Poll: Fox Most Trusted News Source in U.S.

[DBruleU]

LABF, look away now. No good can from this thread. I'll even post what you were going to say before you say it. :)

LABF says,"Ha ha ha! I knew this was gonna be a MoonieMax hit piece before I even clicked on the thread."


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/6/122755.shtml?s=ic

The Fox News Channel is the most trusted news source in America, according to a new poll released by the BBC and Reuters that surveyed 10,000 news consumers around the world.

Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.

Fox News led the broadcast networks by substantial margins, with ABC coming in at 4 percent, NBC - 4 percent and CBS - 3 percent.

In less crowded news markets, percentages were higher. 32 percent of Britons, for instance, named the the BBC, while 59 percent of Egyptians named Al Jazeera.

The most trusted news networks on a global basis were the BBC, and CNN, the Reuters/BBC poll found.

"National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the Internet is gaining ground among the young," said Doug Miller, president of London-based research firm GlobeScan, which conducted the polling.

More than 1,000 people were surveyed in March and April in each of the United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea.

[banyon]

11% are blithering idiots. that sounds about right.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

11% are blithering idiots. that sounds about right.
The same 11% who think Iraq attacked us I'd guess.

[elsid13]

I wonder who commissioned the poll, what the sample size was. and what the questions were. The funnest thing that I ever heard was O'Really bragging that Fox was #1 new cast when covering the Republican Convention. Someone need to point out to that buffon that the audience for Republicans' convention is mainly republican and what is the preferred channel those folks watch?

[Old Dude]

Well, Fox is considered the conservative outlet, while the others are considered liberal, and the country is more or less evenly divided. If you add up ABC, NBC and CBS, they come out to roughly the same # as Fox. So it's just a matter of liberals having more choices.

I would bet that if they ran a poll of the "least" trusted news network, Fox would finish first in that as well.

[Crushaholic]

I'm guessing the majority of Americans chose "none"? To be the winner at a mere 11% is really nothing to brag about...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, look away now. No good can from this thread. I'll even post what you were going to say before you say it. :)

LABF says,"Ha ha ha! I knew this was gonna be a MoonieMax hit piece before I even clicked on the thread."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/6/122755.shtml?s=ic



Wow.

Addressing threads to me personally.

Saving my quotes...

Can you say "obsession?"

In any event, it's always amusing to see another "Christian" who gets his news from the Rev. Moon.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

11% are blithering idiots. that sounds about right.

:laugh:

[DBruleU]

Wow.

Addressing threads to me personally.

Saving my quotes...

Can you say "obsession?"

In any event, it's always amusing to see another "Christian" who gets his news from the Rev. Moon.

:D

Actually, I forgot to cut and paste your "Christian" comment. I just went back and got your last comment in regards to Newsmax, don't be too flattered. It wasnt necessarily addressed to you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It wasnt necessarily addressed to you.

Yeah, what was I thinking?

I guess your first sentence must have thrown me:

LABF, look away now. No good can from this thread. I'll even post what you were going to say before you say it.

:D

[DBruleU]

Yeah, what was I thinking?

I guess your first sentence must have thrown me:



:D

The topic of the thread didn't have your name in it.

I just thought I'd save you the trouble, and post your usual rant.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just thought I'd save you the trouble, and post your usual rant.

How is pointing out the fact that you look to the Rev. Moon for your "news" a "rant?"

Just stating the facts.

[Blueflame]

LABF, look away now. No good can from this thread. I'll even post what you were going to say before you say it. :)

LABF says,"Ha ha ha! I knew this was gonna be a MoonieMax hit piece before I even clicked on the thread."


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/6/122755.shtml?s=ic

The Fox News Channel is the most trusted news source in America, according to a new poll released by the BBC and Reuters that surveyed 10,000 news consumers around the world.

Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.

Fox News led the broadcast networks by substantial margins, with ABC coming in at 4 percent, NBC - 4 percent and CBS - 3 percent.

In less crowded news markets, percentages were higher. 32 percent of Britons, for instance, named the the BBC, while 59 percent of Egyptians named Al Jazeera.

The most trusted news networks on a global basis were the BBC, and CNN, the Reuters/BBC poll found.

"National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the Internet is gaining ground among the young," said Doug Miller, president of London-based research firm GlobeScan, which conducted the polling.

More than 1,000 people were surveyed in March and April in each of the United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea.

"Nothing good can come from this thread"?? ??? More likely nothing good can come from Newsmax.... ::) Is "more than 1,000 people" from the US a valid sampling? Probably not, imho... what's to say they weren't all from.. say, Idaho?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

11% are blithering idiots. that sounds about right.

11%...

Hey - that's roughly one third of the number who still support this rotten, corrupt administration.

Hence, it appears only 1/3 of Bush's base trusts Faux. :giggle:

Way to go, Ailes Jazeera. :laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More likely nothing good can come from Newsmax.... ::)

Unless your last name is Bush, that is.

Then you get lots of campaign $$$ from your good friend the Reverend Moon.

Praise jay-sus! (Or is it Buddha?) ???

[Rascal]

Is "more than 1,000 people" from the US a valid sampling? Probably not, imho... what's to say they weren't all from.. say, Idaho?

Next time I see a poll that a liberal supporter is throwing up I'm using this quote except I'll put in DC instead of Idaho.

[Spider]

I took part in a few polls .1 reoccuring theme , it is never simple direct questions ,they are either absolute , or slanted .........

[noneubizwax]

I took part in a few polls .1 reoccuring theme , it is never simple direct questions ,they are either absolute , or slanted .........

Says you

[Spider]

Says you
I hope it didnt take long for you to figure that out ................

[noneubizwax]

I hope it didnt take long for you to figure that out ................

Oh a funny guy huh........you must be from WY or something.

[Spider]

Oh a funny guy huh........you must be from WY or something.
Wyomin .......... or somting would be Utah .......but we dont have to get into that right now

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Nothing good can come from this thread"?? ??? More likely nothing good can come from Newsmax.... Is "more than 1,000 people" from the US a valid sampling? Probably not, imho... what's to say they weren't all from.. say, Idaho?

You raise some questions that should be asked by everyone that looks at a poll, but no one ever really does. Get your pillow out because this might get boring :).

To address the first part question about the validity of the use of 1,000 people (>1,000 in this case...for whatever that means)...for a random sample to be considered valid, it has to contain 1,000 people or more. Most organizations will use around 1,000 because these things are expensive to coordinate and the mathematical testing shows that this sample size is efficient and can be used to draw inferences appropriate to a population.

The standards in polling have evolved to the point that discrepancies in random sampling have been addressed. That means that a polling organization selects their random sample subjects from specific areas of society in relation to their proportion of the whole. They will come from social and economic strata in a proportion relative to the actual population. If someone doesnt trust a source, then they should look at the polling organization and what their practices are, but if you suspect an organization of bias you accuse statisticians of producing intentionally erroneous work. One should be sure of that before making that assumption.

[Blueflame]

Next time I see a poll that a liberal supporter is throwing up I'm using this quote except I'll put in DC instead of Idaho.

Sure thing, Rascal... the next time a liberal supporter throws up a poll of 1,000 Americans... linked from a highly biased website... and expects that poll to be given the slightest shred of credibility, then I'll join right in and help you ridicule it.

[Rascal]

Sure thing, Rascal... the next time a liberal supporter throws up a poll of 1,000 Americans... linked from a highly biased website... and expects that poll to be given the slightest shred of credibility, then I'll join right in and help you ridicule it.

Who cares if it was linked by newsmax? The poll was done by Reuters and BBC who have more credibility then any american media. You want to smack Newsmax fine I don't care nor do I even read it. But to dismiss the poll just because it was linked at teh website is ludicrous as they just reported it.

Maybe if I link the BBC source, where the full report is available on .pdf, you'll actually address it instead of just slamming the messenger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4965550.stm

[Blueflame]

Who cares if it was linked by newsmax? The poll was done by Reuters and BBC who have more credibility then any american media. You want to smack Newsmax fine I don't care nor do I even read it. But to dismiss the poll just because it was linked at teh website is ludicrous as they just reported it.

Just what does that say about American media (including Fixed News) if Reuters and the BBC have so much more credibility? And Newsmax's credibility? Don't make me laugh. My sides already hurt from reading the "Best President Ever" thread....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Maybe if I link the BBC source, where the full report is available on .pdf, you'll actually address it instead of just slamming the messenger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4965550.stm
What is this link for?

[Rascal]

I've said dozens of times on this board how american media was a POS.

Where did I say anything about Newsmax credibility? I said the poll's credibility.

Come on Blue your reading comprehension is better then that.

[Blueflame]

I've said dozens of times on this board how american media was a POS.

Where did I say anything about Newsmax credibility? I said the poll's credibility.

Come on Blue your reading comprehension is better then that.

I still don't view 1,000 as a valid sampling, Rascal...

[Rascal]

What is this link for?

Good Lord.

Look at it and the newmax report and it should be evident.

You guys were dissing this because it came from Newsmax. Well Newsmax just reported the story that originated from BBC. So I linked the BBC story so you guys would get off the Newsmax.

[Rascal]

I still don't view 1,000 as a valid sampling, Rascal...

Nor do I which is why I said next time a poll that LABF, Slug, etc throw out there with only a 1000 people I'm going to use your quote.

Garcia and myself have said that same exact statement before and been slammed for it. So I'll just your quote as my standard response for stuff like that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Good Lord.

Look at it and the newmax report and it should be evident.

You guys were dissing this because it came from Newsmax. Well Newsmax just reported the story that originated from BBC. So I linked the BBC story so you guys would get off the Newsmax.
It's an article about media trust, what newsmax article?

[Rascal]

It's an article about media trust, what newsmax article?

Reading comprehension really is a bitch huh?

Try post numero uno.

[Blueflame]

Good Lord.

Look at it and the newmax report and it should be evident.

You guys were dissing this because it came from Newsmax. Well Newsmax just reported the story that originated from BBC. So I linked the BBC story so you guys would get off the Newsmax.

Well, perhaps Newsmax (and their extreme lack of credibility) wouldn't have overshadowed the poll at all if the OP had linked the BBC story in the first place... :P ;D LOL

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Reading comprehension really is a b**** huh?

Try post numero uno.

What PDF link?
Maybe if I link the BBC source, where the full report is available on .pdf, you'll actually address it instead of just slamming the messenger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4965550.stm

[Rascal]

Well, perhaps Newsmax (and their extreme lack of credibility) wouldn't have overshadowed the poll at all if the OP had linked the BBC story in the first place... :P ;D LOL

Maybe, but the hypocrisy of several on this thread is amazing. I've been told numerous times to address the actual point of the article instead of the source of it, and yet here is a prime example where people dismissed it without actually realizing that the article was correct.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I still don't view 1,000 as a valid sampling, Rascal...

Well, then you dont believe that random sampling is valid, because that's the standard for the industry. If you dont believe me (or you missed my post), then go check out some of the polling organizations for yourself or check out the standard practices for sampling in psychological testing (which includes surveys).

Why dont you think that 1,000 people is reasonable?

[alkemical]

Rascal,

:hitself:

[Rascal]

What PDF link?

LOL

Wow...forget to wear your reading glasses?

top section of the page on the right in a box with a title: media trust poll

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL

Wow...forget to wear your reading glasses?

top section of the page on the right in a box with a title: media trust poll
No PDF link that I can see in your link.
(that has anything to do with this thread or the poll that was used in this thread)

[Rascal]

No PDF link that I can see in your link.
(that has anything to do with this thread or the poll that was used in this thread)

OMG Slug.

The link itself is where the data came from for the article by newsmax.

[Rascal]

Rascal,

:hitself:

No kidding. This is why I dislike kids.

[alkemical]

I know, the days i have energy are the days i engage - other times i use my sharp as a spoon sarcasm to inflict my annoyance on everyone else.

[Rascal]

I know, the days i have energy are the days i engage - other times i use my sharp as a spoon sarcasm to inflict my annoyance on everyone else.

Your humor and sarcasm are appreciated by yours truly.

[alkemical]

heh,

thanks - i know i'm really insane - so i have fun with it. Do you know how hard it is to find chupacabra food that won't get you noticed? Sheesh....

[Bronx33]

while 59 percent of Egyptians named Al Jazeera.


I see the muslims have the same problem we do.

[Rascal]

heh,

thanks - i know i'm really insane - so i have fun with it. Do you know how hard it is to find chupacabra food that won't get you noticed? Sheesh....

LOL

I had to look up chupacabra.

[alkemical]

:)

it's interesting - i am into cryptozoology -

[Rascal]

while 59 percent of Egyptians named Al Jazeera.

I see the muslims have the same problem we do.

Hey Slug looks like somebody was able to find the pdf link.

[defenseman]

Dismiss it if you like. I actually watch FOX, CNN and occasionally MSNBC. However, I do not relegate myself to just watching one because they LEAN left or right (just because you don't agree with what's being said on the tube doesn't necessarily mean you need to shut it off, or they don't quite "fit" into your rose colored glasses view of the world), I watch pretty much all three an equal amount. However, those who do not partake AT ALL of Fox and stick to the supposed "left" type newscast, I'm here to tell ya, your doing it wrong. Gotta look at the whole "landscape" not just part of it...dman

[alkemical]

Look, in today's world, content is bought and sold, rebranded and rehashed - i don't like newsmax - but sometimes they get the right info, they rebadge and brand it for their readers.

Beyond that, it has as much relevance to fox being actually trust worthy as opposed to being percieved as trust worthy.

[defenseman]

My take is , if a "trustworthy" poll were taken, the outcome would be in favor of FOX news, I have no doubt about that. Just my humble opinion. Agree or disagree, your choice ......dman

[alkemical]

when i need to find news about what's going on in america, i tune in to other countries.

when i want to find out about tom cruise eating the face off of his wife, i will watch american news.

[epicSocialism4tw]

when i need to find news about what's going on in america, i tune in to other countries.

Yikes!

[alkemical]

hey, at least i know where they stand and their agenda(s).

[alkemical]

example:

why isn't the major news media going after the prostitute ring tied to Duke Cunningham, lobbyists (some times to abramoff - monies recieved from charities he represented) - and the rest of the payola scandle for congress?

[Rascal]

when i need to find news about what's going on in america, i tune in to other countries.

when i want to find out about tom cruise eating the face off of his wife, i will watch american news.

Sadly I agree. The only time I check Fox, CNN, MSNBC, whatever is when somebody links it on here (or via email), and when I occasionally check their money section for stock/fund news.

[epicSocialism4tw]

hey, at least i know where they stand and their agenda(s).

That's true.

[defenseman]

Well, the three cover a good spread MOST of the time. Some of the time, all of them are despondent dribble, I'll agree...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

OMG Slug.

The link itself is where the data came from for the article by newsmax.

No wonder I couldn't find it, it's in arabic or something.




http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5103/ara0dc.png

[Rascal]

No wonder I couldn't find it, it's in arabic or something.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5103/ara0dc.png

Yeah because the BBC website is in Arabic. :stupid:

[elsid13]

example:

why isn't the major news media going after the prostitute ring tied to Duke Cunningham, lobbyists (some times to abramoff - monies recieved from charities he represented) - and the rest of the payola scandle for congress?


The Washington Post and DC news outlets are all over this story. But right now the FBI is just starting to investigate so little news to report.

[Blueflame]

The Washington Post and DC news outlets are all over this story. But right now the FBI is just starting to investigate so little news to report.

Perhaps, but a lot of important news is pushed to a back burner by American media in favor of covering stories like the birth of Tom Cruise's baby... ::) It's become "infotainment" rather than real news programming. The best place to find real news is on the net.

[elsid13]

Perhaps, but a lot of important news is pushed to a back burner by American media in favor of covering stories like the birth of Tom Cruise's baby... ::) It's become "infotainment" rather than real news programming. The best place to find real news is on the net.


i don't disagree, the current TV news outlets have loss the what means to be reporting the news. But people in general prefer that crap to hard news, because it doesn't make them think. and as bad as it is now, it better then early part of 20th century

[alkemical]

here's your spot for news:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1105612#post1105612

[Blueflame]

i don't disagree, the current TV news outlets have loss the what means to be reporting the news. But people in general prefer that crap to hard news, because it doesn't make them think. and as bad as it is now, it better then early part of 20th century

That's a matter of individual perspective, I suppose.... a lot of the stories that are covered by today's American media are a useless, worthless waste of time from my viewpoint... and that's probably why I don't watch any of it.

[Rock Chalk]

Just what does that say about American media (including Fixed News) if Reuters and the BBC have so much more credibility? And Newsmax's credibility? Don't make me laugh. My sides already hurt from reading the "Best President Ever" thread....
It says that Reuters and BBC have been around far longer and are far more worldwide prevalent than American media.

CNN didnt come around until the 80s, FNC didnt start until the 90s.

BBC has been around for like 50 years or something and Reuters is where EVERYONE quotes their sources.

But then, a great liberal like you that is far more enlightened than anyone else would know that right Blue?

[Blueflame]

It says that Reuters and BBC have been around far longer and are far more worldwide prevalent than American media.

CNN didnt come around until the 80s, FNC didnt start until the 90s.

BBC has been around for like 50 years or something and Reuters is where EVERYONE quotes their sources.

But then, a great liberal like you that is far more enlightened than anyone else would know that right Blue?

I've never claimed to be "far more enlightened than anyone else"... but the quoted source on the original post of this thread was not the BBC nor Reuters; it was the highly biased Newsmax.

It's no secret that the American news media is a joke... ergo, there's no surprise that foreign news media (BBC and even Al Jazeera) get much higher credibility rankings from their viewing audience.