The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes
Thursday, February 12, 2004
What to make of numbers on public confidence in media?
Just enjoying the fun and games over at Kos over the Drudge story about Kerry and his (putative) floozy - where I'd got to running down the comments, it was Clark whodunnit. (Drudge produces a sub-Con Coughlin message board rumour of a piece, and Dem cognoscenti are off like headless chickens? Enough, already.)
One of the posters comes up with a Rasmussen poll from July 2003 on the US public's perceptions of the reliability of its media.
Fox News outscores the Wall Street Journal handily and the New York Times by a mile. (The fact that Don't Knows amount to around a third of the (telephone) poll gives one pause.)
I'd like to see some work done on the tranche that thinks that both Fox and the NYT are reliable; what does the average Joe mean by reliable?
The question is simply not of the same kind as regular poll questions on voting intentions or assessment of politicians' performance. Clearly, exploring questions of public confidence in the media is important. I'm just not clear how this sort of poll aids our understanding on the matter.
(There are also artefact questions to be considered: there is a natural desire to trust institutions on which we rely; and also, perhaps, a reluctance in some to criticise such institutions - even anonymously - for fear of appearing foolish or unpatriotic.)
(Nothing more on Landesman and the sex slaves piece, that I can see.)
Kerry has made the National Inquirer - so it must be true. Whatever it is.
And the first post on The Corner to discuss the story is timed at 1208 ET.
[Someone ought to take out and shoot the guy who decreed that blogs should be reverse-chronological!
Solution for rev-chro fanatics? Get the page to default to the bottom - make them read the wrong way, and leave the rest of us with the millennially sanctioned top-down!!!]
free website counter