and just for batman, a new survey finds a growing credibility gap between the public and press. -- New Survey Finds Huge Gap Between Press and Public on Many Issues By Joe Strupp Published: May 15, 2005 NEW YORK A new survey to be released Monday reveals a wide gap on many media issues between a group of journalists and the general public. In one finding, 43% of the public say they believe the press has too much freedom, while only 3% of journalists agree. Just 14% of the public can name “freedom of the press” as a guarantee in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the major poll conducted by the University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy. Six in ten among the public feel the media show bias in reporting the news, and 22% say the government should be allowed to censor the press. More than 7 in 10 journalists believe the media does a good or excellent job on accuracy--but only 4 in 10 among the public feel that way. And a solid 53% of the public think stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all. Perhaps the widest gap of all: 8 in 10 journalists said they read blogs, while less than 1 in 10 others do so. Still, a majority of the news pros do not believe bloggers deserve to be called journalists. Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1--but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative. Earlier this year, a survey from the same department gained wide attention after it showed that American high schoolers had a rather flimsy grasp of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Half of the young people said they thought newspapers should not be able to publish stories without government approval. Stories about that survey appeared in hundreds of newspapers and it was even mentioned on the March 13 episode of the ABC drama "Boston Legal." The new poll was carried out in March and April. For the public opinion part, 1000 adults were interviewed. However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession. Of 300 surveyed--with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes--a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000). And there was this gap: In this sample, roughly 90% of the journalists had a college degree--versus only 23% of the general public. Ken Dautrich, chair of the Department of Public Policy, said one of the most surprising findings was that a majority of the public (59%) joined the journos in supporting their right to keep sources confidential even when tested by the courts-—odd, in light of fact that a majority of the public say they don’t think stories with unnamed sources should be published in the first place. In a related area, 55% of non-journalists support the current effort to enact a federal Shield Law, as did 87% of news people. But, that doesn't mean most readers like stories based on unnamed sources. The survey showed that 74% of journalists and 89% of non-journalists said one should question the accuracy of news stories that rely on anonymous sources. Newspaper relevance in the average American's news diet appears to have slipped, with 61% of non-journalists using television as their main new source, and only 20% citing newspapers. Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards." Overall, 61% of the news pros say that the emergence of the Internet has made journalism better. Joe Strupp is a senior editor at E&P.
I don't know that newsweek is as near as independent as Al Jazeera. I certainly don't believe that they are approaching news with an eye on what stories are important to the people of the middle east which Al Jazeera does. I wish we had an American news agency as independent as Al Jazeera. It would be great if the press did its job again. Newsweek should have altered their coverage, or waited on the story until they could have had more confirmation. The rule of thumb is supposed to be that you have two sources to confirm something. Following that basic rule would have helped. Newsweek deserves to be raked over the coals. This isn't the fist time news organizations have gotten the story horribly wrong. Remember when the Bush folks came in and tried to act like the Clinton staff had trashed the whitehouse, and it all turned out to be bogus? Almost every news agency and network jumped on the story that the Clinton staff had trashed the whitehouse. Then they all ended up with egg on their face. Thankfully that big slip didn't create the problems that this one did. Although to be fair to newsweek, it is still quite possible that the interregators did deface the holy Qu'ran. But to report it without more proof is irrespsonsible
Irresponsible is putting it lightly, shameful is more accurate. People in the news outta know what kind of impact this type of explosive news item has around the world. The guys at newsweek are only concerned about breaking the next big story (for ego, money, whatever). They could cared less about putting the troops in danger, which they did. At a time when everyone is supposedly "Supporting the Troop" regardless of their political views.
The facts for me are I'm sick of all these news sources quoting an "unidentified government official" for their information. These people in the government who say these things have absolutely no accountability for anything they say because of anonymity. They can say whatever they want...biased or not...and we're expected to eat it up as factual. I think this government official in this case should be hung out to dry for this. Even now...Newsweek hasn't gone as far as to retract the story. Their just saying the government source read it somewhere but cannot remember where he read it. Is this supposed to make the situation better? It still isn't anywhere near conclusive that it happened? And, you now have this Newsweek idiot hitting the news talk show circuit on CNN and the like trying to save face in the situation. Man, F**K NEWSWEEK! I hope they go out of business over this. Who wants to buy their magazine after this and expect it to be accurate news? The Newsweek guy claimed to have weighed the impact of releasing this news yet it all came from only one non-corroborated source. BULLSH*T! He didn't weigh jack crap. He didn't anticipate the reaction that would occur...is more like it. What a jackass!
Totally agree with this post. Newsweek isn't alone, however. CBS News and the BBC also have a place at their table of shameful reporting.
Not defend. But understand how it is taken as a personal insult. I would hope that one of the objectives of this War on Terror would be to separate the bad-guys from the millions (billions?) of others who follow the islam faith. To keep this from being perceived as a War on their religion. So that we're ALL against the lunatics. Antics like the ones alledged by Newsweek make that separation more difficult.
It is the medias job to report the news. They are responsible for holding their work up to a certain standard. They failed in that responsibility. That is irresponsible. Shameful would also be accurate. For some reason I am agreeing with Basso that Newsweek is in the wrong about this story, and he still tries to argue. That is funny.
If someone on this board made the same type of a remark with respect to the Bible or the Torah, what would people on this board say? Maybe I am extremely offended because I am a practicing Muslim and I consider the Qur'an to be the word of God. Or, I could be offended because I believe that there is a strict line that you do not cross when referring to a person's faith, irrespective of what that faith may be. Sometimes I feel that I should make some extremely stupid and degrading comments towards another religion on this board just to see if it is tolerated and accepted. I guess it's okay to degrade a faith as long as that faith is Islam. Truly shameful!!
Some people defend other tactics based on Islam (the ol' fake menstrual blood technique) without any concern of insulting Muslims. Why do we care what the Muslim world thinks all of the sudden?
what's funny is that you couldn't make the point w/out the obligatory dig at Bush, which sort of undermines any claim to even handedness you might have been attempting.
There a teeny bit of difference between a humor piece and getting 15 people killed and a mobs of angry muslims threatening violence.
I know a Christian missionary who was in a Muslim country. He was talking to them about the differences between the two faiths. This particular subject came up. The missionary said he did not view the Bible, the physical object, as sacred. He said it's about the heart...not about the trappings...and to demonstrate, he put his own Bible down on the ground and stomped on it. There were gasps. And I remember there was some talk he would be prosecuted for it, because Muslims do see the Bible as a holy text, at least in part. Nothing came of it, however. Interesting little side-story! But I think it's a huge mistake for the US govt. to be doing this, when you're trying to convince those who share this faith that you're not the Evil One. This reinforces that idea more than anything that could possibly be said. If it happened, of course.
Some people defend any and all tactics! It's a fine line between what are acceptable psychological interrogation methods. Especially when those being interrogated are deeply religious. I'm no expert on where to draw that line. But I think we have to be aware that it's there!
