The trust in media is at the lowest level ever. Less than 20% of people trust the media. That is not President Trump’s fault. It is media’s fault. The overwhelming bias in the media and intense hatred for our president has compromised journalistic integrity. The rudeness and disrespect shown our president is shameful. How would the media react if Obama was attached by Jim Acosta in the same manner that he attacks Trump? Yes, there are still good journalists, but unfortunately they have become rare. [Portion removed due to violation of terms of use]

And yet again, the -45 cult has to show off their ability to repeat nonsense.

"The overwhelming bias in the media and intense hatred for our president has compromised journalistic integrity. The rudeness and disrespect shown our president is shameful. How would the media react if Obama was attached by Jim Acosta in the same manner that he attacks Trump?"

Uh...yeah. Guess you have forgotten that it was -45 that started this whole business by attacking the press when they told THE TRUTH about his various nefarious dealings.

"Yes, there are still good journalists, but unfortunately they have become rare. Fake News is real and must stop before the media can again be trusted."

Agreed. That is why Fox "News" needs to be taken off the air, now.

"The Almanac is a great publication and is not the target of Trump's comments. His comments are directed at CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, and WP, the purveyors of Fake News."

Because -45 says so? I would be willing to ventured that you have never -- repeat, NEVER -- actually looked at any of the media you so viciously criticize.

"Less than 20% of people trust the media."

Your source? (link) I'd love to see the tabs on that study.

@Igloo Coolers -- pretty sure the "source," if there is one, is straight from Fox "News."

You know, the same "source" for a lot of fake statistics...

There are numerous polls that show the media is not trusted, including Gallup and Monmouth. I suggest you read them.

According to the WASHINGTON POST, 91% of the network "news" coverage of Trump is negative. Yet, Trump's approval ratings are higher than either Obama or Reagan at this point in their first terms. This further shows the lack of trust in the mainstream media. Just the facts!

Her's your link from Politico:

Web Link

A poll conducted using 803 respondents? You know what that's called, sport? STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

I realize that you have no *real* evidence to support your delusions, but can't you do better than that?

BTW -- the "negative" coverage about -45 you complain about? Look at -45's actions, and tell me how much lipstick you would need to put on *that* pig...

Okay, thanks for pointing out the Moumoth poll. Question:

Donald Trump and CNN

Trust Trump more------35%
Trust CNN more--------48%
Trust both equally----13%
Don’t know-----5%


Only 803 sampled.

re: "According to the WASHINGTON POST, 91% of the network "news" coverage of Trump is negative."


That statement above is FAKE NEWS itself, or at the least, grossly misleading.

The "study" wasn't done by WaPo, but in fact by Brent Bosell's conservative shop, the MRC and it's affiliate. It was merely highlighted in a WaPo op-ed piece - NOT reported by WaPo.

For reference: MRC has a dodgy record, such as the time they flipped the numbers on a BLM popularity poll to fit their agenda. In fact, that poll showed many more Americans supported the goals of BLM.

I will not link to such a site out of principle; instead pasting from that page:

MRC: "Buried in the weeds: They also asked if Americans approve or disapprove of Black Lives Matter: 50 percent approved, and 33 percent disapproved. [CORRECTION: The original version of this article had these numbers incorrectly reversed.]"



So, thanks to poster Wildcat above, attacking Fake News with fake news. Well played.

(Not.)

wildcat again: "Less than 20% of people trust the media."

His later politico link shows his mistake. While not a large difference, the number is OVER 20%, not "less than".

This is the link to the Gallup poll and yes it shows less than 20% have confidence in the media. Please note it was low even when Obama was president. The media has a credibility problem and blaming Trump doesn’t fix it.

Web Link

And the -45 cultist just can't stop...so how much *exactly* are they paying you to post this nonsense here?

I guess the point that -45 has declared war on the media in order to save his own hide is completely eluding you. Then again, being part of the -45 cult means that you can't see the truth right in front of your face...

Your link is to a 2014 poll. And yet you still misrepresent the poll.

First you linked to the politico poll which showed 23%, yet you insisted it was "Less than 20% of people trust the media."

That's either lazy writing, or deliberately trying to misrepresent.

Then you link to an old Gallup and again claim "it shows less than 20%" when the sub-head clearly reads "Across newspapers, TV, and Internet, confidence no higher than 22%".

Again, not a big difference, which begs the question: why are you restate or lie about it, when your own link is so clear?



The quite odd fact is how hard you searched for an old poll to try to fit to your fictional number, when Gallup has a newer poll with clear text that doesn't need to be lied about or restated by you:


Gallup "JUNE 28, 2017 - In U.S., Confidence in Newspapers Still Low but Rising"

27% say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers
24% of U.S. adults say they possess confidence in television news.
Americans have even less confidence in news that appears on the internet (16%)


Back to topic: bravo to the Almanac for a principled stand!

@Wildcat,
Who cares what vague assessments Gallup and other polls show, unless they get highly specific about sources ? There are a huge number of "news commentary" sources, like Fox's Hannity, plus other infotainment channels like TMZ that masquerade as real news sources, that I rate as unreliable for hard news. But to lump the NYT, WaPo or the hard news components of CNN with those is disingenuous and foolish. Smart readers and viewers can discern the differences and choose appropriately. Foolish and biased readers and viewers either gravitate to commentary that suits their political bent, or ignore the press altogether at their peril.

But I personally glad we have a press that is holding this president accountable for his blatant lies and unfulfilled promises, since his supporters clearly aren't.

@Igloo Cooler "Back to topic: bravo to the Almanac for a principled stand!"

I 100% disagree and am incredibly disappointed that my local paper decided to jump on this feel-good, reinforce-our-own-high-opinion-of-ourselves bandwagon. When is the last time the Almanac reported or did an editorial (the editorial board, not a guest columnist) on a national issue? I LOVE that about a local paper...we hear all the divisive rhetoric from all the other news sources, I don't need it from the Almanac. Let's save the editorials for things like, who to endorse for the local school board election, or pro-growth vs NIMBY issues.

As far as the "fake news" battle, we can keep going back and forth on what the polls show on this, but I'll tell you that I, and my closest friends and family, don't trust the media...not CNN, not MSNBC, and not Fox. What I wouldn't pay for ONE station that is unbiased.

Forget obvious Fake News...It's the constant slant that is so frustrating. My husband and I switch back and forth between Fox and CNN in the mornings and joke about the vastly different headlines they have. My high school daughter asked the other day, "Which other station, other than Fox, gives the conservative side?" Me: "None." Her, "Wait..NONE?"

And, Igloo Cooler, if you really don't think that the news that you are getting from CNN or MSNBC is not slanted 100% towards the left, supplying only the stories that feed into their narrative, I have a bridge to sell you. They've done the math...those on the coasts and in the big cities have more money to spend, therefore that's who've they've decided to gear their advertising dollars...and news towards these people. They have every right to do that. But it makes me sad that people, like my daughter, who are still attempting to form their own opinions, are being exposed to only one side of most issues, and they're getting it from ALL fronts...their teachers (our local high schools and 99% of all colleges), the mainstream news media, every single nighttime comedy host, Hollywood in general. This may not bother you, because you are on the same side. You may not even realize it, because you only speak with people who have the same views as you, so it may not strike you that there are people out their with differing opinions.

So, Fox may be more blatant in their version of "Fake News" but don't kid yourself that any of the other stations are any better. Possibly just more subtle.

"According to the WASHINGTON POST, 91% of the network "news" coverage of Trump is negative."

I deduce that Fox News supplies the remaining 9% of Trump's network "news" coverage.

Curmudgeon:

hard to report positively when the person you're reporting about does nothing but produce negative news. Can't blame the press for accurately reporting what is.

The best and only way to deal with "fake news" is to utilize a variety of sources and then make your own judgement on what is the "truth".

Read the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Wash Post and Wash Examiner and you will get a well balanced perspective.

Or read The Week magazine which combines all of the different perspectives and sources.


But don't just read/watch the single news source which reflects your own biases.

Many of the comments pertain to news coming from television. I don't watch these types of shows as I prefer to read and the few times I've watched TV "news" -- I've seen a pronounced slant. Generally speaking, I find written news accounts from reputable major newspapers or news magazines more objective. I agree with Peter Carpenter that it's important to read from a variety of sources. I've been taking "The Week" for years, which is a news magazine that started in the UK, and I consider this magazine's reporting objective, balanced and fair. Related to the general issue of news discourse is the topic of civility. A number of years ago, I came across the books on civility by P.M. Forni, a professor, who founded the Civility Institute at John Hopkins. His two charming books on civility (Choosing Civility and The Civility Solution: What to do When People are Rude) are an enjoyable and helpful read. His ideas have helped me to practice more civility in my day-to-day life. I would like to see more civility in our society. During our upcoming active electoral campaign season, I hope that all candidates for office will run clean campaigns that focus on the issues and refrain from ad hominem attacks. With more civility, we might see less political polarization.

Forgot to say how much I appreciate The Almanac and the Daily Post for local news coverage. Also appreciate the Daily Journal for broader San Mateo County coverage. I think all these papers strive to deliver fair, objective and balanced reporting and I try to read the Post and the Daily Journal daily, and the Almanac weekly. Their collective reporting has helped to keep me informed on local issues and, at times, served to shine some spotlights where sunshine was needed. I think our local democracy is much better off thanks to our local papers and their staff. The human interest stories also help to create community. For broader news, I subscribe to The Week (magazine) and daily versions of the Mercury News and The San Francisco Chronicle. While on trips, I very much enjoy reading The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.