Just in case you are wondering... This news release is available on their web site here...
SHU National Poll.
Ø Fox News Trusted Most – and Least
Ø Large Majorities See Media Attempts to Influence Public Opinion and Policies
Ø Americans Provide News Media with Dismal Satisfaction Ratings
Ø Little Support Found for Tax Dollar Bailout of Newspapers
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its third survey on "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media." The national survey of 800 Americans was fielded from Sept. 8-11 and covered new subjects as well as updating results from 2003 and 2007.
ON MEDIA TRUST, INFLUENCE AND RATINGS…
Respondents were asked if they believed all, most, some, little or none of news media reporting. Just 24.3% indicated they believe all or most news media reporting. While this is up from 19.6% in 2007, it remains lower than the 27.4% recorded in 2003.
Just over half of all respondents, 54.0%, said they believe “some” news media reporting. This is down slightly from 55.3% in 2007. Those believing little or no news media reporting dropped to 20.4% in 2009 from 23.9% in 2007.
According to Sacred Heart University Government and Politics Professor and Chair Dr. Gary Rose, "The low level of trust exhibited by poll respondents towards the media is in some respects a manifestation of the growing resentment and distrust among the American people regarding large and powerful institutions in general. The American people have become increasingly skeptical and suspicious towards institutions which they perceive as distant and manipulative. Small wonder that the media, which is now controlled by a handful of large corporations, is perceived in such a negative light."
In 2009, 86.6% (87.6% in 2007 and 70.3% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion. And, 85.3% (86.0% in 2007 and 76.7% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political positions and attempt to influence public policies.
"The results suggest that we are witnessing a new era of partisan media with the important difference that current news outlets claim to be offering objective coverage when they often aren’t," says Sacred Heart University Media Studies and Digital Culture Associate Professor, Dr. James Castonguay.
Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.
Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).
Researchers asked respondents for their perceptions of political leanings of various news sources. The Daily Show/Colbert Report was viewed, by a six-to-one margin, as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. By nearly five-to-one margins, respondents see “news media journalists and broadcasters,” the New York Times and MSNBC as mostly or somewhat liberal over those that see them as mostly or somewhat conservative.
Fox News is viewed as mostly or somewhat conservative over mostly or somewhat liberal by a four-to-one margin. And, by approximately three-to-one margins, CNN and USA Today are viewed as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. The Wall Street Journal is viewed as more conservative by a two-to-one margin while National Public Radio is viewed as more liberal by the same margin.
Researchers read the following question to respondents: "Many considered Walter Cronkite, who recently passed away, the most trusted television news anchor. In your view, who is the most trusted news anchor today?" A total of 25 different individuals were named in the open-end format question. The top six mentioned as most trusted were Charles Gibson (19.8%), Brian Williams (17.3%), Katie Couric (9.9%), Bill O’Reilly (9.3%), Tom Brokaw (8.0%) and Jim Lehrer (2.4%).
Over half of all respondents, 56.1%, suggested they trust the electronic and print news media for accurate news and information over blogs (7.8%), the social media such as Facebook (3.4%) and entertainers/celebrities (4.3%). Others, 28.5%, were unsure whom they trusted most.
The average, overall positive rating for the national electronic and print news media across eight service characteristics was 35.9%. Most organizations strive to attain and maintain customer satisfaction ratings in the high 80s and low 90s.
The highest positive ratings were recorded for "quality of reporting" (40.6%) and "meeting expectations" (40.0%). The lowest positive ratings were recorded for "presenting negative and positive news equally" (30.6%), "keeping any personal bias out of stories" (33.0%), "presenting an even balance of news" (33.6%) and "fairness" (33.1%).
More respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) with the statement "The news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be" (70.4%), than disagree (25.5%). Some, 4.1%, were unsure.
ON NEWS MEDIA VIEWING HABITS…
Researchers asked respondents which television news organization they turned to most frequently. The top five news organizations were Fox News (28.4% - up from 26.5% in 2007), CNN (14.9% - down from 16.0% in 2007), NBC News (10.6% - down from 11.8% in 2007), ABC News (9.3% - down from 11.0% in 2007), and "local news" (7.6% - down from 8.5% in 2007). Other organizations respondents turned to most frequently included CBS News (7.4%), MSNBC (4.3%), PBS News (1.3%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.1%).
Respondents were asked if they selected their favorite because they offer objective reporting or because they view the issues as they did. In results that were nearly three-to-one, 59.0% suggested they made their selection based on objective reporting, while 19.0% chose their favorite because they share the same views on issues. Another 21.0% were unsure or didn’t know.
Dr. Castonguay went on to say that "the polarization we are seeing around an issue such as healthcare is being reflected in news media preferences. Those same media outlets are covering, framing, and interpreting the issues for the public, so it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy."
Nearly three-quarters of all respondents, 73.3%, indicated they did not have a personal page on a social network such as Facebook or MySpace. Another 25.5% said they did.
ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE…
While strong majorities of survey respondents (73.4%) believed the news media (newspapers, radio, TV and the internet) should provide equal time and space for multiple sides of issues, a similar percentage (70.9%) said the same media should be free from government involvement and allow the market to determine programming demand.
"The results once again show that Americans are not getting what they expect from the major news outlets, yet they don’t trust the government to fix the problem," says Dr. Castonguay.
ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP…
Nearly three-quarters, 71.0%, believed it is very (31.8%) or somewhat (39.3%) important that limits be placed on how many media outlets one company should own. Another 24.7% believe such limits are somewhat unimportant (8.4%) or not at all important (16.3%). Some, 4.4%, were unsure.
Over half of all respondents, 56.7%, believed it’s "bad for democracy" that six companies currently own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. Another 30.4% suggested it does not matter while 7.8% indicated it was good for democracy.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 62.9%, suggested that these media ownership companies provide news that mostly generates ratings and advertising income over those (22.3%) who suggested these companies provide news that mostly informs the public about issues and policies.
Dr. Castonguay suggests that "many Americans feel that the news media are not giving them what they want as consumers or citizens, and are concerned about the effects of media ownership on the health of our democracy."
ON THE FUTURE…
Nearly two-fifths of all respondents, 38.1%, said they are reading newspapers less often than they did five years ago. And, nearly half, 45.0%, agreed that the internet is adequately covering for failing newspapers, while 35.6% disagreed.
More than three-quarters, 77.9%, disagreed with a statement suggesting tax dollars be used to prop up failing newspapers.
Two-thirds, 64.1%, agreed that the health of our democracy is directly tied to the health of journalism. And, 67.9% agreed with a statement that read: "Old-style, traditionally objective and fair journalism is dead." Just one quarter, 26.5%, disagreed while 5.6% were unsure.
ON MEDIA BIAS…
Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased. Some, 2.4%, were unsure.
A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed. Some, 3.6% were unsure.
Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3% disagreed and 4.3% were unsure. Further, a majority, 57.6% of those surveyed agreed that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. One third, 34.6%, disagreed and 7.9% were unsure.
“It is sad,” suggested Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, “when we find that only 55.9% say they expect the media to tell them the truth today.” He added, “This perception of bias will eventually catch up with the news media outlets – we found 45.9% have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias.”
ON THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA…
A large majority, 85.3%, of those polled suggested they were very or somewhat aware of the term “mainstream media.” Respondents saw the members of the mainstream media as: NBC (37.6%), CBS (32.6%), ABC (29.5%), CNN (27.8%), Fox News (19.9%), and MSNBC (12.6%). Over half of those surveyed, 56.1%, suggested the “mainstream media” are mostly or somewhat liberal while 16.7% suggested somewhat or mostly conservative. Some, 19.7%, saw the “mainstream media” as neutral and 7.7% were unsure.
ON LT. BRADSHAW AND THE WARS…
The poll found that, by a six-to-one margin, Americans would prefer to have their national news media cover the life of 1st Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw who was killed fighting in Afghanistan than that of entertainer Michael Jackson following their deaths on June 25, 2009. Another 14.6% suggested they would have preferred an even balance of coverage and 8.0% were unsure.
“The overwhelming result is not at all surprising,” Lindsley suggested. “We found 70.4% agreeing that the national news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be. Just 25.5% disagreed.”
The poll of 800 Americans also found 57.4% saw too little news about the men and women fighting the wars while 7.3% saw too much and 31.3% suggested there was about the right amount. Overall, 45.1% saw too little news on the wars while 9.8% saw too much and 41.3% suggested war coverage was about right. Negative news on war development was too much for 31.3% and too little for 33.5% while 30.3% said there was about the right amount.
And, majorities saw too little truthful reporting on the wars (59.6%), news on successes (60.8%), and objective/unbiased news reporting (57.0%).
EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT
•Dr. James Castonguay, associate professor, Media Studies and Digital Culture
•Jerry C. Lindsley, director, Sacred Heart University Polling Institute
•Dr. Gary Rose, professor and chair of Government and Politics
To speak with these experts, please contact Funda Alp at 203-396-8241 or alpf@sacredheart.edu or Tracy Deer-Mirek at 203-371-7751 or deer-mirekt@sacredheart.edu.
How the Poll Was Conducted
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 surveys nationally. All telephone interviews were conducted between September 8 and September 11, 2009. One survey instrument was used to elicit information from all respondents. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.
# # #
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Where is Your America?
From "Where is Your America" by Libor Brom
http://www.marianland.com/marx01.html
The fact is that we live in a time of fateful challenges. As a people and a nation we are under test.
This challenge is, of course, Marxism-Leninism. There is no mystery in its strategies and tactics. It has always been concrete and spelled out in black and white. It has also been openly and actively tested in the economic, political, and ideological struggle for control around globe.
Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." (This first quote seems to be misattributied, rather than Lenin, it seems to have come from Mao Zedong's "On Practice"-Wingman) And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.''
Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.''
Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends."
And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''
Today, Marxism-Leninism represents a most complex and powerful doctrine developed by Communist theoreticians and practitioners in every corner of the world. 'Its universal library offers dynamic political weapons and comprehensive theories, diversified approaches and seductive slogans. On one side of the globe, there is the Yugoslav moderate theory of reformed Communism and participative economy which lures masses into socialism. On the other side of the earth there are Chinese slogans which are more productive in inflaming a Communist revolution.
Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International's Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, "revolution" has been changed into "liberation," "world conquest by the proletariat" has speen changed into "peace and socialism," "armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie" has been rephrased to read "peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.''
Even the word "Communism," which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into "progressive, "anti-Fascist" or "liberal." Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say "imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave," they mean "through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave."
http://www.marianland.com/marx01.html
The fact is that we live in a time of fateful challenges. As a people and a nation we are under test.
This challenge is, of course, Marxism-Leninism. There is no mystery in its strategies and tactics. It has always been concrete and spelled out in black and white. It has also been openly and actively tested in the economic, political, and ideological struggle for control around globe.
Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." (This first quote seems to be misattributied, rather than Lenin, it seems to have come from Mao Zedong's "On Practice"-Wingman) And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.''
Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.''
Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends."
And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.''
Today, Marxism-Leninism represents a most complex and powerful doctrine developed by Communist theoreticians and practitioners in every corner of the world. 'Its universal library offers dynamic political weapons and comprehensive theories, diversified approaches and seductive slogans. On one side of the globe, there is the Yugoslav moderate theory of reformed Communism and participative economy which lures masses into socialism. On the other side of the earth there are Chinese slogans which are more productive in inflaming a Communist revolution.
Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International's Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, "revolution" has been changed into "liberation," "world conquest by the proletariat" has speen changed into "peace and socialism," "armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie" has been rephrased to read "peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.''
Even the word "Communism," which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into "progressive, "anti-Fascist" or "liberal." Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say "imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave," they mean "through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave."
Illegal's being promised to be made legal?
Well... It sure does sound like it to me... Read and watch for yourself and see what you think...
Obama: Immigration Reform Will Allow Illegal Immigrants to Become Legal and Get Health Care Coverage
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) on Wednesday evening that illegal immigrants would not get government funded health insurance under his health care reform, but said the debate over that plan underscores the need to legalize illegal immigrants so they can get that coverage.
“As you know there’s been a little controversy about who exactly will be covered under reform,” said Obama. “I want to be clear: If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan. That’s a commitment I’ve made.
“But I also want to make this clear: Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," the president said.
"That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else,” he added. “And we certainly should not let this debate on health care--one that’s so essential to Hispanic Americans and all Americans--get side tracked by those looking to exploit division and kill reform at any cost. That’s what they always try to do.
"If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all," Obama said. "That's what I've said from the start. That's what I say tonight."
Last month in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Obama said that he was "confident" he would get Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform that included a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens.
Obama was speaking Wednesday night at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 32nd Annual Awards Gala.
Obama: Immigration Reform Will Allow Illegal Immigrants to Become Legal and Get Health Care Coverage
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) on Wednesday evening that illegal immigrants would not get government funded health insurance under his health care reform, but said the debate over that plan underscores the need to legalize illegal immigrants so they can get that coverage.
“As you know there’s been a little controversy about who exactly will be covered under reform,” said Obama. “I want to be clear: If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan. That’s a commitment I’ve made.
“But I also want to make this clear: Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," the president said.
"That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else,” he added. “And we certainly should not let this debate on health care--one that’s so essential to Hispanic Americans and all Americans--get side tracked by those looking to exploit division and kill reform at any cost. That’s what they always try to do.
"If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all," Obama said. "That's what I've said from the start. That's what I say tonight."
Last month in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Obama said that he was "confident" he would get Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform that included a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens.
Obama was speaking Wednesday night at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 32nd Annual Awards Gala.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
