Poll: Voters think reporters are biased liberals

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110623/ts_yblog_thecutline/poll-voters-think-reporters-are-biased-liberals

Thu Jun 23, 11:58 am ET

By Joe Pompeo

It seems like reporters can't write anything about hot-button topics these days without someone on the right or left accusing them of harboring a clandestine political agenda. They're either in the tank for Obama, or not properly covering the challenges to his health-care plan. One minute they never have anything nice to say about the Tea Party, the next they're overblowing its clout. And so on.

If you think we're just being sensitive here, take a look at this new Rasmussen poll: Sixty-seven percent of likely U.S. voters believe that reporters try to bolster their preferred candidate when covering an election, while 46 percent believe that the average reporter is more liberal than they are, according to the national telephone survey.

Only 21 percent of respondents, on the other hand, have faith that journalists are fair and balanced in their coverage, and 18 percent find the fourth estate's political leanings to be more conservative than their own.

Among the other findings:

- Forty-eight percent of voters believe most reporters would "hide any damaging information they learned to help the candidate they wanted to win."

- Meanwhile, Republicans (59 percent) and unaffiliated voters (58 percent) "feel much more strongly than Democrats that most reporters ... would hold back news that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win."

- Seventy-eight percent of conservatives think the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while 38 percent of liberals think the average reporter is more conservative than they are.

- Seventy-three percent of Republican voters versus 20 percent of Democrats say the average reporter is more liberal than they are.

- Male voters are more skeptical of reporters' integrity than female voters are.

You can read the full results here. And at the risk of opening a Pandora's box of press derision, we invite you to share your thoughts about media bias in the comments.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Why_Me

[jundp 191]

Too bad there aren't any journalists left like Edward R. Murrow...

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Too bad there aren't any journalists left like Edward R. Murrow...

I would like to throw Walter Cronkite in there also. Journalist these days are nothing more than a sell out imo going for ratings and nothing more. Where are the days when Cronkite shocked the American public by telling the truth about Vietnam and breaking the strangle hold of disinformation in regards to what was really going on. Same with Watergate. Reporters these days are more for the show then they are for doing their job.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Why_Me

[jundp 191]

Yes, and Cronkite. In fact when he died a couple of years ago I was so sad that most of my students and many of my adult friends didn't know who he was! I made a point of teaching my kids about 'real' journalists last year. Granted, many of them probably only remembered the phrase "Goodnight and good luck," but at least it's something!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, and Cronkite. In fact when he died a couple of years ago I was so sad that most of my students and many of my adult friends didn't know who he was! I made a point of teaching my kids about 'real' journalists last year. Granted, many of them probably only remembered the phrase "Goodnight and good luck," but at least it's something!

Even more sad was that some Right leaning politicians and pundits in later years dismissed Cronkite as a liberal hack.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If voters were smart enough to figure that out, why is Obama President?

[TBoneTX 43,048]

Good night, David. Good night, Chet.

[sly_wolf 199]

If voters were smart enough to figure that out, why is Obama President?

Because they were smart enough not to vote for the alternative at the time.

[Pooky 3,347]

Because they were smart enough not to vote for the alternative at the time.

You mean to say Uncle Fester was a real alternative?

Now that's what I call progress ... NOT!

[Ironman140 45]

Even more sad was that some Right leaning politicians and pundits in later years dismissed Cronkite as a liberal hack.

He wasn't ???

Dang he sure had me fooled

[sly_wolf 199]

You mean to say Uncle Fester was a real alternative?

Now that's what I call progress ... NOT!

Where is his sidekick?

[scandal 951]

Too bad there aren't any journalists left like Edward R. Murrow...

Jim Lehrer (along with Gwen Ifill, Jeffrey Brown and company) are on the air every evening. The spirit of dedicated broadcast journalism with integrity lives on.

[TBoneTX 43,048]

Where is his sidekick?

"Thank you, Thing."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He wasn't ???

Dang he sure had me fooled

Yes, I know - you "liked" Cronkite before you "hated" him. Cronkite had more class in his pinky than you could ever imagine yourself to be. He was a journalist interested in revealing the truth. Now go back to your Joseph McArthy alter and light a candle for your patron saint, you Birch Society fanboy.

Edited June 27, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[slim 1,514]

What I don't understand is why in this day and age of facebook, twitter, etc., we still trust any news organization. We can get real-time updates from local sources who are actually there. And, what's really neat is you can see "both sides" of the issue.

The only reason reporters should be on news shows today is to show off how hot they are. It should just be hot naked chicks reading the sports scores.