The Most 'Distrusted' News Sources In America

a reply to: Dimithae

It's not just US media, all of them have agendas I get slammed whenever I call out PressTV, RT etc and get painted as being someone who supports what the 'Western' propagandist are spewing simply because I call them out on their BS.

Meanwhile, I'll say it once again.

They are all agenda driven, East/West/What have you, and suck.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: 727Sky

So Rush Limbaugh is supposed to be a "news source"? That's the most shocking thing here. I thought he was some sort of male Ann Coulter, who hates anything that moves that isn't him.

Seriously, I had no idea he is supposed to be a "news source". That's hilarious!

Am I to assume that you have no issue with ' The Colbert Report', or 'The Daily Show' being listed as news sources, since you mentioned Limbaugh, and not them?

I'm not all that surprised with the rankings, to be honest. I am surprised the numbers for each were so high, but it's just an internet poll, too. They could be the same, higher, lower with a substantially higher populace polled.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: 727Sky

I watch Fox News with the sound muted, thems gals be pretty.

I get a kick out of their Robin Meade look-alike. Although, they do say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Oh who am I kidding, they're trying to suck people in with a borderline visual clone of CNN's morning hottie.

a reply to: Nyiah

It works.

I love getting my morning propaganda from hotties.

a reply to: intrptr

Let me give you an example. The ISIS Crisis. It began as a non stop, focused bombardment on all the stations prior to and leading up to the eventual bombing of "targets" in Syria. The excuse and the justification for violating Syria's Sovereignty. Did you "buy" it?

Are you implying that jihadists are not attacking Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims in what was formerly Iraqi and Syrian territory? Or are you implying that these jihadists are protected by Syria's "Sovereignty?" What, exactly are you trying to sell?

Although news can certainly be used to shape public opinion, there are events that actually take place in the real world that are the substance of news reporting. You can't just go on assuming that everything isn't really what it appears to be.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: 727Sky

So Rush Limbaugh is supposed to be a "news source"? That's the most shocking thing here. I thought he was some sort of male Ann Coulter, who hates anything that moves that isn't him.

Seriously, I had no idea he is supposed to be a "news source". That's hilarious!

Am I to assume that you have no issue with ' The Colbert Report', or 'The Daily Show' being listed as news sources, since you mentioned Limbaugh, and not them?

Correct. They are comedy news shows. Tongue-in-cheek.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Nyiah

It works.

I love getting my morning propaganda from hotties.

Guilty...

a reply to: MarlinGrace

They are mostly all 'hotties' thus, the entertainment aspect. I like women who take the news seriously, and actually know the meaning of the word 'journalism'. I don't want to see their fake tans and cleavage. ugh. Give me Candy Crowley any day.

originally posted by: beezzer
It works.

I love getting my morning propaganda from hotties.

My friend works for the New York Post which is now in the News Corp building. I met her for lunch when I was in the City but she could not make it out as planned so we ate in the cafeteria instead. Holy mother of God, you think they are hot on tv, she was talking to me and the whole time I was like, 'Squirrel. Squirrel.'

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Colbert and Stewart may have some fun with this poll...being listed as "news" sources and all.

The funny thing is, they probably do more for getting people looking into things than all the rest of them combined. I read somewhere where when Stewart did the story of 9/11 first responders medical bill not being passed in Congress, it got more action and attention than 100 Fox Newses could have ever gotten it. Dunno how true it is, but comedy or not, they do have a certain audience.

a reply to: DJW001

You can't just go on assuming that everything isn't really what it appears to be.

So you are sold on the interpretation of world events as the main stream plays it out for you. You do realize that history narrative is always written by the victors.


Notice this in regards to Syria. Whats missing from the narrative?

I cannot lie. I like the eye candy.

But a member here, buster, has a great meme of Walter Cronkite.

News used to be just a medium where the events of the day were presented without any editorial embellishments.

a reply to: intrptr

Are YOU sold on the 'narrative' from the sources you believe as well?

Because IF you've never stopped to question your own source's veracity then you are just as guilty of doing what you've been accusing/implying others of doing. Or do you swallow everything they feed you without question simply because it reinforces your particular paradigm?

Nasty thing objectivity...

a reply to: SLAYER69

Are YOU sold on the 'narrative' from the sources you believe as well?

No. I see the omission of Syria from the narrative, the most telling truth. Thats how I tell which side is lying.

I see your omissions and assertions too. They are a reflection of the main stream. Except when you hide behind veiled insults.

a reply to: intrptr

If being asked about your belief in the veracity of your sources was offensive then I apologize.

Good day.

Surprised no one has really delved into Al-Jazeera.

As far as 24-hour news networks are concerned, I think they're easily the best. I used to have CNN on in the background as I work throughout the day, but have switched to AJ and there's zero comparison. CNN is basically the TMZ of the news business; all fluff. Al-Jazeera has genuinely good reporters uncovering some interesting stories.

The name itself kind of throws some people off--and its reputation got a little muddied in the Bush era, but these are, for the most part, journalists trained by the BBC as well as other former CNN personalities.

Clearly each outlet will have its own constellation of interests and goals, but head-to-head, gimme Al-Jazeera all day. If you doubt it, just watch it!

Just because someone gets the most listeners or the most viewers does NOT mean that they're the best source.

After all, McDonalds is the world's largest restaurant chain, but no one would think they have the best food.

Right wingers trust Fox News and Rush Limbaugh because those networks and shows repeatedly tell them not to use any other news source, just like religion tells the faithful not to question stuff that doesn't make sense.

The fact that "The Factor" and "Hannity" are included in ratings against regular news shows is abhorrent - these shows themselves (especially "The Factor") like to repeatedly tell their viewers that they are NOT news shows. However, "The Factor" loves to tell viewers that they're not a news show, but an opinion show, then claim "#1 in News" in the same sentence.

It's time for Nielsen to remove opinion shows (or shows that are MOSTLY opinion) from the news show ratings.

How "Hannity" can be considered "News' is completely beyond me, but millions of Americans use Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Meghan Kelly as their only sources of news.

People who watch shows like Rachel Maddow are more likely to use several different news sources. Maddow should also NOT be considered a news show - it's an opinion show, just like The Factor or Hannity, with an opposing point of view.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Fox News' popularity, if you can believe polling data, is based on their rapidly dying out audience - mostly older people who don't do the internet; it's the preferred station in nursing homes because of the large graphics, the repetition of what the host is saying with written synopses for the almost-deaf, and last but not least, the short skirts. Watching MSNBC actually takes some brain power which is why it polls so much lower. A segment on Chris Hayes' 'All In' show, which I love, can take a full half hour; they go into depth, in other words. Compare to Fox News' 3 minute interviews which are an insult to the guest experts.

Getting a real sweep of news programs and outlets on line takes a huge amount of time and almost no one has it to spare. I finally killed my teevee when I realized I was scanning through the stations almost all night long blindly looking for something worth watching. The vast majority of network programming is violent garbage, and that includes the news.

a reply to: DAVID64
Because alot of people are ..well just plain I don't want to say dumb..I'll go with ignorant,(Im just being a dick)..lol, its just very slanted..like all the others to varying degrees that why a "fox" news is top rated. Ratings have little to do with good..look at the TV in general and music industry.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Rush number 1 and fox number 2. What a shock.

Neither are really news sources though, are they? Actually most aren't LOL

ETA: When only a few companies own them all how can you really trust any of them though?

well...I know this is tough for right-wing republicans, but, if you hear something on the news, or being reported as news that sounds odd or crazy, what you do is verify it by doing some research on sources for that news....recent example.... FOX NEWS and conservatives ranting about the "Hispanic vote rigging" video showing a guy hauling in a box of ballots....of course, if you did some actual research, that video was from August, not now in late October, and that was a legitimate poll worker doing his job.
I'll take MSNBC over FOX every time for exactly that reason....I verify from other sources when something sounds crazy, or illegitimate, and MSNBC wins hands down in that department.