Less than 50% of Republicans support a free press

[BonzaiDuck]

The term free press is somewhat misleading. If all of the free press is leaning toward one political party then all that press represents is a mob mentality not interested in the truth or the country. What good is that?

It depends on what you believe in the nature of the Truth. If I hold up five fingers, ask you to count them, and then tell you that you only see three fingers, I am insisting that you tell me a Lie.

If the Truth is absolute, we cannot know the Truth absolutely, but only as an asymptotic approximation. So? Newton gives way to Einstein, but we only need Newton in discussing the kinetics of the average automobile.

I have never heard Trump or the Republicans ever admit they are ever wrong about anything. I have mostly heard the opposition comment on whether the Right is wrong about this or that. I have never heard a "Liberal" insist that they were ever right about everything.

Paraphrasing Lincoln, some of the people can be right about some things some of the time. Some of the people can be right about all things some of the time. But all of the people cannot be right about all things all of the time.

So when I incessantly hear a President who murders the Truth daily tell me that he is right about all of the things all of the time, he's not going to be my President, and his supporters are not going to be my fellow human beings. Fellow Americans? Get over it! You just don't meet my standard of Truth!

 

[brandonbull]

You should stop reading fox, brietbart, daily caller etc.

So only those outlets are political lackies? Typical response. CNN = good and Fox = Bad. Got it. I'm sure you support freedom of speech as long as it's approved.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just a few observations.

"News" is a reporting of events with as much factual objectivity as could be possible.

"Opinion" is not "news."

Any literate chucklehead can make a note of the reported events -- hopefully without phony "cover-stories" like the singular event nobody talks about anymore. They can apply their own attempts at inferential logic to connect any dots -- independent of "published opinion."

But it appears that too many don't do that. Too many want to be told what to think.

The "liberal media" is not the culprit. The "Liberal media" cannot get together as a very large group to conspire in a public-opinion objective and then keep the conspiracy quiet.

The "Liberal Media" is a cliché, and Cliché-s are -- more often than not -- part of a wider, long-lasting propaganda campaign that requires little to orchestrate.

Today, I am writing my "F***-You" letter to our local scum-sucking fascist newspaper. The household has finally voted unanimously. The subscription is too high a price to pay for Bro's sports-page and Moms' "local" news. Those in the family who are last to read the papers are getting tired of pulling the pages apart from the sputum gluing them together, although they would all leave the same deposits after reading.

We don't question the paper's right to publish all their drivel, lies, distortions and filth. We hope that we -- and like-minded people in the community -- can simply drive them out of business, send their editors and writers to the poor-house and their investors into bankruptcy.

Free markets, folks!

As for a "free press." My ancestors deserted from the Confederacy to the last man, joining the Union so they could put a 50-cal musket-ball and a bayonet into every disgusting cornpone shitass cowboy in gray that came into view.

I'd do the same with any cornpone shitass Trump or GOP supporter who fits the statistical profile of indifference to a free press-- under similar circumstances.

Somebody else can raid Harper's Ferry. But who knows?

Ugh. You're raving like a right winger.

 

[HomerJS]

So you'd be cool with democrats saying the press shouldn't criticize leaders if Clinton was president?

We already know Trump's people stated his power is absolute and will not be questioned. And you wonder why the press dares question him??

 

[PokerGuy]

The term free press is somewhat misleading. If all of the free press is leaning toward one political party then all that press represents is a mob mentality not interested in the truth or the country. What good is that?

I agree, but by "free" in this case we mean free from government interference. Our media right now are mostly just lefty propaganda sites with a few exceptions, but at least they are mostly free from government interference or control. Drivel and lies, yes, but not government mandated drivel and lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree, but by "free" in this case we mean free from government interference. Our media right now are mostly just lefty propaganda sites with a few exceptions, but at least they are mostly free from government interference or control. Drivel and lies, yes, but not government mandated drivel and lies.

Head first thru the post-truth wormhole, huh?

 

[Jaskalas]

I agree, but by "free" in this case we mean free from government interference. Our media right now are mostly just lefty propaganda sites with a few exceptions, but at least they are mostly free from government interference or control. Drivel and lies, yes, but not government mandated drivel and lies.

They might be trash but they're our trash. I'll stand by their right to speech. All Americans should.

 

[Jhhnn]

They might be trash but they're our trash. I'll stand by their right to speech. All Americans should.

You do know that a Free Press is he enemy of the people, don't you?

Not to mention that facts have an obvious liberal bias...

 

[Meghan54]

Are you seriously this stupid?

When questions like this are asked people are given a prompt, which says something to the effect of: "Please tell us how important the following attributes are to maintaining a strong democracy in the United States"

1) National elections are open and fair
You then select one of four choices between 'very important' and 'not at all important'.

2) News organizations are free to criticize political leaders
You then select one of four choices between 'very important' and 'not at all important'.

This is not complicated.

Remember to whom you are speaking.

 

[brycejones]

So only those outlets are political lackies? Typical response. CNN = good and Fox = Bad. Got it. I'm sure you support freedom of speech as long as it's approved.

Actually I support the right of all those outlets to speak. But hey thanks for making an ass out of yourself by assuming.

 

[brandonbull]

Actually I support the right of all those outlets to speak. But hey thanks for making an ass out of yourself by assuming.

Hello, Pot? Kettle here. You seemed to have made the assumption that I read Fox and Brietbart, Daily Caller, etc. Once again, news outlets can speak but they are on thin ice in the "free press" department due to their heavy involvement with the political parties.

 

[HomerJS]

Yeah...yeah a plurality of Republicans feel this way. Shoot the messenger.

 

[stormkroe]

So why don't they show the results of all 4 questions? What if answer #2 was just 'important' instead of 'very important'?
That would probably endanger the narrative, so it's understandably absent.
As it sits, unless the other answer options are varying degrees of how bad 'free press' is, the thread title is wrong.

Are you seriously this stupid?

When questions like this are asked people are given a prompt, which says something to the effect of: "Please tell us how important the following attributes are to maintaining a strong democracy in the United States"

1) National elections are open and fair
You then select one of four choices between 'very important' and 'not at all important'.

2) News organizations are free to criticize political leaders
You then select one of four choices between 'very important' and 'not at all important'.

This is not complicated.

 

[fskimospy]

So why don't they show the results of all 4 questions? What if answer #2 was just 'important' instead of 'very important'?
That would probably endanger the narrative, so it's understandably absent.

What do you mean the results of all four questions? Each question has four options of which you choose one. Not only is it hard to imagine how the narrative would change if that were the case, Pew always releases their full datasets just as you want a few months after they make their report.

I love when stupid/ultra partisan people casually impugn the motives of one of the most respected pollster and research organizations in the country because they never bothered to read their website.

As it sits, unless the other answer options are varying degrees of how bad 'free press' is, the thread title is wrong.

Nah, the thread title is entirely accurate and you know it.

 

[Genx87]

What worse is what the favorability was of Putin BEFORE Trump. Believe it was down around 15% consistently. Suddenly it shoots way up after Trump comes along.

Team political identity is a hard thing to break.

 

[thraashman]

I agree, but by "free" in this case we mean free from government interference. Our media right now are mostly just lefty propaganda sites with a few exceptions, but at least they are mostly free from government interference or control. Drivel and lies, yes, but not government mandated drivel and lies.

The reason the press tends to lean left is that facts tend to lean left. The right wing exists primarily in a bubble of bullshit. Simple as that.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's also worth mentioning that of the 5 subject issues, there is a large difference of opinion on 3 of the 5, in each case with dems more likely to see the importance of it.
In addition to the free press, we have

Right to non-violent protest - 68% R, 88%D
Rights of people with unpopular views protected - 66%R, 80%D

That last one is especially interesting in light of the fact that conservatives are claiming that liberals are anti-free speech these days.

Looks like conservatives as a whole are becoming less and less interested in democracy, an alarming trend. For those conservatives who DO see the importance of these things, instead of trying to justify the insane beliefs of these other conservatives, you have a responsibility to set your fellow conservatives straight. You know, exactly the same way that you claim moderate Muslims have a responsibility to disabuse their co-religionists of destructive beliefs. I'd call this an urgent mission, as opinion polls are showing conservatives not faring well on a basic sanity scale. Not just on these basic issues - nutty conspiracy theories are now totally mainstream on the right. You guys are looking less sane than Muslims as a group, certainly less sane than American Muslims.

 

[stormkroe]

What do you mean the results of all four questions? Each question has four options of which you choose one. Not only is it hard to imagine how the narrative would change if that were the case, Pew always releases their full datasets just as you want a few months after they make their report.

I love when stupid/ultra partisan people casually impugn the motives of one of the most respected pollster and research organizations in the country because they never bothered to read their website.



Nah, the thread title is entirely accurate and you know it.

Yes, as per the model you presented, each question may have 4 OPTIONS. I mistakenly said 4 questions, but I could have mistakenly called them 4 volcanoes and you should have been able to tell from context the point I'm making. I love it when stupid politohacks are purposely obtuse in hopes that their belief will avoid attacks.
So, I'll ask again. What if the options are gradual(like you suggested)
1. Very important
2. Important
3. Not important
4. Detrimental
?
At this point, your 'logic' is hanging on the idea that if you think something isn't VERY important to people, then they don't support it.
Do you answer all such polls in this way? Clicking the box for 'Important' would be supportive.
But you already know this.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Well lo and behold we agree on something.

And we are also in agreement that the press has the responsibility to be the 'conscience' of the political system. Those of us going through our daily lives have no time, no means, to keep elected officials walking as straight a line as is possible. Having a free press to keep them in check is about as important a job as there is.

But with great responsibility comes great power and the media has decided that the power is what's most important. Why just report the news when you can influence what people think? What we are experiencing right now is a media that cannot come to grips with the scuttling of their power. They aren't going to go off quietly into the night to return in the morning to their primary responsibility of uncovering things covered up and reporting them in as unbiased a manner as is possible. No siree, they are hell bent on winning at any cost. They want a return to their position of total influence and the restoration of their power over the electorate. To do this they fabricate stories, cherry pick facts, slip in innuendo and in general not act like the professionals they were trained to be.

But it takes two to Tango. Will you for one, quit dancing? It's got to start somewhere.

Replace "Media" with "GOP" in your diatribe and you will have hit the nail on the head.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, as per the model you presented, each question may have 4 OPTIONS. I mistakenly said 4 questions, but I could have mistakenly called them 4 volcanoes and you should have been able to tell from context the point I'm making. I love it when stupid politohacks are purposely obtuse in hopes that their belief will avoid attacks.
So, I'll ask again. What if the options are gradual(like you suggested)
1. Very important
2. Important
3. Not important
4. Detrimental
?
At this point, your 'logic' is hanging on the idea that if you think something isn't VERY important to people, then they don't support it.
Do you answer all such polls in this way? Clicking the box for 'Important' would be supportive.
But you already know this.

So you didn't even read the report you are criticizing for having an agenda, as the report specifies exactly what the options are and how they were grouped.

 

[brandonbull]

So you didn't even read the report you are criticizing for having an agenda, as the report specifies exactly what the options are and how they were grouped.

The OP's title does seem a little misleading. The results of the poll doesn't ask about a "free press" but "freedom of the press to criticize politicians is very important to maintaining a strong democracy". Plus, the 49% number refers to the selection of "very important" as the answer and not a "yes" or "no". That's a low number but at least supply the proper context and not some paraphrased narrative.

 

[stormkroe]

So you didn't even read the report you are criticizing for having an agenda, as the report specifies exactly what the options are and how they were grouped.

I actually like it when you use the "you didn't read the report" line, lots of posters get egg on their face and ignore it in embarrassment.
If you follow your own advice, you'll note that it isn't sovereign Pew making the claim in the OP, it's The Hill. And if you care to read a bit closer even, you'll see the note on the graph in question where is says, 'Don't know responses not shown'. That probably means they don't know the percentages of pollers who simply think it's 'important' instead of 'VERY important'.
Thank you for reinforcing where to find info that proves the title is inaccurate.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually like it when you use the "you didn't read the report" line, lots of posters get egg on their face and ignore it in embarrassment.
If you follow your own advice, you'll note that it isn't sovereign Pew making the claim in the OP, it's The Hill.

If you'll follow my advice you'll see that I've always been talking about the Pew report. I don't care what the Hill says, but their description is perfectly accurate. If you don't consider the ability for the press to criticize leadership very important then you don't consider freedom of the press very important. Easy peasy.

And if you care to read a bit closer even, you'll see the note on the graph in question where is says, 'Don't know responses not shown'. That probably means they don't know the percentages of pollers who simply think it's 'important' instead of 'VERY important'.
Thank you for reinforcing where to find info that proves the title is inaccurate.

Of course they know the percentages of those polled who think it's important. I will suggest a second time that you actually read the report you decided to criticize and claim had an agenda.

Usually when people expose the fact that they haven't even read the thing they just declared biased they show some embarrassment. Other people like you double down. Lol.

 

[stormkroe]

If you'll follow my advice you'll see that I've always been talking about the Pew report. I don't care what the Hill says, but their description is perfectly accurate. If you don't consider the ability for the press to criticize leadership very important then you don't consider freedom of the press very important. Easy peasy.



Of course they know the percentages of those polled who think it's important. I will suggest a second time that you actually read the report you decided to criticize and claim had an agenda.

Usually when people expose the fact that they haven't even read the thing they just declared biased they show some embarrassment. Other people like you double down. Lol.

Got it. Saying something is important means you don't support it. LOL. Please list some key adjectives that keep more words from meaning the opposite of their actual definition.
And while you're tripling? down, what does "Don't know responses not shown" mean? Oh right, they should have said "Very don't know responses not shown".
Haha

 

[fskimospy]

Got it. Saying something is important means you don't support it. LOL. Please list some key adjectives that keep more words from meaning the opposite of their actual definition.
And while you're tripling? down, what does "Don't know responses not shown" mean? Oh right, they should have said "Very don't know responses not shown".
Haha

It means people who didn't express a preference weren't included in the chart, which is standard practice and happens all the time. How do you not know this? By all means though tell us more about their nefarious agenda that you divined without even reading what you criticized.

Yes though, equivocating even a little bit about whether or not people should be able to criticize our leadership means you don't really support a free press.