Skip to main content

Fox News most trusted television news network on US.

This is very depressing....

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Read more.

Comments

The Atheist Missionary said…
Ah, Mr. Philosopher. You don't know the half of it. If you want to experience the heartbeat of America, let me take you on a little walk around the tailgaters at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park, NY about an hour before a Buffalo Bills game. If that's not a picture of a country in decline, I don't know what is.
January 29, 2010 at 1:42 AM
Anonymous said…
Unfortunately, people believe what they hear, especially if they hear it repeatedly, and especially if it confirms what they already believe. So of course people trust the network who repeats the same simplistic messages they already believe because they've been continually listening to that network.

It is depressing.
January 29, 2010 at 4:20 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
Anonymous got it right.

“But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

The other interesting statistic was the Republican Democrat split: 74% versus 30%.

I suspect it's the same all over the world, people follow the news that reflects their political bias.

In Australia, people who watch ABC don't watch commercial TV and vice versa. Someone who worked in both, in current affairs, once said that a programme that could be transmitted on ABC would never go to air on commercial TV - he said it's a completely different demographic.

At least, on ABC, they have to always canvass an alternative opinion, particularly a contrary viewpoint, and they're more diligent in that regard than the commercial networks. In other words, they practice a higher journalistic standard for giving a balanced picture.

Americans don't have anything like the BBC or ABC, so they miss out on a lot in my view.

Regards, Paul.
January 29, 2010 at 5:51 AM
Anonymous said…
Fox uses simpler sentences to communicate the same ideas as the BBC, Sky, ABC, CNN et al. Why? They are all owned by PEOPLE with the same interests.

Being depressed that one is more popular than another is like being depressed that Stalin was more popular than Hitler during the 2nd War in the Allies Camp.
January 29, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
People may not understand that ABC in Australia is not ABC in America - it's the equivalent to the UK's BBC.

In other words, it's not owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Regards, Paul.
January 29, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
161 comments
Read more

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.
10 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o
151 comments
Read more