Coming back to this, what I should be surprised by is the relatively large portions of people getting news 'across the isle'. My prior was that this was substantially worse, with single digit percent of people getting any actual news at all.
We know. What they don't know is that Fox News has been the official Republican propaganda arm since inception.
Fox has only a propaganda division, so this graphic is actually saying--by means of lying about it--that republicans don't get news.
I wonder why pages like Mother Jones and The Daily Beast are always the most upvoted here...
I bet it's bots driving the radicalization.
And of course, most of the right-wing voters probably don't know and/or care to understand that FOX was founded as a propaganda outlet in the first place.
I was under the impression that FOX has now bought many small local news stations in no-where-ville, which did (and, I assume, continue to do) perfectly competent local reporting. Am I crazy?
They just also run nonsense on the side; the 'mandatory' coverage. Was there a late-show about this a few years back?
Maybe thinking of Last Week Tonight's take on Sinclair Broadcast Group?
Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are much more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to both use and trust a number of major news sources. These include the major TV networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), the cable news networks CNN and MSNBC, major public broadcasters PBS and NPR, and the legacy newspaper with the largest number of digital subscribers, The New York Times.
Republicans, meanwhile, are much more likely to distrust than trust all of these sources. A smaller number of the sources we asked about are more heavily used and trusted by Republicans than Democrats, including Fox News, The Joe Rogan Experience, Newsmax, The Daily Wire, the Tucker Carlson Network and Breitbart.
...
Each source’s placement on this chart is based on the average measure of U.S. adults who say they regularly get news from that source – taking into consideration both the party identification (Republican or Democrat, including leaners) and ideology (conservative, moderate or liberal) of respondents. Refer to the methodology for details.
That's more interesting to me. It makes the distribution feel lopsided, not like a bell curve.
And what do we do with this information? Laughs nervously. Waaaay too late for that.
doesnt even list aljezeera at all.
I didn’t notice that at first. Good catch. I’d trust them over hateful trash like Breitbart any day.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I also expect that some younger Republicans are getting news from random, less popular right-wing podcasts or whatever. The Republicans I know basically either do that or pretty much exclusively use Fox News and occasionally Newsmax.
Pretty impressive how all of the networks listed are elite controlled corporate-neoliberal brained. Pretty grim assessment of how democrats consume the news as well.
I am quite curious to know what news sources you consider to not be "corporate-neolibral brained" if NPR, The Associated Press, Newsmax, and Fox News are all the same in your book?
Maybe I just misunderstood the point you were going for and need some clarification.
NPR and The AP are both run by the liberal elite. They covertly reinforce the status quo (even if just by story selection), and perhaps sometimes subtly endorse small reforms. So they end up working in part to maintain the current order (read heirarchies).
Fox News, Newsmax are straight up run by oligarchs as overt propaganda tools to reinforce heirachies.
There are no anti-heirarchical or anti-establishment sources in this graph of what people in the US read. (Unless you count News Max as anti-establishment, but it’s more anti-liberal elite establishment pro-oligarch establishment so I would still classify it as pro-establishment).
Appreciate the extra insight. Any sources you recommend if someone is trying to avoid news sources that are corporate biased or propaganda outlets?
Other large outlets not on the list like BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, RT, all seem like they would fall into one or the other of those categories to varying degrees. Visibility on quality, unbiased, sources of news is certainly needed now more than ever.
There isn’t much if you’re interested in like Party Politics and State Relations.
But there is actually quite a rich layered news that centers people instead of institutions. I’ll send you two ones that are explicitly anarchist. Obviously, I’m not saying one needs to only read them, but adding them into the media diet can be quite nice.
There are some decent in between sources as well. See maybe Propublica or Jacobin.
I think unbiased sources don’t exist. Everything is giving you a perspective. And having perspectives that aren’t elite coded or pro-status quo coded can be really valuable.
:)
I personally trust Al Jazeera more than I trust the BBC. I don't read Russia Times (RT), and very rarely The Guardian.
Most of these aren't even news. They're entertainment companies that happen to include reporting-like segments and opinion pieces, whether they're accurate or not. And they're for-profit; their main customers are advertisers, not viewers/readers.
A non-profit that simply reports without spin would be "real" news - actually trustworthy information from a source that isn't trying to brainwash you or milk you for ad revenue. There are very, very few organizations that fit this criteria. The biggest is AP (Associated Press). The entertainment companies license AP content (and content from for-profit competitors like Reuters) but filter and distort it however they wish.
No shit.
..duh..
Be respectful
