Amazing," said Cavuto, when it was all over. "It’s in there. It’s worth a read.
In which Fox News asks the question on everyone’s mind: Would a war in Syria match the Biblical description of the End Times?
What I’m curious about is this: How many people in the U.S. are actually excited about the prospect of the End Times and are therefore hoping for a military intervention in Syria because they believe we’re on the cusp of fulfiling a biblical prophecy regarding the end of the world?
Like, who is Fox News appealing to here?
Can we do a survey about that?
FJP: You got me curious so I did what I often do when I’m curious and hit up Google.
Christian News Wire reports that “41% of all U.S. adults, 54% of Protestants and 77% of Evangelicals believe the world is now living in the biblical end times.” The findings are from a recent poll conducted by the Barna Group, a faith and culture polling firm.
Kind of incredible, no? Even James F. Fitzgerald, author of a book arguing that the End Times have already begun, is surprised. And he commissioned the poll.
"I thought the numbers could possibly be as low as 10% for the overall population and maybe 30% for Christians in general, or less," Fitzgerald tells CNW. "I had no way to know before the survey. But the response of the overall population was higher than what I expected from Christians, and the Evangelical’s response was nearly twice what I thought."
Last December, National Catholic Reporter reported that more than a third of Americans believed extreme weather is the sign of End Times. The story, based on a poll conducted by Public Religion Research Institute, found that “[t]he conviction is particularly strong among white evangelical Protestants (65 percent), and less common among Catholics (21 percent) and the religiously unaffiliated (15 percent). Overall, 36 percent of Americans see signs of the end times in Mother Nature’s fury.”
A 2010 Pew Research Poll found that “41% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ definitely (23%) or probably (18%) will have returned to earth” by 2050.
And if you go back all that way back to 1999, Newsweek ran a cover story called “Prophecy: What the Bible Says About the End of the World.” In it, the magazine reported that “forty percent of all Americans and 45 percent of Christians believe that the world will end, as the Bible predicts, in a battle at Armageddon between Jesus and the Antichrist.”
So, who is Fox News appealing to here? A very generous slice of the American people. — Michael
We continue to find that Democrats trust most TV news sources other than Fox, while Republicans don’t trust anything except Fox. News preferences are very polarizing along party lines.
Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling, in a press release on a new poll released on American trust in its broadcast news stations. Fox News’ Credibility Declines (PDF).
The News: Americans don’t trust broadcast news sources. Matter of fact, more people distrust NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and Comedy Central than trust them.
However, Fox News is the news org that Americans are most skeptical about. According to the PPP poll, 46% of voters distrust it while 41% trust it.
The only news org that a majority does trust? PBS, with 52% of voters saying they trust it and 29% saying they don’t.
Or what if you’re interested in the opinions of a group that isn’t defined by the electoral boundaries — or one where there just isn’t good polling available to aggregate?
These are the sorts of questions where journalism turns to pundit representatives. Want to know what “hockey moms” think? Sarah Palin gets called upon to represent them. How about the Occupy movement? Call Michael Moore. The Tea Party? Bring in Dick Armey. Gun owners? Alert Alex Jones. This sort of representative punditry comes with obvious, distorting flaws: Alex Jones doesn’t represent all gun owners and Michael Moore doesn’t represent everyone on the activist left, but the workflows of contemporary journalism let both stand in for what a larger group is thinking or feeling. And if your group doesn’t have an obvious mouthpiece, someone already in a cable news producer’s contacts? You might just get excluded from the narrative altogether.
Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings: The Measured Rise of Sentiment Analysis in Journalism, Nieman Lab.
An interesting piece by Sam Petulla on the pros and cons of sentiment analysis. What it is:
Sentiment analysis aims to analyze what a percentage of the population “feels” about something, often by measuring the sentiments embedded in social media posts or by asking a community directly to share its feelings, thoughts, or opinions in a machine-readable way.
Bottom line: Petulla argues that, when used appropriately (read: clearly state its limitations and don’t call it a poll), sentiment analysis can help alleviate the above quoted issue by getting more voices into a news conversation.
It should be illegal to publish poll numbers.
Said Matt Taibbi in last month’s Rolling Stone, which is a rant that is very much worth reading. He went on:
Think about it: Banning poll numbers would force the media to actually cover the issues. As it stands now, the horse race is the entire story – I can think of a couple of cable networks that would have to go completely dark tomorrow, as in Dan-Rather-Dead-Fucking-Air dark, if they had to come up with even 10 seconds of news content that wasn’t centered on who was winning. That’s the dirtiest secret we in the media have kept from you over the years: Most of us suck so badly at our jobs, and are so uninterested in delving into any polysyllabic subject, that we would literally have to put down our shovels and go home if we didn’t have poll numbers we can use to terrify our audiences.
The thing is, Taibbi’s point is substantiated quite clearly by findings in the the Pew Research Center’s newly released Winning the Media Campaign 2012, a report on election coverage since the summer.
The report shows what we all sort of knew. That yes, both candidates received more negative coverage than positive. And yes, alternative narratives exist on different channels: MSNBC doesn’t like Romney and FOX doesn’t like Obama. Also, social media users really don’t like Romney.
But the most interesting finding of all:
Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates’ policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish.
Hat tip to Slate for pointing that out in its review of the report:
As Pew explains, much of that imbalance is the result of the type of horse-race coverage that has come to dominate much of the political news cycle… With those stories removed from the equation, Obama’s positive-negative split was 15 percent to 32 percent, while Romney’s was 14 percent to 32 percent.
The same point, in a graph.
Nieman Lab's Jonathan Stray weighs in, explaining that “horse race” or “political strategy” coverage of politics has been nearly 60-70% of all political journalism over the last several decades. He writes:
Certainly, it’s important to keep track of who might win an election — but 60 or 70 percent? There are several different arguments that this is way too much. First, it’s very insider-y, focusing on how the political game is played rather than what sort of information might help voters choose between candidates. Jay Rosen has called this the cult of the savvy.
Now, here’s an interesting caveat on the subject of polls.
Last week we saw a lot of drama around Nate Silver, the darling of this year’s pollsters after his stunning success predicting outcomes in the 2008 presidential election. He was, in short, accused (by the right) of cheerleading for Obama’s victory, rather than accurately forecasting results, and subsequently defended (by the left). That’s the very short, overly simplified version. It was an interesting debate, which you should read about (see here, here, and here… but mainly here).
The interesting thing is that the discussion highlighted a small point that has very much to do with Taibbi and Stray’s disapproval of horse race coverage. It wasn’t mentioned until PBS Mediashift’s Mark Hannah said it, but the drama over the fact that Silver could have been unfairly favoring Obama is worrisome because polls might actually influence voters. Hannah explains that polls both measure and contribute to a campaign’s momentum:
Canadian political scientist Mark Pickup has argued that voters often take cues about candidates based on media reports of polls. This “bandwagon effect,” by which voters begin to align themselves with the candidate who’s perceived as more popular in the polls, has been documented by NYU professors Vicki Morwitz and Carol Pluzinski. In their study of the 1992 presidential election, Morwitz and Pluzinski demonstrated that political polls change not just voters’ expectations of who will win the election but, in some cases, their preference for a certain candidate.
So, in summary, an overabundance of horse race coverage doesn’t help anyone. It increases negative messaging in the media. It deepens the partisan divide and pollsters like Silver face the brunt of that fighting. It better be right, because it might be influencing voters. And we’re wasting time that could be spent on better journalism. — Jihii