on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very conservative) to 5 (very liberal).
The distribution for political ideology can be seen in the bar plot below.
Overall, the sample leaned slighly liberal (M = 3.41, SD = 1.03), which could be a reflection of the specific newsrooms participating in the current investigation,
a tendency to among conservatives to avoid surveys conducted by “the media,” or a general preference among conservatives toward less mainstrean news sources. Future research conducted in collaboration with newsrooms should incorporate experimental and/or longitudinal study designs to better explain systematic differences in online samples.

So 8,728 people polled breaks down this way:

• very conservative 0.25% 22 people
• conservative 15.0% 1,309
• moderate 32.0% 2,793
• liberal 32.0% 2,793
• very liberal 15.0% 1,309

Totals
conservative/very conservative 1,331
Liberal/very liberal 4,102...
Think about it folks.. 3 times the number of liberals compared to conservatives!
IS THERE ANY Wonder why we conservatives DON"T TRUST THE MSM!!!

 

[Faun]

So the President Trump scores low on University of Missouri journalism institute’s trustworthiness survey
Trusting News Project Report 2017

More than two-thirds of those sampled (67.3%) reported being “likely”
(34.8%) or “very likely”
(32.5%) to believe mainstream journalism organizations
while 32.7% or respondents reported being “unlikely” (17.3%) or “very unlikely” (15.3%).
Data were collected in the February and March 2017 using an online survey made available to users (N = 8,728) of the digital media platforms of twenty-eight different newsrooms across the United States.

So the authors congratulate themselves on supposedly so scientific so methodical research...
YEA...
So here is what they explain as to how they came up with the figures...
In addition to the demographic variables described above, respondents were asked to report their political ideology on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very conservative) to 5 (very liberal).
The distribution for political ideology can be seen in the bar plot below.
Overall, the sample leaned slighly liberal (M = 3.41, SD = 1.03), which could be a reflection of the specific newsrooms participating in the current investigation,
a tendency to among conservatives to avoid surveys conducted by “the media,” or a general preference among conservatives toward less mainstrean news sources. Future research conducted in collaboration with newsrooms should incorporate experimental and/or longitudinal study designs to better explain systematic differences in online samples.

So 8,728 people polled breaks down this way:

• very conservative 0.25% 22 people
• conservative 15.0% 1,309
• moderate 32.0% 2,793
• liberal 32.0% 2,793
• very liberal 15.0% 1,309

Totals
conservative/very conservative 1,331
Liberal/very liberal 4,102...
Think about it folks.. 3 times the number of liberals compared to conservatives!
IS THERE ANY Wonder why we conservatives DON"T TRUST THE MSM!!!

View attachment 185373

Most conservatives don’t trust the MSM because most conservatives are brain dead and can’t distinguish between reality and a hallucination.

The poll you posted being submitted as evidence A

 

[airplanemechanic]

They don't trust the MSM because they've been in the tank for the democrats since the late 70's. Foxnews upset the apple cart on October 7, 1996 when it introduced the OTHER side of the news.

 

[Rambunctious]

They lie...the news media has an agenda and it doesn't favor conservatism...If you can't see it's favoritism of anything liberal it's because you don't want to...or you are as stupid as that chick Faun...^^^^^

 

[JGalt]

Nobody should trust the MSM. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or a conservative.

Unfortunately, most liberals can't seem to understand that they're being lied to.

 

[Rambunctious]

The MSM has gone from being the peoples watchdog to the establishments watchdog...when the lynching starts they go first...

 

[Dragonlady]

They don't trust the MSM because they've been in the tank for the democrats since the late 70's. Foxnews upset the apple cart on October 7, 1996 when it introduced the OTHER side of the news.

They don’t trust the MSM because it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. They trust FOX, even though FOX is the least trustworthy news source there is, and people who watch FOX are the least informed viewers in America, because FOX tells conservatives what they want to hear.

 

[healthmyths]

So the President Trump scores low on University of Missouri journalism institute’s trustworthiness survey
Trusting News Project Report 2017

More than two-thirds of those sampled (67.3%) reported being “likely”
(34.8%) or “very likely”
(32.5%) to believe mainstream journalism organizations
while 32.7% or respondents reported being “unlikely” (17.3%) or “very unlikely” (15.3%).
Data were collected in the February and March 2017 using an online survey made available to users (N = 8,728) of the digital media platforms of twenty-eight different newsrooms across the United States.

So the authors congratulate themselves on supposedly so scientific so methodical research...
YEA...
So here is what they explain as to how they came up with the figures...
In addition to the demographic variables described above, respondents were asked to report their political ideology on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very conservative) to 5 (very liberal).
The distribution for political ideology can be seen in the bar plot below.
Overall, the sample leaned slighly liberal (M = 3.41, SD = 1.03), which could be a reflection of the specific newsrooms participating in the current investigation,
a tendency to among conservatives to avoid surveys conducted by “the media,” or a general preference among conservatives toward less mainstrean news sources. Future research conducted in collaboration with newsrooms should incorporate experimental and/or longitudinal study designs to better explain systematic differences in online samples.

So 8,728 people polled breaks down this way:

• very conservative 0.25% 22 people
• conservative 15.0% 1,309
• moderate 32.0% 2,793
• liberal 32.0% 2,793
• very liberal 15.0% 1,309

Totals
conservative/very conservative 1,331
Liberal/very liberal 4,102...
Think about it folks.. 3 times the number of liberals compared to conservatives!
IS THERE ANY Wonder why we conservatives DON"T TRUST THE MSM!!!

View attachment 185373

Most conservatives don’t trust the MSM because most conservatives are brain dead and can’t distinguish between reality and a hallucination.

The poll you posted being submitted as evidence A

So you are calling one of the most prestigious journalism schools in the nation of falsifying the poll? Well I couldn't agree with you MORE!
Using 3 times as many liberals in the poll of media credibility is totally a hallucination! And even more proof of the premise that the biased MSM corrupts people's perceptions!

 

[healthmyths]

They don't trust the MSM because they've been in the tank for the democrats since the late 70's. Foxnews upset the apple cart on October 7, 1996 when it introduced the OTHER side of the news.

They don’t trust the MSM because it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. They trust FOX, even though FOX is the least trustworthy news source there is, and people who watch FOX are the least informed viewers in America, because FOX tells conservatives what they want to hear.

Where is your link saying Fox is least trustworthy? Why in the hell should any one believe you? Where are your facts?
I put up links to the article at least do some scholarly research before spouting a totally unsubstantiated uninformed comment!
GEEZ it is truly people like you that the MSM loves to keep STUPID!

 

[JGalt]

The MSM has gone from being the peoples watchdog to the establishments watchdog...when the lynching starts they go first...

True. They are neither non-partisan nor are they practicing "journalistic responsibility." The sock-puppet crackhead media has become the voice of the lunatic fringe element of American society.

They imagine themselves to be "journalists", exposing the lies and uncovering the truth while in reality, they are creating a massive lie in order to conceal the truth.

If that's not bad enough, almost half this country is too ignorant to see that they're being led around like pigs with rings in their noses. I've come to the conclusion that in order to be eligible to vote in this country, a person should have to pass a rudimentary intelligence test.

 

[JGalt]

They don't trust the MSM because they've been in the tank for the democrats since the late 70's. Foxnews upset the apple cart on October 7, 1996 when it introduced the OTHER side of the news.

They don’t trust the MSM because it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. They trust FOX, even though FOX is the least trustworthy news source there is, and people who watch FOX are the least informed viewers in America, because FOX tells conservatives what they want to hear.

How do you figure that FOX News is the "least trustworthy" news source? They are the only network trying to expose the Clintons, Obama, the DNC, and the Democrat Party for the liars, perverts, and criminals they really are.

Meanwhile, the sock-puppet is running interference for them, just as they did during the 8 years of Obama. let me ask you this: For the whole 8 years Obama was in office, just when did they ever run a story trying to hold him accountable, or even question anything he said or did?

Even when Obama's AG Eric Holder came up with a scheme to put "assault weapons" in the hands of Mexican drug cartel members, we never heard a peep out of the MSM. Even though that resulted in the deaths of two American Border Patrol Agents, and an estimated 600 Mexican citizens.

How about the IRS scandal, where they were harassing conservative organizations? The Benghazi affair, where the American people were lied to and told that it was all the result of some obscure "Youtube video"?

How about the time when Obama had stacked up $1.8 billion dollars on the tarmac, headed to Iran, which used some of that money to finance the murder of American troops?

Then there's the time Hillary Clinton enabled the sale of 25% of our uranium reserves to Russia. Did we hear anything about that from the MSM, except that "Hillary dindu dat"?

The truth is, the crackhead media's purpose is to cover up and keep secret the criminal things the Democrats have been doing for the last 10 years while at the same time, to fabricate as many scandals against Donald Trump, as they can dream up.

It continues as of even now. Change your station over to FOX News and you will see that they are reporting on many stories. Then change over to MSNBC or CNN and all you're going to hear is "Stormy Daniels...Stormy Daniels...Stormy Daniels...Russian collusion...Mueller...Russian collusion..."

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

A democracy can't survive bad biased journalism

 

[eagle1462010]

When the MSM starts doing it's honestly and without bias perhaps I'll actually care what they have to say again.

But at this time I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them and I'm not standing next to the Grand Canyon.

DUCK..................whew that was close......landed under Sniper Fire in Bosnia.............

 

[airplanemechanic]

If the MSM isn't biased, why has it ignored Hillary bashing her blackberry with a hammer, deleting 30000 subpoenad emails, bleach-bit her private server? All they did was ignore it, blow it off as nothing, etc.

Had you or I done that, we'd still be in the iron bar hotel.

 

[Missourian]

LINK

ABC and NBC claimed ratings crowns for their news programs in the 2016-17 TV season that ended last week, but their kingdom of viewers is still getting smaller.

The average number of viewers watching network evening newscasts each night during the 2016-17 season was 23.1 million, down 4% from the 2015-16 season. In the morning, the three networks' total was 12.2 million viewers, a decline of 5% from the previous year.

LINK
​

Let's not even talk about the collapse of the newspapers.

And keep in mind, that chart does not convey the 100,000,000 in U.S. population since 1980 (227M to 330M today)

Folks are tuning out. Some when to cable and some to the internet...but there they have a choice...a choice liberals loath.

They ache for a return to the days that liberal network news was the only alternative...where they were able to push the agendas and focus the narrative.

Sorry, but those days are over.

 

[Missourian]

Where is your link saying Fox is least trustworthy? Why in the hell should any one believe you? Where are your facts?
I put up links to the article at least do some scholarly research before spouting a totally unsubstantiated uninformed comment!
GEEZ it is truly people like you that the MSM loves to keep STUPID!

I found the link...

Fox News is Most Trusted News Source in America

 

[JGalt]

A democracy can't survive bad biased journalism

True. The left's media is no longer playing by the rules that are in place in what could be considered a "democratic" system. Like Hitler and Stalin, their media was once the co-opted mouthpiece of the leftist, progressive, and socialist ideology. But they are no longer merely mirroring what the left believes in or telling them what they want to hear, they have mutated to a point that they are dictating to the left what they should believe.

The leftist MSM should be utterly smashed and brought to the ground. They need to be utterly destroyed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They don’t trust the MSM because it doesn’t tell them what they want to hear. They trust FOX, even though FOX is the least trustworthy news source there is, and people who watch FOX are the least informed viewers in America, because FOX tells conservatives what they want to hear.

Leftists DO trust the MSM because they tell them what they want to hear and they all vote for the U.S. Communist Party (Democrats).

 

[usmbguest5318]

One thing about a study, unlike a news story or news editorial, is that one must consider the study's methodology in terms of what the study aims to do. The OP-er did not consider this in determining to make his/her remarks about the study's merits/demerits. I discuss this later in the post.

Another key thing to keep in mind is whether, in making predictions based on the observed/obtained results of a study the researcher(s) accounted for proportional discrepancies between the sample subjects and the population at large from which the sample subjects came. The OP-er, in criticizing the survey, does not even mention such a thing, yet the survey's report does.

Data were collected in the February and March 2017 using an online survey made available to users (N = 8,728) of the digital media platforms of twenty-eight different newsrooms across the United States. Newsrooms included were Annenberg Media, Ball State Daily News, Casper Star-Tribune, Cincinnati Enquirer, Coloradoan, Columbia Missourian, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, Evergrey, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fresno Bee, Jacksboro, Herald-Gazette, Kansas City Star, KUT, Lima News, Minneapolis Star Tribune, NBC, Ogden Standard-Examiner, Rains County Leader, San Angelo Standard-Times, Skagit Publishing, Springfield News-Leader, St. Louis Magazine, St. Louis Public Radio, Steamboat Pilot & Today, USA TODAY, WCPO, and WDET.

Locations of the Newsrooms that Made the Survey Available to Readers

​

Due to unbalanced participation rates across newsrooms, it is possible a single newsroom with a high response rate could systematically bias statistical analyses. To address this concern, several steps were taken. First, in addition to having the names of the newsrooms associated with each observation, zip codes were reported by nearly all respondents (99.6%) in the sample....Second, weights were calculated assuming it would be more desirable to have an equal number of responses from each news room. Group level means were examine for a number of different cross-sections and no discernable pattern distinguishing the weighted and unweighted samples emerged. Finally, in addition to the linear regression models reported in the following section, multilevel models were also performed to directly model variability explained by differences between newsrooms rather than differences between individuals. As was the case with the survey weights, the results appeared consistent across all statistical solutions.​

Careful readers of the study's report will observe that weighting/adjusting the results to account for whatever may be differences attributable and corresponding to newsroom readers being from different parts of the country produced no statistically relevant difference in the data analytical and predictive value of the survey.


The point of the above is that while it is absolutely appropriate to criticize a study/survey on the basis of its methodology, the criticism one levies must be valid. To be valid, methodological criticism must be mindful of the entire methodology the researchers used and applied to the data, not merely to one trait of the data the study obtained, yet that last is precisely the approach/nature of criticism the OP-er presents. Two material dimensions of the OP-er's criticism are straight-up not valid, most especially not the criticism with regard to the ideological quantity and distribution of the survey participants.

So the President Trump scores low on University of Missouri journalism institute’s trustworthiness survey

8,728 people polled

Trump didn't score highly with liberal or conservatives. One will note that even among self-identified conservatives Trump scored notably lower than did Fox News and, on average, the most conservative (self-identified) didn't actually cite Trump as a trusted source.

​

the authors congratulate themselves on supposedly so scientific so methodical research...

Actually they don't at all congratulate themselves. They merey published what they did, how they did it and what were the results.

Furthermore, as stated in the summary of the report, the goal of the project wasn't to identify what sources of information are most trusted; identifying that was but a ancillary result of the project. "The goal of the Trusting News project is to better understand elements of trust and distrust in the relationship between journalists and nonjournalists."

Overall, the sample leaned slighly liberal (M = 3.41, SD = 1.03), which could be a reflection of the specific newsrooms participating in the current investigation,
a tendency to among conservatives to avoid surveys conducted by “the media,”

What is there to say about that? If one (many) won't "stand up and be counted," then one's thoughts won't be counted. That's one's thoughts aren't counted and thus reflected is attributable to no one but oneself.

The researchers who conducted the noted survey haven't tried to hide any of the details about the nature of the people who responded to the survey, what respondents said, how the responses were used, etc. The researchers haven't tried to present their findings as something they're not or as being representative of people who did not participate in the survey.

Good, Lord! To make their report's work accessible to readers who may not understand statistical sampling, the study's authors go above and beyond what is typical of empirical research studies and explain what the chart above indicates, thereby giving all readers the ability to understand how to interpret it.

The plot below [the plot shown above in this post] depicts the “trusted” media sources with the highest and lowest mean estimates of political ideology—meaning, on average users who mentioned Rachel Maddow as a trusted source were an average of roughly 1.35 points more liberal than the scale’s midpoint, while users who mentioned Limbaugh were over 1.00 point more conservative than the scale’s midpoint.​

Talk about "spoon feeding" one's reader! Simple replacement allows any reader who finished the eighth grade to know what is represented by any row/line on the chart.

 

[healthmyths]

One thing about a study, unlike a news story or news editorial, is that one must consider the study's methodology in terms of what the study aims to do. The OP-er did not consider this in determining to make his/her remarks about the study's merits/demerits. I discuss this later in the post.

Another key thing to keep in mind is whether, in making predictions based on the observed/obtained results of a study the researcher(s) accounted for proportional discrepancies between the sample subjects and the population at large from which the sample subjects came. The OP-er, in criticizing the survey, does not even mention such a thing, yet the survey's report does.

Data were collected in the February and March 2017 using an online survey made available to users (N = 8,728) of the digital media platforms of twenty-eight different newsrooms across the United States. Newsrooms included were Annenberg Media, Ball State Daily News, Casper Star-Tribune, Cincinnati Enquirer, Coloradoan, Columbia Missourian, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, Evergrey, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fresno Bee, Jacksboro, Herald-Gazette, Kansas City Star, KUT, Lima News, Minneapolis Star Tribune, NBC, Ogden Standard-Examiner, Rains County Leader, San Angelo Standard-Times, Skagit Publishing, Springfield News-Leader, St. Louis Magazine, St. Louis Public Radio, Steamboat Pilot & Today, USA TODAY, WCPO, and WDET.

Locations of the Newsrooms that Made the Survey Available to Readers

View attachment 185397
​

Due to unbalanced participation rates across newsrooms, it is possible a single newsroom with a high response rate could systematically bias statistical analyses. To address this concern, several steps were taken. First, in addition to having the names of the newsrooms associated with each observation, zip codes were reported by nearly all respondents (99.6%) in the sample....Second, weights were calculated assuming it would be more desirable to have an equal number of responses from each news room. Group level means were examine for a number of different cross-sections and no discernable pattern distinguishing the weighted and unweighted samples emerged. Finally, in addition to the linear regression models reported in the following section, multilevel models were also performed to directly model variability explained by differences between newsrooms rather than differences between individuals. As was the case with the survey weights, the results appeared consistent across all statistical solutions.​

Careful readers of the study's report will observe that weighting/adjusting the results to account for whatever may be differences attributable and corresponding to newsroom readers being from different parts of the country produced no statistically relevant difference in the data analytical and predictive value of the survey.


The point of the above is that while it is absolutely appropriate to criticize a study/survey on the basis of its methodology, the criticism one levies must be valid. To be valid, methodological criticism must be mindful of the entire methodology the researchers used and applied to the data, not merely to one trait of the data the study obtained, yet that last is precisely the approach/nature of criticism the OP-er presents. Two material dimensions of the OP-er's criticism are straight-up not valid, most especially not the criticism with regard to the ideological quantity and distribution of the survey participants.

So the President Trump scores low on University of Missouri journalism institute’s trustworthiness survey

8,728 people polled

Trump didn't score highly with liberal or conservatives. One will note that even among self-identified conservatives Trump scored notably lower than did Fox News and, on average, the most conservative (self-identified) didn't actually cite Trump as a trusted source.

​

View attachment 185385​

the authors congratulate themselves on supposedly so scientific so methodical research...

Actually they don't at all congratulate themselves. They merey published what they did, how they did it and what were the results.

Furthermore, as stated in the summary of the report, the goal of the project wasn't to identify what sources of information are most trusted; identifying that was but a ancillary result of the project. "The goal of the Trusting News project is to better understand elements of trust and distrust in the relationship between journalists and nonjournalists."

Overall, the sample leaned slighly liberal (M = 3.41, SD = 1.03), which could be a reflection of the specific newsrooms participating in the current investigation,
a tendency to among conservatives to avoid surveys conducted by “the media,”

What is there to say about that? If one (many) won't "stand up and be counted," then one's thoughts won't be counted. That's one's thoughts aren't counted and thus reflected is attributable to no one but oneself.

The researchers who conducted the noted survey haven't tried to hide any of the details about the nature of the people who responded to the survey, what respondents said, how the responses were used, etc. The researchers haven't tried to present their findings as something they're not or as being representative of people who did not participate in the survey.

Good, Lord! To make their report's work accessible to readers who may not understand statistical sampling, the study's authors go above and beyond what is typical of empirical research studies and explain what the chart above indicates, thereby giving all readers the ability to understand how to interpret it.

The plot below [the plot shown above in this post] depicts the “trusted” media sources with the highest and lowest mean estimates of political ideology—meaning, on average users who mentioned Rachel Maddow as a trusted source were an average of roughly 1.35 points more liberal than the scale’s midpoint, while users who mentioned Limbaugh were over 1.00 point more conservative than the scale’s midpoint.​

Talk about "spoon feeding" one's reader! Simple replacement allows any reader who finished the eighth grade to know what is represented by any row/line on the chart.

Still 3 times the number of liberals than conservatives in the poll which definitely biased the results!