There is still plenty of good reporting going on, but you have look for it these days. Commentary and editorializing leaves a lot to be desired.
I trust the media, the Fourth Estate, as an institution, less today than I did 25 years ago. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is it is mostly corporate owned. Back in the days I used to deliver newspapers, many were still family owned, and the paper took on the personality of the family that owned it. Sometimes that was OK (Washington Post), sometimes less so (Col. McCormick), but generally speaking you got a consistent voice that often echoed and amplified the values and voices of your community.
Today, it’s USA today news coverage and partisan (mostly if not downright conservative, at a minimum corporacrat) editorial leanings.
The Internet hasten the demise of the news media but also gave us its savior. Independent voices like this space and Beachwood Reporter locally, and propublica and Frontline nationally.
There is still a lot of good (and trustworthy) reporting out there, but you have to know where to look.
In general, you’re going to get the facts, but how those facts are presented and what facts are conveniently omitted or glossed over are often just as important. What narrative is being pushed and to what end?
Mass media is usually biased in one direction or the other. You’re better off with unbiased (or at least minimally biased) reporting from independent sources. You know sites like CapFax, for instance.
- From the 'Dale to HP - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:18 pm:
Over all? Not as much as the media would like to believe.
I realize this is a cheap shot at the Governor but step 1 is learning which 50%.
I trust them enough I guess, in context. It’s an industry with massively declining resources and people and I now largely get my content for free. Understanding those conditions and limitations I trust that they’re doing the best they can.
In general I trust that the reporters reported accurately what the source said. It’s the source that I do not trust. Generally speaking reporters report what institutional sources said and (given the 1% and the power of lobbying) those institutional sources (government, police, education beats) might-to-often have different structural interests than the 99 percent do.
Unless it’s Fox or Rauner, then I just look to see if their lips are moving.
For example our local paper in Aurora (The Beacon News) is so pro-mayor and whatever the city wants to do or does it is almost comical at this point. Never hurts that people have left the paper for jobs with the city or other government entities, they are the Professor Pangloss of local government coverage. So I trust them on local coverage about as much as I do the comments on Facebook.
Having worked in/for a journalism program in college (indirectly I managed a computer lab their classes used) I developed a healthy skepticism kind of early.
But in general you kind of figure out who you trust and who don’t and start to identify viewpoints. Locally it is helpful to go to a few meetings and see what is reported vs what you saw and heard.
In general I think the governor is kind of track with the 50% comment.
It depends on the writer, even more than the paper/station.
When Rick Pearson writes something, I tend to believe it. When Hinz writes something for Crains, I know that he tends to have his facts straight but he also does have an agenda so he may leave out facts. Other writers I completely ignore.
It is impossible to give a blanket answer to the question.
Rauner types run the media business. Prior to the consolidation of media ownership, budgets were much higher. Now we get a fast food, low cost product. The liberal bent hasn’t changed much.
There are journalists who’s honesty and judgment are unimpeachable. Maybe ten percent. At most. Maybe.
There are also journalists whom I trust to be honest about the facts, but who’s political analysis is suspect. People who give it to you straight, but straight as they see it. The ones you always read, but with whom you sometimes argue silently as you do so.
On the negative side, there are members of the press who routinely exhibit dishonesty AND poor analysis. They’re easily identified, and can just as easily be dismissed as “malarkey”.
But the worst of the worst are the members of the press who make logically sound arguments based on untruths. They are especially noxious because their dazzling rhetoric masks the fundamental dishonesty of their arguments. The real villains of journalism. Unfortunately, they are often some of the cleverest writers. [shakes fist]
The media in Illinois is a real mixed bag.
So how much should you trust the media? With apologies to the City News Bureau, “If the media says your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
I’ll keep it “general” but would like to see/read discussion…
I’m far more apt to trust “beat reporters”, especially those who will give a positive story when warranted, and a tough, real tough hard hitting piece when warranted too. The content and story drive the reporting, not a narrative.
Columnist I tend to “believe”, but I “believe” two things; they are being controversial to get discussion, the good ones will give the reader the slant, even as a caricature, like an “angry person”, with a morale of the story they want learned by the readers. I’m not getting my news from a columnist.
Editorial boards reflect ownership since way before “Remember The Maine!”. I believe the sharpest slant is there to influence a narrative, not create a discussion and an evolution of one. Where they get lost in the weeds is when members write “columns”, trying to sell them off as “beat reports” and think their sharply slanted “facts” should be taken as neutral observations.
TV, Radio, they have these 3 “somewhere”, depending on Cable News, local news, commentary, pundits, wacky radio bits, it’s just filtering which lens you want the light refracted.
To the “50%”, I guess it’s just which light yiure seeing as fact, and which lens you choose to let that light go through.
45% trust The news have become very partisan, and that is the sad part. I trust some writers 90%, but most seem to slant the news to favor the owner of the newspaper or whatever.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
*Trust* the media?
I don’t trust them at all, tbh. There are reporters I’ve known or worked with who I implicitly trust to present things objectively, and I think there are a lot of those reporters, but like 47th said, I don’t trust the sources. Opinion/edit boards are about as useful as reading internet comments (CapFax excluded).
And maybe I’m just becoming a crotchety old man, but I seem to remember a time when, if someone said something that was demonstrably false, the media would say so. Now we seem to live in this place where fact checking has gone by the wayside and everything is he said-she said. Which is fine! But it’s not being faithful to the profession if by doing so verifiable facts are ignored and false premises are allowed to permeate.
50% is pretty close. I think half the stories are taken directly from press releases; the line between journalism and public relations is fuzzy. Columnists and eds are opinions, and as long as the reader knows this going in, fine.
There is more information available to the general public now than ever before. A discerning reader has never had it better. You just have to be good at sifting through the bs
Ever since Watergate, it seems that many reporters are disinterested in reporting, and looking to expose the next Nixon. When you report your hunches, your hunches expose your biases. When you chase after your hunches, you waste time reporting the facts.
Having had the experience of being part of a story and providing information for an article and then watching it come out somewhat significantly different from how it was relayed to the reporter makes me question a lot of what I read in the press. If they goofed on my story, why should I trust all the rest of the stories are accurate?
“With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”
Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in ‘72
I always keep this in mind and it has served me well.
Honestly, I only trust this blog. I might not agree but especially when I don’t I have to factor in Rich Miller’s opinion. Sorry to sound like a brown noser but honestly I don’t know what I would do without this blog. It’s interactive media. I get to view stuff being hammered out and argued. So no, I don’t trust the media.
I rarely trust anything or anybody, of course a few personal exceptions. That’s a little dark but it is a reality of the world we live in.
This is especially true since the news became a revenue source. The more sensational and “whipped” the message is, the greater the potential for selling more advertising. And then, advertising makes wilder claims to sell more products, etc. The degradation of actual facts is a fact. I am not explaining it well, but there is a cycle here.
I prefer to avoid drawing hard conclusions. Ever. I wait for the next piece of info that needs to be integrated into the overall scene.
The truth is like “shape” on a billiards table. Think about that for a minute.
It depends upon which media source you’re talking about. I’m more inclined to trust print media as they’ll vet their sources before repooting. This does not include opinion and editorial writers.
I was contacted by the office of Sun-Times gossip columnist, Michael Sneed, last spring, regarding the governor’s race. I explained that I would talk to them, because her boss, Sneed, had been very helpful to a deceased associate of mine, Rev. Leonard Barr, when he ran for Alderman. Three times in the conversation, I asked not to be quoted. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED?
“Trust, but verify” Even when I agree with the perspective, and want to believe the conclusion, I look to see what sources are cited. To put it differently, I don’t even trust myself until I find a second, hopefully more reliable source.
I trust certain media generally, such as hard news stories. As far as opinionated stuff, my trust is more limited. Some stuff is abysmally bad, where I used to click a headline, but the story had little if anything to do with the story.
Capitol Fax is the only media site in which I participate as a commenter. This place is pretty unique. I generally have little time or interest in participating in other outlets. I just read stuff and a few other columnists. I love news and certain commentary. I respect and admire Nate Silver .
I trust Rich Miller and Amanda Vinicky not to print as fact dsomething they can’t verify, and to attempt to verify every fact they can.
I trust Mick Dumke and Ben Joravsky to dig through the swamp of talking points until they find the truth buried in the muck and mire that no one wants to admit is there.
And I trust Jackson and Marx to tell the stories that need to be told on behalf of those who have no voice.
Most others are just doing solid jobs of reporting. They’re solid most days, better on occasion.
And then there are a few who are tools for the Rauner administration. They know who they are. They give everyone else a bad name.
The real issue is in the back office, deciding what stories get covered, editorial and legal decisions. I can’t really blame a reporter for printing what Governor Rauner said, even when it is a bald-faced lie. I just wish that reporters had the time and support to research these stories and print the truth on page one right along side the untruth.
I trust the media three times more than I trust Rauner and that’s no compliment to the media. Quantifying a percentage is just silly. In general, people should critically analyzed what is being presented.
As many have said, it depends on the specific journalist, the specific medium. All is read with a jaundiced eye until that particular reporter/columnist/newspaper has earned my trust.
Overall, though, I trust the media a whole heckuva lot more than I trust Rauner.
I trust James Fallows (Atlantic Magazine ) to report his observations and logical conclusions. All others must cite original documents.
To me, truth is an area, not a point. As more data comes in the area that contains “truth” shifts. The more complex a situation, the less I trust the reporting.
I think most of the Statehouse press (and alums now on other beats like Long) are solid and take their work at face value. The investigative guys at the Trib and S-T and the Reader-same.
Most columnists save our host here I read as entertainment.
Most TV news is either biased or just terribly reported. WCIA TV is a notable exception, doing a good job overall.
Oh, and Car and Driver magazine is a monthly masterpiece.
One tv reporter I can think of appears to be auditioning for a good paying job in the administration. WAND has a history of reporters leaving for jobs in the state government agencies.
It really ticks me off when I see the TV media try and cover the Statehouse. They love to use “drive by” comments and seem to play to the lowest informed viewer as possible. And their reporter’s lack of understanding of the legislative process and history of the GA is beyond belief. Makes it hard to believe much of what they report as news.
I tend to trust the print media media more than TV. When the papers started closing their statehouse offices, all of reporting went downhill.
The media is hopelessly biased when is takes a position I disagree with, but is spot on when it takes a position that I agree with. At least that’s how I see 90% of America’s take on it anyways.
…what Honeybear said. Seems CapFax blogmonsters keep each other honest; “Show your homework”.
You do have to be careful with what is presented by media. It can be out-and-out biased, or presented from a usually-respected source whose reporter gets sloppy….case in point: the WSJ “analysis” spotlighted today in CapFax.
Take a look at the whole Hilary’s-email thing. She swears up and down she did not do anything wrong, and many sources will tell us that what she did was a huge, unpardonable breach of national security. So who’s right, and who’s reporting these facts?
The news-consumer is left with the task of researching it, i.e., what subject matter is “Secret”, “Top Secret”, “Classified”, etc.
Point being: each end of the issue is reporting “facts”. But we’re left with the task of determining what the facts really are.
Sadly, many voters go with the first or most impressive “facts” they are exposed to.
- Groucho - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:11 pm:
Depends on what you mean by media.
Cautious on columnist and editorial boards.
Don’t trust outlets like Fox or CNBC at all.
In general, amazed at how sloppy most reporters are in the words they choose and senseless spin they put on stories.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
There is still plenty of good reporting going on, but you have look for it these days. Commentary and editorializing leaves a lot to be desired.
I trust the media, the Fourth Estate, as an institution, less today than I did 25 years ago. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is it is mostly corporate owned. Back in the days I used to deliver newspapers, many were still family owned, and the paper took on the personality of the family that owned it. Sometimes that was OK (Washington Post), sometimes less so (Col. McCormick), but generally speaking you got a consistent voice that often echoed and amplified the values and voices of your community.
Today, it’s USA today news coverage and partisan (mostly if not downright conservative, at a minimum corporacrat) editorial leanings.
The Internet hasten the demise of the news media but also gave us its savior. Independent voices like this space and Beachwood Reporter locally, and propublica and Frontline nationally.
There is still a lot of good (and trustworthy) reporting out there, but you have to know where to look.
- Anonnymouse - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
I’ll say 30%.
In general, you’re going to get the facts, but how those facts are presented and what facts are conveniently omitted or glossed over are often just as important. What narrative is being pushed and to what end?
Mass media is usually biased in one direction or the other. You’re better off with unbiased (or at least minimally biased) reporting from independent sources. You know sites like CapFax, for instance.
- From the 'Dale to HP - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:18 pm:
Over all? Not as much as the media would like to believe.
Individual reporters? A lot.
Opinion writers/ed boards? Very little.
- The Captain - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:18 pm:
I realize this is a cheap shot at the Governor but step 1 is learning which 50%.
I trust them enough I guess, in context. It’s an industry with massively declining resources and people and I now largely get my content for free. Understanding those conditions and limitations I trust that they’re doing the best they can.
- Another prof - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:19 pm:
In general I trust that the reporters reported accurately what the source said. It’s the source that I do not trust. Generally speaking reporters report what institutional sources said and (given the 1% and the power of lobbying) those institutional sources (government, police, education beats) might-to-often have different structural interests than the 99 percent do.
Unless it’s Fox or Rauner, then I just look to see if their lips are moving.
- How Ironic - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:19 pm:
Not to bad considering that 100% of what the Gov says is baloney, we all know what part of it.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:19 pm:
It depends…
For example our local paper in Aurora (The Beacon News) is so pro-mayor and whatever the city wants to do or does it is almost comical at this point. Never hurts that people have left the paper for jobs with the city or other government entities, they are the Professor Pangloss of local government coverage. So I trust them on local coverage about as much as I do the comments on Facebook.
Having worked in/for a journalism program in college (indirectly I managed a computer lab their classes used) I developed a healthy skepticism kind of early.
But in general you kind of figure out who you trust and who don’t and start to identify viewpoints. Locally it is helpful to go to a few meetings and see what is reported vs what you saw and heard.
In general I think the governor is kind of track with the 50% comment.
- Rhino Slider - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
I cringe every time I see Carol Marin on Chicago Tonight. She conflates her facts and her feels.
- Gooner - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
It depends on the writer, even more than the paper/station.
When Rick Pearson writes something, I tend to believe it. When Hinz writes something for Crains, I know that he tends to have his facts straight but he also does have an agenda so he may leave out facts. Other writers I completely ignore.
It is impossible to give a blanket answer to the question.
- Liberty - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
Rauner types run the media business. Prior to the consolidation of media ownership, budgets were much higher. Now we get a fast food, low cost product. The liberal bent hasn’t changed much.
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:23 pm:
I think about half is about right. Or so.
- @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:32 pm:
“How much do you trust the media?”
It varies based on the journalist in question.
There are journalists who’s honesty and judgment are unimpeachable. Maybe ten percent. At most. Maybe.
There are also journalists whom I trust to be honest about the facts, but who’s political analysis is suspect. People who give it to you straight, but straight as they see it. The ones you always read, but with whom you sometimes argue silently as you do so.
On the negative side, there are members of the press who routinely exhibit dishonesty AND poor analysis. They’re easily identified, and can just as easily be dismissed as “malarkey”.
But the worst of the worst are the members of the press who make logically sound arguments based on untruths. They are especially noxious because their dazzling rhetoric masks the fundamental dishonesty of their arguments. The real villains of journalism. Unfortunately, they are often some of the cleverest writers. [shakes fist]
The media in Illinois is a real mixed bag.
So how much should you trust the media? With apologies to the City News Bureau, “If the media says your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
– MrJM
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:34 pm:
I’ll spin it Yogi Berra style… 90% of what you read in the media is half baloney. I can’t think of a better way to describe how I feel about it.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:35 pm:
Anon 2:34 is me.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:35 pm:
I’ll keep it “general” but would like to see/read discussion…
I’m far more apt to trust “beat reporters”, especially those who will give a positive story when warranted, and a tough, real tough hard hitting piece when warranted too. The content and story drive the reporting, not a narrative.
Columnist I tend to “believe”, but I “believe” two things; they are being controversial to get discussion, the good ones will give the reader the slant, even as a caricature, like an “angry person”, with a morale of the story they want learned by the readers. I’m not getting my news from a columnist.
Editorial boards reflect ownership since way before “Remember The Maine!”. I believe the sharpest slant is there to influence a narrative, not create a discussion and an evolution of one. Where they get lost in the weeds is when members write “columns”, trying to sell them off as “beat reports” and think their sharply slanted “facts” should be taken as neutral observations.
TV, Radio, they have these 3 “somewhere”, depending on Cable News, local news, commentary, pundits, wacky radio bits, it’s just filtering which lens you want the light refracted.
To the “50%”, I guess it’s just which light yiure seeing as fact, and which lens you choose to let that light go through.
- Mama - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:36 pm:
45% trust The news have become very partisan, and that is the sad part. I trust some writers 90%, but most seem to slant the news to favor the owner of the newspaper or whatever.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
*Trust* the media?
I don’t trust them at all, tbh. There are reporters I’ve known or worked with who I implicitly trust to present things objectively, and I think there are a lot of those reporters, but like 47th said, I don’t trust the sources. Opinion/edit boards are about as useful as reading internet comments (CapFax excluded).
And maybe I’m just becoming a crotchety old man, but I seem to remember a time when, if someone said something that was demonstrably false, the media would say so. Now we seem to live in this place where fact checking has gone by the wayside and everything is he said-she said. Which is fine! But it’s not being faithful to the profession if by doing so verifiable facts are ignored and false premises are allowed to permeate.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
Little. Everyone has their angle.
Drudge = Huffington Post
MSNBC = Breitbart News
Fox News = CNN
- Bogey Golfer - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
50% is pretty close. I think half the stories are taken directly from press releases; the line between journalism and public relations is fuzzy. Columnists and eds are opinions, and as long as the reader knows this going in, fine.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:41 pm:
I believe very little of what I read in any of the newspapers unless I can independently check the facts.
To judge a story, I apply the old New York Times test to a news story: I look at the number and kind of adjectives used …
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:43 pm:
There is more information available to the general public now than ever before. A discerning reader has never had it better. You just have to be good at sifting through the bs
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
Ever since Watergate, it seems that many reporters are disinterested in reporting, and looking to expose the next Nixon. When you report your hunches, your hunches expose your biases. When you chase after your hunches, you waste time reporting the facts.
I don’t trust media much, as a result.
- Father Ted - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:46 pm:
Having had the experience of being part of a story and providing information for an article and then watching it come out somewhat significantly different from how it was relayed to the reporter makes me question a lot of what I read in the press. If they goofed on my story, why should I trust all the rest of the stories are accurate?
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
Like your analysis VanillaMan. Seems about right.
- My New Handle - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:55 pm:
“With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”
Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in ‘72
I always keep this in mind and it has served me well.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 2:56 pm:
Honestly, I only trust this blog. I might not agree but especially when I don’t I have to factor in Rich Miller’s opinion. Sorry to sound like a brown noser but honestly I don’t know what I would do without this blog. It’s interactive media. I get to view stuff being hammered out and argued. So no, I don’t trust the media.
- cdog - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:00 pm:
I rarely trust anything or anybody, of course a few personal exceptions. That’s a little dark but it is a reality of the world we live in.
This is especially true since the news became a revenue source. The more sensational and “whipped” the message is, the greater the potential for selling more advertising. And then, advertising makes wilder claims to sell more products, etc. The degradation of actual facts is a fact. I am not explaining it well, but there is a cycle here.
I prefer to avoid drawing hard conclusions. Ever. I wait for the next piece of info that needs to be integrated into the overall scene.
The truth is like “shape” on a billiards table. Think about that for a minute.
- cdog - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
“50% of what you read in the media is baloney… I just can’t tell you which 50%”
This is a very revealing comment. He is implying that he knows where the baloney is. I find this a very odd and suspicious comment.
He can’t tell us what the lies are, but he knows. Yikes.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
It depends upon which media source you’re talking about. I’m more inclined to trust print media as they’ll vet their sources before repooting. This does not include opinion and editorial writers.
- onevoter - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:10 pm:
I was contacted by the office of Sun-Times gossip columnist, Michael Sneed, last spring, regarding the governor’s race. I explained that I would talk to them, because her boss, Sneed, had been very helpful to a deceased associate of mine, Rev. Leonard Barr, when he ran for Alderman. Three times in the conversation, I asked not to be quoted. GUESS WHAT HAPPENED?
- uptown progressive - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:12 pm:
“Trust, but verify” Even when I agree with the perspective, and want to believe the conclusion, I look to see what sources are cited. To put it differently, I don’t even trust myself until I find a second, hopefully more reliable source.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:21 pm:
I trust certain media generally, such as hard news stories. As far as opinionated stuff, my trust is more limited. Some stuff is abysmally bad, where I used to click a headline, but the story had little if anything to do with the story.
Capitol Fax is the only media site in which I participate as a commenter. This place is pretty unique. I generally have little time or interest in participating in other outlets. I just read stuff and a few other columnists. I love news and certain commentary. I respect and admire Nate Silver .
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:23 pm:
I trust Rich Miller and Amanda Vinicky not to print as fact dsomething they can’t verify, and to attempt to verify every fact they can.
I trust Mick Dumke and Ben Joravsky to dig through the swamp of talking points until they find the truth buried in the muck and mire that no one wants to admit is there.
And I trust Jackson and Marx to tell the stories that need to be told on behalf of those who have no voice.
Most others are just doing solid jobs of reporting. They’re solid most days, better on occasion.
And then there are a few who are tools for the Rauner administration. They know who they are. They give everyone else a bad name.
The real issue is in the back office, deciding what stories get covered, editorial and legal decisions. I can’t really blame a reporter for printing what Governor Rauner said, even when it is a bald-faced lie. I just wish that reporters had the time and support to research these stories and print the truth on page one right along side the untruth.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:44 pm:
I trust the media three times more than I trust Rauner and that’s no compliment to the media. Quantifying a percentage is just silly. In general, people should critically analyzed what is being presented.
- JoanP - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:44 pm:
As many have said, it depends on the specific journalist, the specific medium. All is read with a jaundiced eye until that particular reporter/columnist/newspaper has earned my trust.
Overall, though, I trust the media a whole heckuva lot more than I trust Rauner.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 3:48 pm:
I trust James Fallows (Atlantic Magazine ) to report his observations and logical conclusions. All others must cite original documents.
To me, truth is an area, not a point. As more data comes in the area that contains “truth” shifts. The more complex a situation, the less I trust the reporting.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 4:07 pm:
I think most of the Statehouse press (and alums now on other beats like Long) are solid and take their work at face value. The investigative guys at the Trib and S-T and the Reader-same.
Most columnists save our host here I read as entertainment.
Most TV news is either biased or just terribly reported. WCIA TV is a notable exception, doing a good job overall.
Oh, and Car and Driver magazine is a monthly masterpiece.
- Crane Potato Chips - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 4:10 pm:
One tv reporter I can think of appears to be auditioning for a good paying job in the administration. WAND has a history of reporters leaving for jobs in the state government agencies.
- Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 4:24 pm:
It really ticks me off when I see the TV media try and cover the Statehouse. They love to use “drive by” comments and seem to play to the lowest informed viewer as possible. And their reporter’s lack of understanding of the legislative process and history of the GA is beyond belief. Makes it hard to believe much of what they report as news.
I tend to trust the print media media more than TV. When the papers started closing their statehouse offices, all of reporting went downhill.
- train111 - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 4:36 pm:
The media is hopelessly biased when is takes a position I disagree with, but is spot on when it takes a position that I agree with. At least that’s how I see 90% of America’s take on it anyways.
- Stumpy's bunker - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 5:49 pm:
…what Honeybear said. Seems CapFax blogmonsters keep each other honest; “Show your homework”.
You do have to be careful with what is presented by media. It can be out-and-out biased, or presented from a usually-respected source whose reporter gets sloppy….case in point: the WSJ “analysis” spotlighted today in CapFax.
I wish more folks had a good “bias” detector.
- Stumpy's bunker - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 6:04 pm:
Take a look at the whole Hilary’s-email thing. She swears up and down she did not do anything wrong, and many sources will tell us that what she did was a huge, unpardonable breach of national security. So who’s right, and who’s reporting these facts?
The news-consumer is left with the task of researching it, i.e., what subject matter is “Secret”, “Top Secret”, “Classified”, etc.
Point being: each end of the issue is reporting “facts”. But we’re left with the task of determining what the facts really are.
Sadly, many voters go with the first or most impressive “facts” they are exposed to.
- Harvest76 - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 6:58 pm:
I agree with all of the media that supports my preconceived notions of truth and my political biases.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Feb 9, 16 @ 8:33 pm:
=I don’t know what I would do without this blog.=
The time stamp on this one says it all! Good night folks.