This is the first real evidence that what happened to CBS has had an effect on everybody in the press. These shifts are significant and cannot be ignored.
Replies: 15 comments
Trust is vitally important to Legacy Media news reporting because so much of the nuts-and-bolts of reporting is done in secret.
For many really important stories, most of the sources and methods must remain secrets. If the consumer does not trust the media outlet to tell the truth without showing direct proof then legacy media cannot function.
Blind trust in a news organizations brand is that brands true asset. Rathergate has seriously damaged the bottom line and future value of every traditional news reporting organization.
Posted by Shannon Love @ 09/22/2004 01:36 PM CST
No one has mentioned: Has CBS had a full time producer, for the last 5 years, working on KERRY's Vietnam exploits? Only on Bush's? How odd!
Posted by Only Natural @ 09/22/2004 01:48 PM CST
I agree that the numbers show a decrease in trust of the MSM, but the data may not support "..an uptick in feelings of liberal bias in the media.." While the "too liberal" response increased by 3% over the past year, the "too conservative" increased by 1%, and the margin of error is not posted. Moreover, it appears that the major post-9/11 trend is increasing polarization on this issue with the greatest increase being the number of people who view the media as too conservative, even if this is (fortunately) a minority view.
Posted by Ramon Lopez @ 09/22/2004 01:57 PM CST
Regarding the above poster's comment about shift in "too liberal" and "too conservative" possibly being within the margin of error.
I see your point, but I think you're giving too much emphasis to the wrong numbers.
The move of 1 point on the "too conservative" column and 3 points on the "too liberal" may be (and probably are) within the margin of error for the poll, but to focus on this is too lose the real story.
Ongoing public perception of liberal media bias - and the failure of the news organizations to acknowledge or address it - is really at the heart of this issue.
If we consider media as a product for a moment, and take a look at the numbers since 2001, what we see is that the "media manufacturers" have failed to address the perception problem and in fact have made it worse.
In doing so, they have destroyed the value of their own brands.
If this kind of brand integrity erosion happened in any other industry, heads would roll as sales declined. At CBS, Dan Rather is still earning millions as his ratings slump to the bottom of the charts and no one does anything about it.
Viacom is a big company, but if the scandal in their news division continues to sink their stock price, I could see a shareholder suit in their future - especially if they don't try harder than they've been trying to fix the perception problem.
Whatever your politics on the situation might be, you have to agree that continuing to have Rather, Mapes, and others who are associated with this scandal in the public eye is not going to help the perception of media bias in CBS News division. It provides some very strong evidence to those critical of the media that the bias is real.
Posted by John Williams @ 09/22/2004 02:43 PM CST
Have you ever considered that evil people likely never consider the falsities of their prouncements. Thus they believe themselves to be good. Thank goodness that most erudite "good" people recognize false statements as they are. Good can be defined as not thinking of yourself and not looking to harm others.
Posted by Mac Echols @ 09/22/2004 02:57 PM CST
The real question is whether the L.A.M.E. (Legacy Almost Media Excusers) media will change or die out?
Most newspapers are already dying.
Posted by leaddog2 @ 09/22/2004 04:00 PM CST
Telephone polls are worse than useless in these cellphone days. They will not predict the presidential race and they do not accurately represent American opinion.
The 160 million+ cellphones in this country never get polled. At all. That's more than 60 million more phones than people who voted in the 2000 election.
Many, many of the people who own these phones have no land lines. How many? No one knows. No one can poll them. But they skew young. They are a silent demographic that wrecks any possibility of a reliable opinion poll.
Posted by Soundacious @ 09/22/2004 04:13 PM CST
Soundacious:
I have a non-landline cell phone for our home.
I have been polled regularly over this line that services the cell.
I think you have leapt to a conclusion. We get the same junk calls as before, including polling companies - specifically Gallup.
Your conclusion that cell phone users are being ignored is a hasty judgment. Surely professional polling companies have considered this aspect long before you had your happy thought.
Posted by Good Old Charlie @ 09/22/2004 07:40 PM CST
The partisan media syndicate (pms) has clearly violated the trust of the American people on many occasions, ever since Walter Cronkite declared on-air that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. Because of the undue influence of media personalities, in the process that declaration became a self-fulfilling prophecy - at least North Vietnamese General Giap certainly thought so.
The question now is: Will CBS voluntarily engage in its own regime change or will this sordid episode be whitewashed by an "independent investigation" and then it will be business as usual?
Consider, the Swift-boat veterans have offered their eyewitness testimony and signed affadavits testifying to what they have recently been saying about Lt. (jg) John Kerry, but what if they had been found guilty of trying to pass off forged documents by CBS? What hell to pay would there be for them and the Republicans and how different would that coverage be toda?
There's still a double-standard in how and what stories are pursued respectively, particularly now that it is known Joe Lockhart and others in the DNC were aware of the existence of these documents since April and the DNC's "Favored Son" anti-Bush commercials strangely coincided with CBS' 60 Minutes revelations two weeks ago.
Even the appearance that there may have been an attempt by Dan Rather (he says his wasn't political but there is no secret he had personal reasons to go after Bush), Mary Mapes, Bill Burkett and other liberal Democrats with axes to grind to attempt to influence the outcome of a presidential election based on fraudulent documents is beyond mind boggling.
Also, creating and passing fraudulent military documents is a federal crime and I wonder whose head(s) will roll on this count?
Believe me when I say that mainstream America is appalled at the possibility of such unprofessional political machinations within the ranks of the Fourth Estate. Is this possibly a case where the Fourth Estate so desires to act as a fourth branch of government that certain elements within would engage in a clandestine Fifth Column? Thank God for conservative bloggers.
Posted by Hankmeister @ 09/22/2004 08:50 PM CST
Ok, I dunno where most of you guys came from. But for the most part everyone seems to be arguing that this is more evidence for media bias and how terrible it is that people in the news might actually be opinionated despite the veneer of objectivity.
Wake UP! People are opinionated! The whole country is divided between two main groups with opposing opinions. Does it surprise you that this might reach into the media as well? One of the biggest themes that Terry is trying to convey in this blog is just that - in a Postmodern world, everyone has an opinion!
Fine, CBS News is a rats nest of militant liberal press-guerillas, if that's your opinion. Some would say the same of Fox for the right wing. So what? I say, if you're getting all your news from a single channel, you're just sadly propagandized by the echo chamber effect.
Controversy boosts ratings. People love a good argument. And everyone who's getting their feathers ruffled about media bias is just buying into the whole thing. People are more plugged in to the news than ever before in history, and I think a lot of it has to do with the sensationalism generated by stunts like this. How many people, who otherwise wouldn't, watched CBS News the other night just to watch Dan Rather sheepishly apologize? Suckers!
If Dan Rather is such a liberal douchebag, why are you paying his salary by giving him your advertising revenue?
The media is a circus. It's not the trusty, reliable reporting that you grew up with. Times have changed. Now go do your part to depropagandize yourself. Here's a start:
CBS News is not 100% accurate.
Fox News is not 100% fair and balanced.
John Kerry is not the ideal presidential candidate.
George W. Bush is not the ideal president.
Now, cherry pick the things you like most about each, and go where that leads you. It's a Postmodern world. We could use more than 2 opinions.
Posted by Matt C. Wilson @ 09/23/2004 10:14 AM CST
I wish more statistical information was provided. More importantly, I miss the breakdown by things such as party affiliation.
We can guess about how Democrats and Republicans would respond to the questions. But neutrals can provide a lot of insights into the political dynamics.
Posted by Der Alte @ 09/23/2004 12:05 PM CST
Hey, Matt, the problem IS post-modernism, which I will define as "the period in history where it is more important what I think than what is really true".
Under your theory, opinions can abound with no one holding anyone accountable, and we should simply sit back and enjoy the ride. The fact that news reporting isn't like when you grew up is a dire PROBLEM, not an "opportunity".
Posted by Michelle @ 09/23/2004 12:05 PM CST
It's a problem if we don't adapt thinking to fit the new mold. I agree, one solution would be to reverse the trends of human cultural development back to a Modernistic worldview. But that isn't going to happen.
Much easier, relatively speaking, is to raise awareness of the flaws inherent in Modernistic thinking. One such flaw is the belief of an unbiased, objective media.
A reporter is nothing more than a human being, who spends much of his or her time researching factual information about a topic, and then preparing and presenting a summary of said info. Fundamentally, anyone can be a reporter. And that's what we're seeing with blogs, and sources like OhMyNews.
Accountability is vested in the news consumers, not in the reporters, or the editors, or the producers, or the brand owners. Joe NewsBigshot can do all the exposé reporting he likes on the topic of CompleteBS, and Rich Mogulmann can totally drop it on the unsuspecting 8pm PrimeTime masses. And what will happen? The people will expose the exposé as chicanery. This just happened, btw.
We are what we believe. If you believe the media is corrupt beyond repair, then do something. Build a new news source. Get out and report the truth. Help fix the lack of trustworthy communication. And let the corrupt rot on their pedestals.
But don't go shouting that the sky is falling. There's a perfectly beautiful myriad of stars behind the plain ol' blue we've been accustomed to.
Posted by Matt C. Wilson @ 09/23/2004 12:35 PM CST
Charlie -- I'm not doubting your account, but that's surprising to me. I dropped my landline entirely about a year ago. On the landline, I got polled once or twice a year (and about six times in 2000). On the cell phone, never once. Weird.....
Posted by Holly @ 09/23/2004 12:36 PM CST
Der Alte: Gallup issued a news release on this today. It contains the Repub/Dem numbers you seek. Big changes likely due to Rathergate.
Posted by Terry @ 09/23/2004 03:54 PM CST
"The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create."Leonard Sweet
