SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Maybe it's the accent. When it comes to news, in a world where "fake news" has become an ideological battle cry rather than an oxymoron, Americans deem British media outlets more trustworthy than their U.S. counterparts.
The most trusted news source in the U.S. is the Economist — a venerable weekly magazine published in the U.K. — according, at least, to a recent survey conducted by the University of Missouri's Reynolds Journalism Institute.
The second most reliable news source, in the view of voluntary survey respondents, is public television (with the Public Broadcasting Service separately ranking sixth among survey respondents), followed by Reuters and BBC. National Public Radio placed just ahead of PBS at No. 5, while the U.K.'s the Guardian clinched the seventh spot. The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News rounded out the 10 most trusted brands. The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp. NWS, +0.49% NWSA, +0.65% , the parent of MarketWatch.
At the other extreme, Occupy Democrats — a political website with a self-professed agenda of counterbalancing the right-wing Tea Party — took the dubious honor of most untrustworthy.
BuzzFeed, Breitbart and Infowars also scored dismally on the trust-o-meter, with a BuzzFeed representative questioning the poll's merit and methods. "This is not a poll of how much trust Americans have in their news outlets. It's an open-ended, methodologically flawed survey of people who happen to fill out a form on the homepage of their local news outlet," said Matt Mittenthal, spokesman for BuzzFeed News. "No one familiar with how polling works would consider this to be reliable or scientific."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06 2019, @01:28AM (1 child)
Once you realize they are not news but a way to advertise to you. You realize they can be bought. At that point they have low to no integrity as the only responsibility is to the ones paying the bills.
Most people do not use these things to get 'news' but to affirm what they already believe. You pick your flavor and that one tells you how amazeballs your party is and how smart you are to listen to them and how the other party is scum. They play to their audience.
When CNN went 24/7 live in the early 80s everyone was like 'what the hell are they going to report on'. Well turns out that this sort of station just has basically non stop political opinions disguised as facts. Apparently that sells really well. Where I work I am subjected to MSNBC which touts itself as a financial channel. The commercials are little more than scamy stuff (200 dollar foam pillows and silver coins). The advice is usually terrible. The pundants have no clue what really makes the market work (yet pretend they do). Yet people treat this as if they have something of substance to talk about. They dont, none of them do.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday May 06 2019, @04:33PM
Yes, but CNN also had Headline News (now HLN), which used to do nothing but produce a half hour news report and broadcast that 24/7, slight feature changes over a 2 hour cycle and the lead anchors changing up and different main stories every (4? 6?) hours. That was impressive journalism. Then in the 90s they started saving money (straight recycling anchors rather than live anchor reporting) and in the 2000s caved to the consumerism demographics.
But it was grand while it lasted - it was incredible and grand to be able to get a "live" half-hour news program whenever you wanted to turn it on. And the best proof I've found that one can have journalism independent from entertainment.
This sig for rent.