Trust the media or the government?

[MoROmeTe]

I've read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4965550.stm

And it says the overall people seem to trust the media rather than the government. There are three exceptions to this rule of thumb: SUA, Britain and Germany.

Only in three countries did governments score higher than the media. In the US, 67% said they trusted the government compared with 59% prepared to put their trust in the media.

In the UK 51% trusted their government (media 47%) and in Germany 48% trusted officials (media 43%).

So, who do you trust and why? And do you think the larger trust in the media is justified? Why yes and why no?

Myself I'd say I trust the media as a whole although I am aware of the bias of certain media outlets and try and review stories from different sources as to balance that bias. The government however seems more interested and addept at spinning information as to suit its own needs.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I would say it is because most countries to not suffer the farce that is FOX.

[MoROmeTe]

So you really do believe that all other countries apart from the USA has only balanced and center leaning media sources? I highly doubt it. There's a Fox Channel in every country. Let's just hope there also a BBC in every nation...

[wilpuri]

In some countries they are much the same.

[Rhah]

Trust neither, because the media in the western world is bedfellow to the government. Gone are the days of decent investigative journalism, and in its place all we have are sycophantic moron's, who basically repeat verbatim whatever the government tells them.
They only begin to question it if they see that the public are also questioning it.
FOX is the most visible symptom of this disease, (much like a large, ripened pus-filled blister) but all of the major news organisations are afflicted by it.

The only way to get a "Fair and balanced" view of the news is to read about it from as many differing sources as possible, and then to make up your own mind. Make sure you include Independant news groups in your reading as well.

[Garbarsardar]

Trust neither, because the media in the western world is bedfellow to the government. Gone are the days of decent investigative journalism, and in its place all we have are sycophantic moron's, who basically repeat verbatim whatever the government tells them.
They only begin to question it if they see that the public are also questioning it.
FOX is the most visible symptom of this disease, (much like a large, ripened pus-filled blister) but all of the major news organisations are afflicted by it.

The only way to get a "Fair and balanced" view of the news is to read about it from as many differing sources as possible, and then to make up your own mind. Make sure you include Independant news groups in your reading as well.

I second this. We have so many sources too choose from that this could really be a problem in itself. Since ther is no "independant" source, the only thing we can do is counterbalance with a multitude of sources.

[Decemvir]

Trust neither, because the media in the western world is bedfellow to the government. Gone are the days of decent investigative journalism, and in its place all we have are sycophantic moron's, who basically repeat verbatim whatever the government tells them.
They only begin to question it if they see that the public are also questioning it.
FOX is the most visible symptom of this disease, (much like a large, ripened pus-filled blister) but all of the major news organisations are afflicted by it.

The only way to get a "Fair and balanced" view of the news is to read about it from as many differing sources as possible, and then to make up your own mind. Make sure you include Independant news groups in your reading as well.

I would have to agree with Rhah on this subject at least when it comes to the U.S. media. My skepticism partially stems from some passages that I read in Melani McAlister's Epic Encounters: Culture, Media & U.S. Interests in the Middle East since 1945 . In it she points out that:

...from September 2002 to February 2003, just before the ground war in Iraq began, NBC, ABC, and CBS ran 414 stories on Iraq. All but 34 of them issued from the White House, the Pentagon, or the State Department. (p. 295)

In 2003, Dan Rather was strongly criticized by the White House and even by other networks for interviewing Saddam Hussein, on the argument that even allowing Hussein to present his views was tantamount to undermining the war effort. (p. 296)

...Sam Donaldson of ABC made clear that he understood the new ground rules for media quiescence. Criticized for failing to ask hard questions of President Bush during a prewar press conference, Donaldson commented that it was difficult for the media "to press very hard when they know that a large segment of the population doesn't want to see a president whom they have anointed having to squirm." (p. 296)

I simply cannot rely solely on the mainstream U.S. media for accurate reporting because it is too concerned with profit and appearing patriotic. Luckily the internet allows us all to access a variety of news sources, such as BBC, CNN, Aljazeera, which allows us to gain multiple perspectives on a single event.

[Stalins Ghost]

On one hand you have corrupt government, and on the other you have sycophant news pandering to the government or papers/news remaining so resolutly anti government you just cant get an objective view. The best you can do is put it all together and make your own judgement.

[Erik]

Why is there no "both" option?
Because I trust both.

I think the Dutch media is very good at the "serious" issues. (and a load of crap when it comes to entertainment, but that plays no role in this poll).

And I think our current government is terrible....but I still trust them.
I trust them to screw up the economy, increase poverty, and generally do a bad job.
But that's because I don't agree with their right-wing policies...not because I think they are corrupt or untrustworthy.

[The White Knight]

Why is there no "both" option?
Because I trust both.

I agree. I think it's somewhat the same situation in Belgium. I've never really been aware of any political leanings of our television. Though the VB obviously proclaims the VRT is full of liberal bias, the general ****.

I think the Dutch media is very good at the "serious" issues. (and a load of crap when it comes to entertainment, but that plays no role in this poll).

I grew up with Sesamstraat and Villa Achterwerk!

[Hub'ite]

Can't trust the media. Don't really trust the Gov't.

[the Black Prince]

i wouldn't really trust either... except the BBC which is suppose to simply report events without becoming too politically orientated.. the BBC is fairly ok... but generally speaking, trust neither

[Pallida Mors]

i wouldn't really trust either... except the BBC which is suppose to simply report events without becoming too politically orientated.. the BBC is fairly ok... but generally speaking, trust neither

I voted neither. But I too find the BBC to be essentially neutral and see them as an organization that, for the most part, has no alternative modus operandi. Living in the states I like to see another perspective.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I don't trust the media, nor do I trust the Government, but i listen to what they both have to say.

[Red Harvest]

Don't trust anyone, check to see if their stories are accurate. How many times did we "get" Osama or Saddam (before we actually succeeded) on FOX. How many times did we find WMD's on FOX? Of course their sources were all in the Administration.

Mainstream western media does a decent job overall, since it is by nature self policing, seeking stories from different angles. Ironically, it is freemarket competitiveness that helps force them to be truthful, because exposing competitors deceptions is good business in more ways than one.

[Dirty Harry]

You can trust the media, but you have to be willing to check more than 1 source. It is when people are lazy and only check 1 place that they can be mislead.

As long as people keep checking multiple sources, there will never be these kind of paranoid media conspiracies in reality because competition for the almighty dollar keeps them straight, especially in this day and age with worldwide satellite media access and millions of information sources on the internet just a click away.

[Carach]

need to add combination of both to options.

media usually anti government, blow most things waaay out of proportion, and when there is no real news they go chase around the latest england manager and screw their lives up spreading lies and things that just dont need to be known.

some of the incidents taht have gone in iraq are an example of this - they seem to drip feed images/videos that came out the same time as each other on the same subject, and just drag it out over years refueling a problem that was dealt with years previous.

...and so forth, they just generally annoy me so i look through a few papers/newsgroups/tv news channels (if i bother anyway)

meanwhile the government have screwed things up time and time again, and its a bit hard to understand why they need to do it...i dont really believe either.

[Elu Barcino]

Neither, apart from the BBC, which I find is usually quite trustworthy.

[Tom Paine]

I will have to vote the media thanks to the BBC, which I do trust to tell us the truth as best it can.
If i lived anywhere but the UK it would be neither, however.

[Kanaric]

Most of the time the media is controlled by the government so saying that you trust the media and the government is the same thing. In the US its controlled by the government to a point, they are allowed to do their own thing but most of the time the government controls what they can and can't report on. They restrict a lot more than people think. Also they have many people in the media in their pockets.