No in the US we do not trust the MSM *Main Stream Media. At best they are Socalists. At worst they are communists. Richard Dryfuss and his kind are upset (forced to talk to you) because they no longer have control over political thought in the US. The internet has stripped that control away from his kind. And unless they can inflict the force of law on concervative thought they will be useless.

Why don't I trust the media: Because my tax dollars go to support their agenda. You only have to listen to NPR here in the US to understand what I am talking about. NPR and its Democrat supporters will claim that it is fair and balanced but when you here a story that beats up on Republicans (Pick one: Abramoff, Delay, Rush) and then in the next breath hear a story about how President Bush (Almost always refered to as Mr or just Bush) is visiting New Orleans. The story is positive but the connection with the previouse story is always there. It is subtle. It is agenda driven. It is relentless. It is infuriating.

I do not listen to the alphabet services: ABC NBC CBS CNN. I tuned out Dan Rather 3 years before he tried to take down the President of the United States with a phoney concocted story. Richard Dryfuss and his kind are useless ineffectives.

I pay him the ultimate insult: I will never listen to him.

As for hard new stories: The first flush is almost always inaccurate or just plan wrong. Lisa I'm a pilot. Stories about aviation are almost always reported wrong. For example yesterday a Continental jet blew two tires on the left main gear on takeoff at the Houston Intercontinental Airport. He still had two nose tires and two good tires on the right main gear. I saw the picture. The pilot flew around to burn off fuel to allow time to prepare his cabin and crew for the worst case and to allow the airport to prepare a runway (the longest one) for the worst case. The worst case is a ball of wreakage that goes up in a ball of fire and black smoke. After two hours the pilot lands the airplane safely on the for remaining tires and the two rims of the left main gear and after stopping, everybody walks away. Last night my local public radio station here in Atlanta Georgia reports that the Aircraft lands Gear UP and nothing else. They got it wrong. How could they. Tell me they are professionals aren't they?

Do I trust them - NO WAY>

Congrats on your safe arrival in London. I hope you enjoy your stay. I've greatly enjoyed reading your blog.

Do you trust the media? That is a very vague and open question. Trust which media? Trust which media source? Trust for what? Trust to what percentage? Trust in what areas?

My comments mainly refer to "the so-called mainstream media (MSM)" in the U.S. and European English-language reportind, as that is what I'm most familiar with on a day-to-day basis. I've found two rules of thumb to be useful:

1. When the media report on a topic you are familiar with, estimate the accuracy percentage. Use this percentage as an initial rough estimate of the accuracy of all reporting in those media.
   
2. Remember that the reporters' and editors' bias will be found not only in the what is reported, but in what is chosen to be reported and and what is chosen to be omitted, This may be an unconscious bias, but it becomes apparent over time.
   

This was brought home in the reporting on hurricane Katrina, which hit the central Gulf Coast area last year. Several MSM commentators hailed the reporting as a high-point for the media. Alas, they may be right.

• Reported that there were riots and numerous deaths and rapes in the Superdome refugee center, with bodies "stacked up" all over. The reality: no riot, a well-behaved (frustrated, tired, hot, and miserable) crowd which pulled together. At most one murder and one rape in the Superdome and adjacent convention center combined.
  
• Reported that the impact fell disproportionately on blacks. The reality: the impact on blacks and whites was similar to their proportion in the local population, which whites actually being impacted more (though statistically insignificant) than blacks.
  
• Reported rampant riots, murders, etc., especially within the city of New Orleans, especially with in black areas. The reality was that, while there was some looting, it was not particularly widespread nor unusual for the city.
  
• A lack of reporting and a minimization of the efforts by individuals to help each other during the disaster. The focus was only on efforts by the federal government---with an agenda of spinning it in a critical and ain't-it-awful manner as possible. The reality was that individuals, local governments, state governments, and the feds (especially the military) did much good, and none were perfect or without problems
  

These are but a few items, but when used as a rule of thumb, it indicates that the MSM is usually not a trustworthy source for information upon which to make evaluations.

The subject of political bias also comes up. Within the U.S., research indicates that approximately 90 to 95 percent of MSM reporters, editors, producers, and the like, fall on one side of the political spectrum. Only one media outlet differs by being closer to 55-45 (in the same direction). Guess which media outlet is painted by the others as being biased? (You mentioned two of the speakers at the conference you are at, extreme-left Richard Dreyfus, and center-left (self-description) Jeff Jarvis. Hmmm. This may be indicative.... )

Do you think you can obtain accurate information from the television news and morning newspapers? Well, sometimes. "Seventy percent", but which 70 percent? There's the rub.

Do you think that blogs are a more reliable and/or accurate source of information than the so-called mainstream media (MSM)? What most blogs bring to the table is transparency. Biases and limitations are more apparent; wingnuts and moonbats can be filtered out; a wider variety of viewpoints can be obtained. In addition, blogs---at least the better ones---tend to correct their errors much more quickly.

This is rare with MSM. (As an example, my local newspaper had a purported factual article whose opening paragraph stated that the Baathist Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein had absolutely no connection to international terrorism. While the recipients of money paid to the families of murder-suicide bombers would be surprized to hear that, this was even after the more recent evidence of contacts, funding, and training was uncovered. But the newspaper stands by its story....)

This was going to have been a quick comment; it's gotten too long, so I'll stop. Again, thanks, Lisa, for your blog and your comments. God bless!

most of the liberal media i do not trust, but i listen to
some(BBC) because they cover the world and that is
my interest. my world view filters the junk out and i
do nicely with the info i get. thank you bbc for covering
the world(on the ground).

Lisa... since I saw Beeb footage of Barbara Plett crying at Muqarta,I've had my doubts as to their impartiality...so I was a bit suprised to see a nice write- up on Hossein Derakhshan and his visit to Israel

Friday, 28 April 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4947354.stm

I think that it is only through a plurality of voices that we can get a sense of the big picture.

I am so so so bored with the 24-hr news networks repetitive loops of banal bytes of info. As for trust - I don't trust a monolithic voice. When all the networks are parroting the same bleeding talking points, my trust gets tried.

While we all freak at misinformation or stridently partisan ramblings getting loosed on the impressionable (sic) public, I think we can only be served by MORE conversation and the opportunity to refute or add nuance to these stories - this is something the web does best.

If networks continue to give us vanilla reporting while slashing the budgets for longer, investigative pieces, it might be something ONLY done on the web.