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...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more