Whopping 31% of Americans still Not Angry yet at the nation's news media

Some very disturbing poll news out the other day. Shocking too. It seems that some professional polling outfit named Rasmussen Reports surveyed a whole bunch of obviously subversive people.

And a minuscule two-out-of-three of them (66%) said they were at least Somewhat Angry at the nation's news media.

This includes an even-smaller 33% who said they were Very Angry at the media. The good news for American journalism is that fully about three-in-ten (31%) report being Not Angry at the news media.

Obviously this was a skewed poll with biased results. Were you called for that poll? No, neither were we. In fact, we don't know a single one of the 1,000 Likely Voters they allegedly interviewed. So, it's a completely flawed sampling.

And as a result, as corrupt news gatekeepers, we intend to bury this bad-newsy item in the early hours of this morning so no one will find it and be able to leave snotty, all-knowing comments below about how biased "you medias are."

Some people believe broad-based criticism of the media is a new thing attributed to the Internet allowing information consumers to shop for the news accounts they want to believe.

However, one person we know very well had the job assignment more than....

...four decades ago of fielding criticism from print readers. In those days media critics used something called a "desk phone" that involved landlines connecting two hand-held mechanisms enabling people to talk without being cut off by a passing bridge.

There were numerous ongoing gangs of conspiracy-minded readers in those days; one in particular regularly erupted to complain about the clear conspiratorial absence of news coverage on the disappearance of a famous U.S. aircraft carrier. Informed that the absence of news coverage about the ship's disappearance was due to the fact that the ship had not actually disappeared, the callers became Very Angry with said media conspiracist and hung up.

To this day, many believe the media is filled with gangs of like-minded liberal journalists who march the nation's streets in large political packs (see photo above) seeking selected favorable factoids about the Harvard-like brilliance of a certain silver-tongued ex-state senator from the Democratic party whose record-breaking presidential fund-raising of $750 million showed an incredibly broad base of support among average Americans yearning for credible change and real hope following an unfortunate era of darkness that those same Americans had voted in.

And that a similar crowd of leftist-inclined journalists dutifully roams dirty alleys to collect negative info on things like the cob-webbed cognizance of some old Republican codger from Arizona who didn't use a BlackBerry and liked the Beach Boys.

Oh, and his loopy choice of a female GOP running mate who'd been elected governor of the nation's largest state. Some political paranoids saw a double standard just because those medias daily chronicled Sarah Palin's clothing, shoe color and hairstyle without equal attention to the boring suits and lack of hair of her opponent, Amtrak's most famous customer. 

According to the new Rasmussen survey, 48% of Americans believe that intelligent, though liberal reporters are trying to help President Obama pass his amazing agenda whenever they write or talk about the handsome, basketball-playing father of two lovely young daughters with the cutest black dog with a name made out of the president's initials.

Fifty-five percent of Likely Voters say that news media bias about well-meaning Democrats simply trying to spend other people's money as quickly as possible and rich Republican suits with winter tans, country club memberships and tendencies toward moral hypocrisy is a bigger, more serious national problem than out-sized political contributions from special interests.

So, hypothetically, said reporters would be likely to focus on, say, the chief executive of a large foreign oil corporation attending a yacht race while a company oil well spewed tons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

And they'd likely overlook the inconvenient reality that at the very same time the chief executive of the United States was playing his gazillionth round of unphotographed golf while the same gooey spew continued.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say they believe that reporters covering a political campaign would try to help the candidate they want to win while a majority (54%, up seven points since November 2008) believe reporters would try to hide information that would hurt their favored candidate.

This would help explain, for instance, why Americans never heard anything about the racist rants of Obama's long-time pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Rasmussen reports that 76% of Republicans and 56% of independents say reporters are trying to help the president's generous agenda to improve the life and health of every living American regardless of race, economic class or the costs while rebuilding an economy crippled by eight years of failed GOP policies and insufficient regulation from the nation's capitol.

On the other hand, 33% of Democrats say reporters are trying to block Obama's budget-busting agenda of galactic reforms that will cripple the fiscal future of generations of U.S. taxpayers yet unborn.

In case anyone read this far, forget it. Just move along. Nothing to remember here.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of admiring the media, you can receive Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Follow us @latimestot  or Like our Facebook page. We're also available on Kindle. (With a free two-week trial, btw.)

Photos: Associated Press

Comments

[Fred]

So put out another biased article to bash the poll...

[Sir Reynolds Wrap]

Is this an editorial or article? I can't tell the difference these days.

[Recovered Demoholic]

"... 31% of Americans still not angry yet...." Hmm, that seems to be consistent with the trend of other polls on things political. Pro-ObaMao 30 to 40%, and Pro-Constitution and Prosperity 60 to 70%. And, when I talk to my neighbors and friends, "Hype and Chains."

[david]

Your arrogant, sarcastic and excuse making story on the poll just brought the number not-yet angry to 29%. Idiot.

(AM responds: LOL. Good one, David. Thanks.)

[Art]

Title should read, "Whopping 31% of Americans still clueless or just plain apathetic regarding the politicization of the nation's news media."

[Dean]

"Sixty-eight percent of Americans say they believe that reporters covering a political campaign would try to help the candidate they want to win while a majority (54%, up seven points since November 2008) believe reporters would try to hide information that would hurt their favored candidate.

This would help explain, for instance, why Americans never heard anything about the racist rants of Obama's long-time pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

Was this tongue in cheek? Any informed voter, knew what the uninformed voter voted for. While the MSM for the most part never mentioned BHO's dirty little secrets. Most of us knew full well what they elected into office.

It is the job of the electorate to cast an informed vote. In my opinion many just should not vote. If you can't be bothered to get the facts, by you own fact checking, then don't be bothered to vote. A prime example is the people who chose Alvin Greene as their Senate candidate in South Carolina because they were reminded of the singer by the almost same name.

Could you get any dumber America? How's that tingly leg problem now?

[anonymous]

Yep. No reason to improve if you're customers are stupid partisans... (I know it should be "your" but now you can feel smug about pointing out the poor grammar of the little people.)

[Q]

If a person had never heard of Jeremiah Wright, then I would assume that they had been in a coma during the summer of 2008. Perhaps you have forgotten the weeks-long coverage of the guy. Perhaps you were in coma.

As for the "ignoring" of the Obama-plays-golf-while-oil-spills claim, might I refer you to this thing we call Google News?

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=obama+golf+bp

Good lord man, you are a nitwit.

PS -- referring to Palin as the governor of the country's "largest state" -- Bra--vo. Please also note: I've seen pictures of you. Having a large head doesn't necessarily make you smart.

[oops]

That's wild.

[iconoclast]

How dare you cite such a biased poll. After all, by polling only Likely Voters Rasmussen discriminated against all of us who cannot be bothered to vote and simply trust in our politicians to just naturally do the right thing. I would bet that if the poll were expanded to include all adults--even those who don't follow news closely (or particularly those who don't follow the news closely)--then the percentage who weren't angry would skyrocket all the way to....50%.

[misspoppy]

Love it. Just went from Somewhat Angry to Not Angry, so that should bring you up to 30%.

(AM responds: Many thanks, Misspoppy. Appreciate the swing in support. Please keep us posted on any future changes, especially improvements. :--)) )

[David D]

If those 2 of 3 Americans were justified in their belief, it would be possible for a major party Presidential Contender to run on a 'family values' platform and be better known for his fabulously silky hair than for his mistress & bastard daughter.

It's a good thing the elite people run this country, since the majority are clearly clueless.

And yes, since my telephone has a cord (it's terribly retro), I was one of those people surveyed. In fact, they surveyed me 3 times, and after the first time I was really annoyed. . .

[steveb]

Andrew: Brilliant! Thank you. You forgot the trivial little factoid the MSM hid for a full year, '08: That Obama's pals and relatives were slightly concentrated towards the bent of socialism. But that's not really important....at least the MSM didn't believe so. Yikes, we are freaking toast. And why does it seem Pelosi and Reid are of a similar ilk? Or perhaps they're just focusing on the Democrats' goal of winning every election in the future by promising "govt help" to 60% of people, while soaking the workers in the private sector. Yeah, I see where they figured out that strategy to win elections (but kill our country). Great (sarc)!

(AM responds: Well, if they'd been reading here back then, they would have had the other side. Glad you discovered us now anyway.)

[Brianna]

As any former addict could tell you Malcolm, the first step in solving a problem is admitting that you have one. The failure of the old media will not be solved by sneering at your readers and calling them a bunch of fools.

[baldrick]

wow andy... your witty & piercing rhetoric certainly showed us "angry" and paranoid peasants how silly we really are in not swallowing, without any thought, the crap the msm spews on a daily basis. we're just too stooopid to understand the real news your gang of liberal "journalists" are putting out for public consumption.

and here's a conspiracy I believe... I think misspoppy is the little old lady that lives in the apartment across from yours and has 10 cats... she thinks you remind her of her nephew...

[spyder11]

Well, we know that media outlets have a skewed political agenda, so i guess it evens out

[John Richards]

I personally have a hard time trusting the news. It always seems spun in a certain direction depending on the network.

Alan Stevens author of Ping wrote about how marketers can spin reporters by adding to their ego. I believe Washington has the same power, except their spin is a lot stronger and a lot more effective.

[Kevin]

Who cares about bias? Everybody's biased in one way or another. I personally am very unhappy with the modern news media for its elementary-school level of discourse about some very important issues.

The fact that major media outlets would even give a voice to, say, climate change skeptics or proponents of intelligent design is completely ridiculous, yet it happens regularly. It's not that these viewpoints don't deserve to be heard, it's that they should have been heard once and dismissed as idiotic immediately thereafter.

Still though, the media continues to allow debates like this to go on. Viewers, in turn, believe that one side's argument carries more weight than it actually does, and voila: you've created a group of entirely misinformed people and managed to hold back the intellectual progression of society for who knows how long.

To be fair, it does sound like the poll you mentioned is complete bunk, but keep in mind that some of us are angry at the news media for reasons other than bias.

[RK]

It would be interesting to see more such polls from other sources--now that Rasmussen has been officially labeled 'right-wing-shills' by those who don't like their results. But I notice there's not a lot of interest in trying to verify the numbers.

[TheMadKing]

Mr. Malcolm obviously bemoans the fact that once an issue undesirable (to MSM ObamaBots) like Rev. Wright is out in the open, the MSM must report on it or look even worse than they do now. But if I recall correctly, isn't the LA Times still hiding a video from public view that allegedly shows PBO having a dinner with terror supporter Rashid Khalidi and others of his ilk, and has in fact been stuffing it since before his election?

I wonder. If it had been a reporter from the LAT that had acquired those DVD's from Trinity Church (which they pulled from their catalog after the damning revelations), if those racist speeches witnessed by the L.A. Times' favorite pew-sitter in Rev. Wright's church ever would have seen the light of day? Actually, I don't think we have to wonder at all. You want some real credibility, Malcolm? You have no one but yourselves to blame, and no legs to stand on.

(AM responds: You really need to visit here more often. Your wishful blissfulness is showing. Thanks for this trip anyway.)

[alloallo3]

Gee, I wonder why so many people are angry with the media. It's not like they're treated with utter disdain by those who assume they are their intellectual betters.

Thanks, Andrew, for making the point so much better than someone who isn't a "journalist" could ever do.