Survey: Traditional Media Is "Out of Touch"
A new Zogby survey released today shows that two-thirds of respondents are dissatisfied with traditional media outlets:
Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, a new We Media/Zogby Interactive poll shows. The survey also found that while most Americans (70%) think journalism is important to the quality of life in their communities, two thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities. Meanwhile, the online survey documented the shift away from traditional sources of news, such as newspapers and TV, to the Internet - most dramatically among so-called digital natives - people under 30 years old.It's also no surprise that Republicans and Independents are more likely to be dissatisfied with traditional media:
Republicans (79%) and political independents (75%) are most likely to feel disenchanted with conventional journalism, but the online survey found 50% of Democrats also expressed similar concerns. Those who identify themselves as "very conservative" were among the most dissatisfied, with 89% who view traditional journalism as out of touch.Traditional media outlets have never adjusted to the proliferation of news outlets and the competitive forces that are now at work. Unless they can make substantial changes, they are unlikely to survive much longer.
And yet, viewers are voting with their eyeballs. As per the Huffington Post:
And he is not #1 because the culture is much more extreme, but because he is actually fair and balanced, even if he does lean right. But you'll never get a 'far left loon' to admit that ;)Posted by: seeker | 27 February 2008 at 02:29 PM
Either that, or liberals don't watch much news ;). Looks like the first liberal guy in the bunch appears at #19. What an uneducated bunch! Or maybe they are watching O'Reilly??? Heh.
Posted by: seeker | 27 February 2008 at 02:39 PM
Seeker,
Or maybe Liberals are actually watching long-form news programs that are in reality hard-news and not b*tch slap sessions. Thoughts of McNeil Lehr and the BBC come to mind.
True hard news programs vs. soft news, argumentative commentary, or news magazines are now few and far between in this country. Don't make me get into why that is again.... ;)
And also the ratings you cite are flawed as they do not factor in time-shifting of programs due to DVRs.
-S
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 27 February 2008 at 03:07 PM
O'Reilly "fair and balanced"? Har-De-Har-Har!
Posted by: Louis | 27 February 2008 at 04:00 PM
I'm not sure how they compare, but the parodies of Faux News and Bill O'Reilly, namely the Daily Show and The Colbert Report, also have a lot of regular viewers. And, that's real fake news! :)
Posted by: Cineaste | 27 February 2008 at 04:03 PM
O'Reilly "fair and balanced"? Har-De-Har-Har!
Yes. Either you are totally biased, or have not watched very much of his show. His show is often excellent.
Posted by: seeker | 27 February 2008 at 05:16 PM
Let me get this straight: Seeker claims that “viewers are voting with there eyeballs”? You list the “top ranked’ cable shows as if that tells the whole story. At the end of 2007 ABC’s evening news had about 8.39 million viewers; NBC 8.3 million total viewers and CBS 6.44 million viewers. This compares with and let’s be very generous to Billo, 3 million viewers of his “balanced” show. O’Reilly is barely a pimple on Couric’s ass and she is considered a loser by all ratings standards.
By only listing cable news shows Seeker only provides a tiny portion of the picture. Viewers have indeed voted with their eyeballs; they have clearly chosen the liberal mainstream news outlets that you despise so much by overwhelming margins. Seeker evaluates the TV landscape the same way he does biblical exegesis: by a selective out of context manipulation of the data
Posted by: FCL | 27 February 2008 at 07:56 PM
Either you are totally biased, or have not watched very much of his show. His show is often excellent.
I've watched his show plenty (when I could stomach it). I find him to be a self-righteous bully who lives to ride his hobby-horses and trample on anyone with the temerity to contradict him. I do have to admit, however, that he's a great show-off and knows how to demogogue the issues and create ratings.
Of course, why should I be surprised at your response? You often show the very same qualities which "adorn" O'Reilly himself, so it's not a wonder that you think he's great. Your bias is showing.
Posted by: Louis | 27 February 2008 at 10:53 PM
FCL, now you know that's not fair, either. You can't compare broadcast ratings to cable ratings. That's complete apples to oranges. I, being a person who does not have cable, can only choose from NBC, CBS or ABC news. They operate with a much larger percentage of the pie to start with. Plus you have an entire culture within the older generation that has always and will always watch the nightly network news whether they agree with the slant or not.
Seeker is actually looking at apples to apples with cable news. When you compare the conservative (FOX) with the liberal (MSNBC) there is no contest in terms of viewers. Throwing the broadcast networks into the mix is interesting, but I'm not sure how you can fairly evaluate them with cable news.
Posted by: Aaron | 28 February 2008 at 06:54 AM