Survey: Fox most uncivil, PBS most civil news organization

[From Abroad]

An online survey of 1,000 U.S. adults conducted in April found that 62 percent consider the media uncivil.

While this is considerably lower than last year’s incivility rating of 74%, it ranks among the top five most uncivil aspects of American life. A contributing reason to that perception may be that the vast majority of Americans agree that the media is more interested in controversy than facts (82%).

These perceptions are affecting whether people consume news, according to the survey.

Slightly less than one-half are avoiding op-eds and editorials (49%) and news coverage and reporting (45%) this year. Interestingly, the tune out rate this year is significantly lower than it was last year for politics (58% vs. 67%, respectively), government (55% vs. 62%) and news coverage and reporting (45% vs. 55%).

There is some good news for at least two news organizations — Fewer adults believe Fox News and MSNBC are very or somewhat uncivil than did last year.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...ost-uncivil-pbs-most-civil-news-organization/

 

[Ninjahedge]

And we all know how reliable surveys are. Especially when they track some things (not all) for 2-3 years.


I think I see a trend!!!!!!!


(BTW, USA Today is civil? Idiotic maybe.... but civil?)

 

[woolfe9999]

A contributing reason to that perception may be that the vast majority of Americans agree that the media is more interested in controversy than facts (82%).

Wow. For once, "the public" gets something right. The over-simplified partisan takes on media bias never quite get to the real issue.

 

[BladeVenom]

More stupid Fox bashing by liberals.

 

[Infohawk]

The distinction between uncivil and civil seems odd. If the New York Times and MSNBC are the least "civil" wouldn't that suggest they're the most "uncivil"?

 

[dank69]

The distinction between uncivil and civil seems odd. If the New York Times and MSNBC are the least "civil" wouldn't that suggest they're the most "uncivil"?

There was probably an option for don't know.

 

[Smoblikat]

Internet surveys also said that ron paul had a 93% favor rating, yet he is dead last in the presidential "race". I dont think these surveys are any more important, unless you think that ron paul is liked by 93% of the population (i like him)

 

[jackstar7]

There was probably an option for don't know.

I wish there was an option for "I don't understand the question."

On all surveys.

 

[PowerYoga]

The fox morning show in chicago isn't bad, usually free of political bias.

 

[Jaskalas]

An online survey of 1,000 U.S. adults...

Great, now show me the same study on another set of 1,000 US adults. Preferably from the south.

 

[Moonbeam]

MSNBC is very uncivil but factual in that they point out the fact that Romney is a patholigical liar and all around piece of human shit. Politicians rely on common civility not to be called liars. But of course the scum bags who would vote for this lying piece of shit will excuse themselves by saying that Obama also lies. This will help them deflect and not notice they are voting for a scumbag liar of the first degree and what that really makes them. Obama isn't even in the same league. Go fuck yourself in advance if you disagree. Now, how do I get on that chart?

Reality has a liberal bias, as we all know quite well. This is why traditional media was found to be dangerous to conservative fantastical thinking. It make the belief in their altered reality a problem for their children and successfully brainwashing them. There was always a danger that at school or on the news kids would get an inkling that their parents were crazy. Fox news, Christian colleges, and think tanks applied the cure, an echo chamber in which one could live out delusions undisturbed by reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Great, now show me the same study on another set of 1,000 US adults. Preferably from the south.

At least 530 people WERE from the South.

 

[Thump553]

At least the public is perceptive enough to put the three commentary channels at the head of the the uncivil bracket. I'm a bit surprised and mystified at the NYT's relatively poor showing. I doubt many of the study sample actually read the NYT, their stated opinion is probably more accurately just a reflection of the Faux News/GOP talking points about the liberal bias of the NYT.

 

[ShawnD1]

Every time I see MSNBC I think "multiple sclerosis NBC"

Please tell me I'm not the only one.

 

[soulcougher73]

Wow a whole thousand people.

 

[ShawnD1]

Wow a whole thousand people.

A thousand people representing 300 million Americans is too small, but 435 people in the house of representatives is too many :hmm:

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yep.

Different aminals there bubbie.

 

[piasabird]

I think the brainwashing is working.

 

[hal2kilo]

Not even sure what civil/uncivil means. Do they have news anchors with Tourettes?

 

[spikespiegal]

Actually, I'd prefer guests and analysts to 'go at it' a bit provided it's not scripted and not one sided. Sean Hannity is perhaps the worst at this where he asks a question and then diatribes their response before hand just to make them mad.

Of all the news organizations I've heard the most non-scripted and close_to_fists_a_flying exchanges on the BBC of all places. At least in my opinion the BBC is the most neutral, and yet most likely to be unpredictable. PBS might be civil and neutral, but they skirt controversial issues and avoid strong opinions. It's 'Diet News'.

CNN is getting as bad as FOX news used to be, and is nowhere near as news worthy as the past. Basically something for housewives to watch too lazy to buy a 'People' magazine.

I'm not cutting FOX any slack, but in the past year or so I've noticed a subtle change in their format. The same jerk-offs like Hannity or there, but during the day I've noticed an improvement in the commentary skills from the left view that's allowed, and certainly more intelligent discourse from all sides.

 

[hal2kilo]

Actually, I'd prefer guests and analysts to 'go at it' a bit provided it's not scripted and not one sided. Sean Hannity is perhaps the worst at this where he asks a question and then diatribes their response before hand just to make them mad.

Of all the news organizations I've heard the most non-scripted and close_to_fists_a_flying exchanges on the BBC of all places. At least in my opinion the BBC is the most neutral, and yet most likely to be unpredictable. PBS might be civil and neutral, but they skirt controversial issues and avoid strong opinions. It's 'Diet News'.

CNN is getting as bad as FOX news used to be, and is nowhere near as news worthy as the past. Basically something for housewives to watch too lazy to buy a 'People' magazine.

I'm not cutting FOX any slack, but in the past year or so I've noticed a subtle change in their format. The same jerk-offs like Hannity or there, but during the day I've noticed an improvement in the commentary skills from the left view that's allowed, and certainly more intelligent discourse from all sides.

It's because they want to make news a profit center. Traditionally, BC (before cable) news was a loss leader for the broadcast networks. Now, so peoples eyes won't glaze over from listening to fact based news, it's all dressed up as pablum for the masses with as little content as possible.

Other than Fox, and to some degree MSNBC the other news organizations don't want to offend your "average" viewer so they won't get into anything controversial. The most you get is the daily pole based nonsense that says Obamas only such and such points behind/ahead of Romney because they want to make it a horse race to keep you watching to the very end of a campaign.

TV news is a sad joke that is doing a disservice to the American people and keeping them ignorant.

 

[Jaskalas]

A thousand people representing 300 million Americans is too small, but 435 people in the house of representatives is too many :hmm:

Let States have more power and authority over themselves and you'll have a closer, more representative government. National unity is a ruse, just look at our partisanship. No need to pretend otherwise, I say embrace it. Let our true nature reveal itself and compete one against another.

Fox is 'uncivil'? Who cares?! You can watch MSNBC, or PBS, or which ever one you like. You have options in news and you should have options in government, state options.

Imagine if we treated news as we do the government. Winner take all, the majority rules. Fox would be your only choice. It's bad for news, and it's bad for government.

As a nation we need to drop the false pretenses and embrace our diversity.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, I'd prefer guests and analysts to 'go at it' a bit provided it's not scripted and not one sided. Sean Hannity is perhaps the worst at this where he asks a question and then diatribes their response before hand just to make them mad.

Of all the news organizations I've heard the most non-scripted and close_to_fists_a_flying exchanges on the BBC of all places. At least in my opinion the BBC is the most neutral, and yet most likely to be unpredictable. PBS might be civil and neutral, but they skirt controversial issues and avoid strong opinions. It's 'Diet News'.

CNN is getting as bad as FOX news used to be, and is nowhere near as news worthy as the past. Basically something for housewives to watch too lazy to buy a 'People' magazine.

I'm not cutting FOX any slack, but in the past year or so I've noticed a subtle change in their format. The same jerk-offs like Hannity or there, but during the day I've noticed an improvement in the commentary skills from the left view that's allowed, and certainly more intelligent discourse from all sides.

I certainly agree with your first point. I disliked Alan Colmes, but Hannity without him is just unwatchable.

I like that Fox News has both the right and the left to argue points, but honestly I've not seen much Fox News the past year so I've missed the improvement. I waste too much time here to waste time there. I have noticed though that Fox and Friends seems to have deteriorated (not that it was that good to start) and CNN's Robin Mead has a much better show. They're all chatter but she seems to be the least annoying and her show the most informative.