Fox News & Bill O’Reilly Are America’s Most Trusted News Sources

Bill O'Reilly / Fox NewsPaul Bedard reports in U.S. News & World Report:

In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O’Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston’s Suffolk University (PDF), more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O’Reilly is the most believable.

“This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News,” says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. “Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting,” he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public’s trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that “Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them.”

The key finding in the telephone poll of 1,070 likely voters is that network news is dying. Some 28 percent say that they trust Fox News the most, followed by CNN at 18 percent. After that, the trust in TV news nose dives. NBC was third, at 10 percent, MSNBC fourth at 7 percent, CBS and ABC tied at fifth with just 6 percent.

Read More: U.S. News & World Report

, , , , , ,

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Major misread there. Those numbers are highly interpretive. One could just as easily conclude that, since viewers of Fox are generally suckers for any load of BS that feels good at the moment, the remainder of the population has grown cynical and distrusting of ALL news…while Fox fans will still guzzle any chum thats flung at them. Of course…since its Bozell doing the massaging on the meaning of the numbers…its understandable that its being spun as “yay Fox!”…but the darker reality is that crap sells…and suckers are always buying. After all, tabloids built the Murdoch empire…not with truth…but with popularity. 

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Major misread there. Those numbers are highly interpretive. One could just as easily conclude that, since viewers of Fox are generally suckers for any load of BS that feels good at the moment, the remainder of the population has grown cynical and distrusting of ALL news…while Fox fans will still guzzle any chum thats flung at them. Of course…since its Bozell doing the massaging on the meaning of the numbers…its understandable that its being spun as “yay Fox!”…but the darker reality is that crap sells…and suckers are always buying. After all, tabloids built the Murdoch empire…not with truth…but with popularity. 

    • Honu

      Well said Vox.  When it comes to entertainment like sitcoms, dramas, plays, music, etc, popularity may be king and a valid way to poll.  When it comes to news, the only valid polling in my opinion is whether the information coming out of these outlets is accurate and with limited editorializing. 

  • Honu

    Well said Vox.  When it comes to entertainment like sitcoms, dramas, plays, music, etc, popularity may be king and a valid way to poll.  When it comes to news, the only valid polling in my opinion is whether the information coming out of these outlets is accurate and with limited editorializing. 

  • E.B. Wolf

    When the poll asks what reporter they trust the most, “None” beats O’Reilly 15%-9%.

    But then again, Fox could spin that into a new slogan for the Factor Zombies…Bill-O, Second to None.

  • E.B. Wolf

    When the poll asks what reporter they trust the most, “None” beats O’Reilly 15%-9%.

    But then again, Fox could spin that into a new slogan for the Factor Zombies…Bill-O, Second to None.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      Bravo!

  • Grooveboss

    and thats why the world does not trust the US because we cant even trust ourselves

  • Grooveboss

    and thats why the world does not trust the US because we cant even trust ourselves

  • Bs

    From what I can see on the poll, only 1,070 people were polled.  504 males. 566 females.  That is a far cry from a quarter of the nation.  BS article.

  • Bs

    From what I can see on the poll, only 1,070 people were polled.  504 males. 566 females.  That is a far cry from a quarter of the nation.  BS article.

  • lj

    reason #3751 why anthropologists can’t stand sociologists: generalizations. fuck polls. 1000 people…get outta here

  • lj

    reason #3751 why anthropologists can’t stand sociologists: generalizations. fuck polls. 1000 people…get outta here

  • XJ8es8

    On the flip side, 91% of the people polled DON’T trust Bill O’Reilly.

  • XJ8es8

    On the flip side, 91% of the people polled DON’T trust Bill O’Reilly.

  • Anonymous

    With the possible exception of Anderson Cooper (don’t watch him so I’m not sure) none of these people are actual journalists. They are commentators. They give their viewers a version of the news that their viewers want to see. Some do it by open misrepresentation, some by selectively choosing what to cover and what not to cover, and some *cough cough* by blatantly acting as the media arm of a political party.

    All this poll shows is that most people would rather be told what to think and given ammo to use against others who don’t share their views rather than given the facts and making up their own minds.

    Plus when you are talking about a couple points difference between the outcomes in a 1,000 person poll you don’t rally get much of an exact representation of the feeling of the nation.
    Most of these polls are very flawed from the outset. Studies have shown that keeping the questions the same and just changing the tone of the wording can produce vastly different results. People with only cell phones and no land lines are left out of almost all polls. And, when a poll is done with so few people most polling companies tend to spread the questions around the country evenly by geography so as to get a taste of the different geographic regions of the country. This leaves out the fact that most of the population of the country is located in a handful of densely populated regions.
    If a poll on national feelings toward an issue is conducted by asking people in public or online it is even more horribly skewed because the the questions are only being asked to an isolated segment of the population.

    In conclusion, polls can be useful to gauge the public feeling on an issue. Not just 1 poll, a single poll can be effected by so many variables that by itself it really proves nothing. Case in point, below is a poll done just 4 months ago which has Fox News as the least trusted news source in the country. I doubt opinions have fluctuated that drastically in 4 months.

    http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/new_survey_says_fox_least_trus.php

  • hunter349

    With the possible exception of Anderson Cooper (don’t watch him so I’m not sure) none of these people are actual journalists. They are commentators. They give their viewers a version of the news that their viewers want to see. Some do it by open misrepresentation, some by selectively choosing what to cover and what not to cover, and some *cough cough* by blatantly acting as the media arm of a political party.

    All this poll shows is that most people would rather be told what to think and given ammo to use against others who don’t share their views rather than given the facts and making up their own minds.

    Plus when you are talking about a couple points difference between the outcomes in a 1,000 person poll you don’t really get much of an exact representation of the feeling of the nation.
    Most of these polls are very flawed from the outset. Studies have shown that keeping the questions the same and just changing the tone of the wording can produce vastly different results. People with only cell phones and no land lines are left out of almost all polls. And, when a poll is done with so few people most polling companies tend to spread the questions around the country evenly by geography so as to get a taste of the different geographic regions of the country. This leaves out the fact that most of the population of the country is located in a handful of densely populated regions.
    If a poll on national feelings toward an issue is conducted by asking people in public or online it is even more horribly skewed because the the questions are only being asked to an isolated segment of the population.

    In conclusion, polls can be useful to gauge the public feeling on an issue. Not just 1 poll though, a single poll can be effected by so many variables that by itself it really proves nothing. Case in point, below is a poll done just 4 months ago which has Fox News as the least trusted news source in the country. I doubt opinions have fluctuated that drastically in 4 months.

    http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/new_survey_says_fox_least_trus.php

  • Sillywill

    yeah right – I guess this report was commissioned (fabricated, as usual) by News Corps, and then published in all it’s papers, yeah, so it muuuuust be true!
    pffft.

  • Sillywill

    yeah right – I guess this report was commissioned (fabricated, as usual) by News Corps, and then published in all it’s papers, yeah, so it muuuuust be true!
    pffft.

  • Sillywill

    yeah right – I guess this report was commissioned (fabricated, as usual) by News Corps, and then published in all it’s papers, yeah, so it muuuuust be true!
    pffft.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Not particularly high-minded, but this observation does have a strong practical utility:  0′Reilly delivers what he promises–no surprises, all aggressive reactionary stupids. 

    This is what “trustworthy” effectively means to an audience so fucking cowardly and lazy that they regard it as better policy to adjust their expectations downward than to swim against the plutocratic tide.  And in this regard, 0′Reilly is super-double-plus trustworthy.

  • Anonymous

    Not particularly high-minded, but this observation does have a strong practical utility:  0′Reilly delivers what he promises–no surprises, all aggressive reactionary stupids. 

    This is what “trustworthy” effectively means to an audience so fucking cowardly and lazy that they regard it as better policy to adjust their expectations downward than to swim against the plutocratic tide.  And in this regard, 0′Reilly is super-double-plus trustworthy.

  • Anonymous

    Bravo!

  • Eric Asher

    obviously jon stewart was not included in the poll

  • Eric Asher

    obviously jon stewart was not included in the poll

  • Eric Asher

    obviously jon stewart was not included in the poll

  • Hadrian999

    the terrible state of journalism is why i have decided to study journalism, thankyou fox

  • Hadrian999

    the terrible state of journalism is why i have decided to study journalism, thankyou fox

21