Related: Rasmussen Poll: "Most .... think the average reporter is more liberal than they are"
Study: Only Fox News Offered Obama Historically Normal Scrutiny in 2009 .
An online article at Time (partnered with CNN) has this headline Fox: The Most Trusted Name in News with this statement "Fox News is the only outfit trusted by more people than distrust it.". This article also says, "Because we are talking the media and politics, and this is the Internet, someone is probably about to ask if the poll is a conservative setup. PPP, in fact, is a mainly Democratic-affiliated polling firm." This is evidenced by the fact that in there conclusion they mention nothing about Independents favoring Fox News over any other network which would be a very curious inquiry for most. At least that was my first thought even as a conservative Republican. And also evidenced by their interpretation of the results. "A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news...but now they're turning more to the outlets that tell them what they want to hear."-For poll results and summary click here.
Here is the Time writers response to this and I think it is a better response then the PPP poll summary: "I think what we're seeing here is that Fox viewers are more likely to believe that all news outlets are biased—and either they don't mind it, or they at least accept that such is the way of the world. And they either simply prefer to watch a channel they see as being biased in their direction, or they believe it is a necessary counterbalance to the (unacknowledged) liberal bias of all other TV news, or they believe other channels are hypocrites for denying being biased, or all of the above. Whereas the rest of the news audience either still sees neutrality as possible, or at least still values it as an ideal."
I would disagree with the last sentence. But totally agree with what is in bold. That is the goal here at Values Voter News: "News and Views Big Media Misses". It is all about counterbalance and exposing liberal media bias as label Liberal Media Bias evidences and the lack of coverage on say events like the hundreds of thousands at the recent March for Life in DC event which evidences forth liberal media bias. See what the NY Times have done with the March for Life at NY Times Wrote Up Four Immigration Protesters, All But Ignored Tens of Thousands Against Abortion and ABC, CBS, NBC Skip March for Life; Abortionist on NPR Calls Pro-Lifers Terrorists.
I am not sure that one should blindly trust any organization claiming neutrality, fairness and balance. The only way one will know if the reporter is being neutral and unbiased is if that one knows the argument themselves. There are two ways to do this.
1) Values Voter News has suggested a solution from the last Pew Research poll on this subject at Public opinion in accuracy of news stories are at a 20 year low but Values Voter News has a suggestion. Namely, that if one really is desiring to get both sides of the issue one should get a dose of CNN and a dose of Fox News then one could make their decision after hearing both sides.
2) Since then Values Voter News has set up a site titled AvoidtheBias.com where both sides are heard and sometimes more than just two sides on many issues. Another solution is CSPAN where you can watch the health care debates and other issues debated right on the Senate and House floor and instead of learning what the debate consists of by having to trust in any media network interpreting the debate for you you can interpret it yourself. At AvoidtheBias.com you will find many debates on the House and Senate floor and elsewhere on various current issues.
I myself do not have cable so I do not watch either CNN or Fox News but I sure am not happy with ABC, NBC and CBS. But online and for free CSPAN provides both sides of the issues. CSPAN is where AvoidtheBias.com gets a lot of its embedded video.
AvoidtheBias.com claims "A tri-partisan solution to media bias." and on its about page it reads:
Why Avoid the Bias?
1) To get different sides of the issues without the influence of media bias so that one can make his or her own decision about the issues untainted by media bias.
2) To know the different sides of the issues without bias so that one can be able to better detect bias in the media and be aware of when they are being biased against or for a certain side of the issue.
Avoid the Bias assumes that as its readers know the different sides of the issues and can get the different sides of the issues without media bias then the readers of Avoid the Bias will be better informed as to bias in our media and will be better informed themselves on the issues then the media itself."
And on post titled See how any congressman or woman voted on the bills and watch how they debated on the floor going back 10 plus years claims:
"Found these excellent links that document how any congressman or woman voted on any bill for the past 10 plus years and watch video of any congressman or woman that debated on the floor concerning any subject or bill for the past 10 plus years.
This is another reason for AvoidtheBias.com. You will find many debates on the issues in and outside of the Floor debates and many committee discussions/debates and much more so that the readers of AvoidtheBias.com will have a better understanding of the issues and the debate without media bias. See more on AvoidtheBias.com at About."
