Media Reliability: Who can be trusted?

[micatala]

I originally made this post in the 2010 Election thread, but decided to spin it off into a new thread.

My only comment on the reliability of FOX, Michelle Maltkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Bachmann for now is that several people on FOX including Hannity and the latter two all claimed Obama was going to spending 200 million dollars a day and take a huge naval contingent with him on a trip to India.

Same with World Net Daily.


Not a shred of any of this was true, but of course, this did not matter one whit to any of these people. All they care about is whether they can fool enough of their audience and continue to brainwash them and reinforce their anti-Obama, anti-Liberal hysteria.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/02/india/

http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/11/o ... n-per-day/

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-to ... isit-64106

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=223365

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2111901

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011030052



I humbly submit that any one who puts any trust in Hannity, Limbaugh, WND, or Maltkin to tell the truth knowing the above cannot be trusted to discern truth from falsity. I will give some leeway to FOX in general since I think there are actually a few people their who can discern truth from falsity and actually care to do so in most cases.


However, overall FOX has to be considered a propaganda machine. It is simply not a reliable news organization.

Today, CNN has a short article on the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/ ... tml?hpt=C1


Questions for debate:

Is signing on to or endorsing an egregiously false story like this once enough to call into question the credibility of an individual reporter, news host, commentator or pundit?


If one such instance is not enough, how much of a pattern or false reporting or reporting false stories as true because on does not do one's due diligence enough to warrant dismissal of the reporter as reliable?


Should reliability criterion, whatever they are, only be applied to individual reporters, hosts, shows, etc. or should they be applied to the larger organization, network, etc.?


And to get down to brass tacks, which of the following can be considered reliable in the sense that the public can be confident that factual statements which they make or report are actually true?


Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Sean Hannity
Keith Olbermann
Ken Schultz
Michelle Maltkin
Bill O'Reilley
Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
FOX News Network
Huffington Post
World Net Daily
The Drudge Report


Feel free to add others.


I would suggest whenever possible providing quotes from the networks or individuals in question.

For purposes of having a religious aspect to this thread, consider that dishonesty is considered a sin or at least a character flaw in most religions.

[nygreenguy]

Pundits may have a journalism degree, but they are not journalists. They are hired on in order to stir people up and keep people watching.

We used to have only a couple networks which did the news and it was limited to papers and a couple hours on TV. They were quite limited on giving you JUST the news.

Now, when you have a competitive 24 hour news cycle, you must make the $$$ and have to attract people and the actual quality of the journalism comes 2nd. This is why non-profits like NPR are still the most fair, most in depth, and most accurate media outlets out there.

Newspapers are still a good fall because because I do think they are, for the most part, limited to journalism while the opinions get their own obvious section.

[WinePusher]

As a general comment, if the conservative talking heads were pushing false stories and narratives, they should have failed by now. The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false, and if a news network constantly pushes false stories they would lose ratings and views. That has not happened to Fox and Conservative Radio, but it has happened to Liberal radio and media.

Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Sean Hannity
Keith Olbermann
Ken Schultz
Michelle Maltkin
Bill O'Reilley
Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
FOX News Network
Huffington Post
World Net Daily
The Drudge Report

Personally, I trust CNN, The Drudge Report, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal. I would not take anything seriously that comes from Arianna Huffington, and other George Soros funded media networks.

Btw, NPR's credibility as been thoroughly destroyed when they fired Juan Williams but kept Nina Tootenburg. They should be cut off from public funding, but then again, if that happened they would probably fail like Air America.

[Board]

...The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false...

No they most certainly are not which is why we have so much blind ignorance on both sides of the political spectrum.

[McCulloch]

As a general comment, if the conservative talking heads were pushing false stories and narratives, they should have failed by now. The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false, and if a news network constantly pushes false stories they would lose ratings and views. That has not happened to Fox and Conservative Radio, but it has happened to Liberal radio and media.

And Americans have stopped purchasing Supermarket Tabloids. William Randolph Hearst went broke peddling sensationalized stories of dubious veracity. What is that American expression about one born every minute? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. H. L. Mencken

Personally, I trust CNN, The Drudge Report, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal.

Proving the point.

[WinePusher]

As a general comment, if the conservative talking heads were pushing false stories and narratives, they should have failed by now. The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false, and if a news network constantly pushes false stories they would lose ratings and views. That has not happened to Fox and Conservative Radio, but it has happened to Liberal radio and media.

And Americans have stopped purchasing Supermarket Tabloids.

Which is evidence that Americans are able to distinguish between reliable and un-reliable news.

William Randolph Hearst went broke peddling sensationalized stories of dubious veracity. What is that American expression about one born every minute? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. H. L. Mencken.

How witty of H. L. Mencken. You and others can continue insulting American intelligence all you want, but can you honestly say that Canada is better off?

Personally, I trust CNN, The Drudge Report, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal.

Proving the point.

Why don't you also post the inaccuracies and contreversies of CNN and MSNBC as well?

[micatala]

As a general comment, if the conservative talking heads were pushing false stories and narratives, they should have failed by now.

I think this statement amounts to a highly dubious assumption at best. Consider that half of Americans still believe Iraq had WMD's

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00189.html

31% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41248.html

Nealy half of Americans believe the health care bill has "death panels"

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/polit ... falsehood/

Clearly, the American people can be deceived in large numbers.

The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false, and if a news network constantly pushes false stories they would lose ratings and views.

Again, the data indicates otherwise. FOX pushed the death panel lie and a lot of people have bought into it, despite the fact that it is false.

If this is too controversial an issue, consider only 54% of Americans know that anti-biotics don't kill viruses.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/ ... ic-policy/

Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Sean Hannity
Keith Olbermann
Ken Schultz
Michelle Maltkin
Bill O'Reilley
Rachel Maddow
MSNBC
FOX News Network
Huffington Post
World Net Daily
The Drudge Report

Personally, I trust CNN, The Drudge Report, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal. I would not take anything seriously that comes from Arianna Huffington, and other George Soros funded media networks.

OK. Well the challenge is to justify the belief. Personally, I trust CNN and the Wall Street Journal out of those you listed.

Also, let's distinguish between bias, or a a lack of fairness, and a lack of factual reliability. MSNBC is biased. Can you document that MSNBC or particular show hosts routinely make false reports or are wrong on the facts?

Btw, NPR's credibility as been thoroughly destroyed when they fired Juan Williams but kept Nina Tootenburg. They should be cut off from public funding, but then again, if that happened they would probably fail like Air America.

First, firing one guy for failing to follow policy and then making a sweeping claim about credibility is a bit unjustified.

Secondly, you again confuse bias with lack of factual reporting. If we say the Williams firing is evidence of bias, for the sake of argument, that still does not mean NPR cannot be trusted to get the facts right.

[micatala]

As a general comment, if the conservative talking heads were pushing false stories and narratives, they should have failed by now. The American people are smart enough to see what's true and what's false, and if a news network constantly pushes false stories they would lose ratings and views. That has not happened to Fox and Conservative Radio, but it has happened to Liberal radio and media.

And Americans have stopped purchasing Supermarket Tabloids.

Which is evidence that Americans are able to distinguish between reliable and un-reliable news.

William Randolph Hearst went broke peddling sensationalized stories of dubious veracity. What is that American expression about one born every minute? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. H. L. Mencken.

How witty of H. L. Mencken. You and others can continue insulting American intelligence all you want, but can you honestly say that Canada is better off?

Personally, I trust CNN, The Drudge Report, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal.

Proving the point.

Why don't you also post the inaccuracies and contreversies of CNN and MSNBC as well?

The wikipedia articles indicate that CNN has been accused both by liberals and conservatives, admittedly more of the latter, of bias. I did not see any documented examples of false reporting. You can make the case that CNN might make "non-objective" presentations in some cases, or emphasize certain stories or sources over others. This could give a false overall impression, but I don't see blatant falsehoods occur on CNN.


The Drudge Report on the other hand seems to be replete with completely false statements.

Exclusives
Research by the media magazine Brill's Content in 1998 cast doubt on the accuracy of the majority of the 'exclusives' claimed by the Drudge Report. Of the 51 stories claimed as exclusives from January to September 1998, the magazine found 31 (61%) were actually exclusive stories. Of those, 32% were untrue, 36% were true and the remaining 32% were of debatable accuracy.[17]

[edit] Sidney Blumenthal lawsuit
In 1997, the Drudge Report reported that incoming White House assistant Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife and was covering it up. Drudge retracted the story the next day and apologized, saying he was given bad information, but Blumenthal filed a $30 million libel lawsuit against Drudge. After four years, Blumenthal dropped his lawsuit. Blumenthal said the suit had cost him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. He agreed to pay $2,500 to Drudge's Los Angeles attorney for travel costs, claiming that Drudge was "backed by unlimited funds from political supporters who use a tax-exempt foundation."[75][76][77][78] The Individual Rights Foundation, led by conservative activist David Horowitz, paid Drudge's legal fees in the Blumenthal lawsuit. A federal judge noted in the judgment that Drudge "is not a reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer. He is, as he admits himself, simply a purveyor of gossip."[9]

[edit] Alleged John Kerry intern scandal
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, Drudge ran a story quoting General Wesley Clark, where Clark claimed that the John Kerry campaign would implode over an intern affair. Drudge reported that other news outlets were investigating the alleged affair. He removed it from the site shortly thereafter when the other news outlets dropped the investigations.[79]

[edit] Alleged Bill Clinton illegitimate child
In 1999, the Drudge Report announced that it had viewed a videotape which was the basis of a Star Magazine and Hard Copy story. Under the headline, Woman Names Bill Clinton Father Of Son In Shocking Video Confession, Drudge reported a videotaped "confession" by a former prostitute who claimed that her son was fathered by Bill Clinton. The Report stated, "To accuse the most powerful man in the world of being the father of her son is either the hoax of a lifetime, or a personal turmoil that needs resolution. Only two people may know that answer tonight." The claim turned out to be a hoax.[80]

[edit] Alleged CNN reporter heckling of GOP Senators
On April 1, 2007 Drudge cited an unnamed "official" source saying that CNN reporter Michael Ware had "heckled" Republican Senators McCain and Graham during a live press conference.[81] Drudge reported that:

“ An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct "outrageous," saying, "here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter." �
— The Drudge Report, Matthew Drudge

Ware disputed Drudge's report on CNN April 2, 2007, saying that the story was leaked "by an unnamed official of some kind to a blog", that the story was anonymous, and that no one was willing to put their name to it; he advised people to view the tape.[citation needed] Video hosted by Rawstory shows that Ware did not make a sound nor ask any question during the press conference.[82][83] The Drudge Report did not retract or apologize for the story. Drudge's report was echoed in The Washington Times, which carried opinion questioning Ware's trustworthiness, and in many conservative blogs, some of which called for Ware's resignation.[citation needed]

We have some documented examples, including the one in the OP, of FOX providing blatantly false information to its viewers. Many more such examles exist and we can get into those in detail in subsquent posts. Their reporting on the Sherrod story would be another example. In both cases, FOX reported as factual information from anonymous or known to be unreliable sources as fact.

[cnorman18]

I don't see anybody on ANY of those lists who claims to be, or is presented as, a NEWS reporter or unbiased journalist. They are ALL commentators, pundits, columnists, and so on. I didn't see anyone mentioning Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer, Connie Chung, Bob Schieffer, et. al., or any of the late greats -- Cronkite, Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley, Peter Jennings, Howard K. Smith, Tim Russert, Harry Reasoner, on and on. Those people were newmen and women, not cheerleaders for their side. Doesn't anyone know the difference any more?

If you can tell what a talking head's political views are, you're not hearing the news. Cronkite kept everyone guessing till long after he retired; most people figured he was at the same place on the political spectrum that they were. Turns out he was moderately liberal, but who knew? He considered it part of his job to put that aside and never reveal it, and he never did. I like Brian Williams; he may be liberal, but he doesn't beat anybody over the head with it. Some of the others are pretty good, too, but there's nobody out there like Huntley/Brinkley and Cronkite any more.

I understand that a great many Americans, particularly young people, get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report these days. I find that even more alarming than that people think that editorial comments and partisan polemic should be as unbiased and informative as actual news programs. Does anybody expect unbiased and politically neutral reporting from Saturday Night Live?

If you're listening to Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann and expecting to hear the NEWS -- or, God knows, Jon Stewart -- I have some really bad news for you.

[micatala]

I don't see anybody on ANY of those lists who claims to be, or is presented as, a NEWS reporter or unbiased journalist. They are ALL commentators, pundits, columnists, and so on. I didn't see anyone mentioning Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer, Connie Chung, Bob Schieffer, et. al., or any of the late greats -- Cronkite, Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley, Peter Jennings, Howard K. Smith, Tim Russert, Harry Reasoner, on and on. Those people were newmen and women, not cheerleaders for their side. Doesn't anyone know the difference any more?

If you can tell what a talking head's political views are, you're not hearing the news. Cronkite kept everyone guessing till long after he retired; most people figured he was at the same place on the political spectrum that they were. Turns out he was moderately liberal, but who knew? He considered it part of his job to put that aside and never reveal it, and he never did. I like Brian Williams; he may be liberal, but he doesn't beat anybody over the head with it. Some of the others are pretty good, too, but there's nobody out there like Huntley/Brinkley and Cronkite any more.

I understand that a great many Americans, particularly young people, get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report these days. I find that even more alarming than that people think that editorial comments and partisan polemic should be as unbiased and informative as actual news programs. Does anybody expect unbiased and politically neutral reporting from Saturday Night Live?

If you're listening to Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann and expecting to hear the NEWS -- or, God knows, Jon Stewart -- I have some really bad news for you.

Very relevant points.

I guess this brings up the question, why do the sources people cite on this forum seem not to include Brian Williams, et. al as much as FOX, MSNBC, Stewart, et al?

Perhaps my subjective impressions are incorrect, but I can certainly recall, very recently, World Net Daily, FOX News, MSNBC, etc. being cited. I admit, I have even cited MSNBC. On the other hand, I also cite CNN which would include Blitzer, Cooper, et. al.

I might just wander through the 2010 thread and a couple of others and see what has been cited and do a little "count up", as Fagin says.