| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Rasmussen: Voters Say Media Bias Bigger Problem than Campaign Money |
| 2008-08-12 |
| Voters overwhelmingly believe that politicians will "break the rules to help people who give them a lot of money," but most say there's a bigger problem in politics today--media bias. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and think that campaign cash is a bigger problem. People believe media bias is a bigger problem even though 63% believe most politicians will break the rules to help campaign contributors. Just 14% believe most politicians would refrain from breaking the rules for a donor. Forty-four percent (44%) say that lobbyists and campaign contributors have too much influence on John McCain's positions. Forty percent (40%) say the same about Barack Obama. Just 22% believe it would be a good idea to ban all campaign commercials so that voters could receive information on the campaign only from the news media and the internet. Sixty-six percent (66%) disagree and think that, despite the annoyance factor, it's better to put up with an election-year barrage of advertising rather than rely on the news media. Especially crucial is the view of independents: "Among those not affiliated with either major party, 47% say media bias is the problem while 43% hold the opposite view." This means that at least half, and probably more, of swing voters are on the alert for biased reporting. It's probably more than that, because it's possible to believe that bias is a significant problem while believing that money is a bigger one. Dovetail that with an earlier Rasmussen poll showing that voters believe overwhelmingly that "most reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the election this year" (49%, vs. only 14% who believe they're helping McCain) and it seems very likely that Barack Obama won't be getting the degree of default acceptance from voters that Bill Clinton largely received in 1992. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 The media monopoly is breaking if not broken. First there were bloggers breaking stories and helping to prove Dan Rather was a fake, then the Hillary half of the Democratic party learned what its like to be on the wrong side of media bia further shrinking the numbers of those that trust journalists. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-12 12:17 |
| #3 That's too bad, they've invested a fortune, some even their careers, on that very premise. |
| Posted by: Cheretle Black2572 2008-08-12 11:17 |
| #2 Apparently the voters aren't as stupid as the MSM and the dhimocrats wished they were. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-12 09:43 |
| #1 I wonder if the Supremes (SCOTUS) would find a piece of legislation that restricts MSM like McCain-Feingold restricts free association and free speech of citizen to be 'constitutional' as well. It could be done through the commerce clause effecting only entities engaged in 'interstate' commerce holding corporations and business responsible for the content of their product just like all other business are. The owners and operators should be accountable for shoddy and substandard products regardless of business. We have a Pure Food and Drug Act, we can have a Truth and Accountability Act with a seriously revised libel statute removing the difference between public and private individuals [putting the 14th Amendment equal protection clause back into effect]. Of course the industry could be given an out by cover or front page sticky with something on the lines of "The owners and management of X corporation neither confirm nor deny the authenticity, validity, or accuracy of the content of this publication or broadcast. This information is provided for entertainment purposes only." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-08-12 08:13 |