Now we know why they love George

Here's a depressing paragraph from the latest media study by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for People and the Press:

Similarly, public interest in news about Iraq has faded since the spring of 2004, amid the violent uprising in Falluja and the revelation of abuses at the U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib. At that time, 54% said they were following news about the current situation in Iraq very closely. That compares with 43% in the current survey. There also has been a notable decline in the percentage of Republicans following international news most of the time, and the percentage who say they track news about the situation in Iraq very closely. The fall off in interest has been less dramatic among Democrats and independents.

I wonder if the folks who aren't following the Iraq war are the same ones who drive around with those yellow ''Support Our Troops" decals on their trucks.

One other finding is noteworthy:

Changing public views of CNN perhaps best exemplify these trends. In 1998, 42% of those familiar enough with CNN to rate the network said they believed all or most of what CNN reported, significantly more than for any broadcast or cable news outlet tested. Today, just 28% give CNN the highest believability rating, a share which is statistically indistinguishable from most other television news sources.

Other TV news sources, such as 60 Minutes, C-SPAN, and local news stations, have seen similar declines in credibility over the past decade and no longer stand apart as significantly more reliable than other sources.

One of the few sources that has not suffered a credibility decline in recent years is Fox News Channel. Currently, one-in-four (25%) say they believe all or most of what they see on Fox News Channel, virtually unchanged since the outlet was first tested in 2000. This overall stability, however, belies the increasingly polarized views of the cable channel. An increasing number of Republicans give Fox News Channel the highest rating for believability, while there has been a comparable decline in ratings among Democrats ­ doubling the partisan gap in views of the network's credibility between 2004 and 2006.

Credibility ratings for the three major broadcast networks are comparable; ­ currently fewer than a quarter believe all or most of what they see on NBC News (23%), ABC News (22%) or CBS News (22%). As recently as 2000, closer to three-in-ten rated news from these sources as highly credible, though the networks' ratings have stabilized in the past few years.

Meanwhile, credibility ratings for newspapers remain stable since Pew last measured them.

That said, "No outlet stands out as most reliable."

One last thing: Pew reports that only four per cent of the population regularly read blogs for news.

Arrested development

Anybody want to hazard a guess as to why Israel would ''detain'' Wal Al-Omari, the Al Jazeera bureau chief in the country, not once but twice this week?

Reporters Without Borders hailed the release of Al-Jazeera bureau chief Walid Al-Omari on bail yesterday but reiterated its appeal to the Israeli authorities to stop harassing the Qatar-based TV news station’s journalists and called on the judicial authorities to drop all charges against Omari.

In a phone call with his editors following his release, Omari said: “It is clear that certain parties want to obstruct Al-Jazeera’s coverage of events.” Al-Jazeera stressed that Omari’s release was subject to payment of bail.

Also:

Al Omari was first detained Sunday night in the northern Israeli city of Haifa. He was released several hours later.

Rosenfeld said Al Omari, his cameraman, and an assistant were questioned Sunday about footage they took after dozens of Hezbollah rockets landed on Haifa, killing eight Israelis in the guerrilla group's deadliest ever attack on
Israel.

Israeli authorities and local media have accused the Qatar-based satellite station of showing sensitive security locations that could be used by Hezbollah to pinpoint targets for an attack.

Al-Jazeera has denied the allegations.

After his release Sunday, Al Omari headed north to the Lebanese-Israeli border — the scene of fierce fighting between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerillas for six days. There he was detained a second time.

"The only difference between us and the rest (of the journalists) is that there are people who want to make it difficult for us to do our work after all the incitement against us. I have no other explanation," Al Omari told Israel Radio as he was being taken into custody.

Note that the Arabic-language satellite news channel is available in Israel.

Unlike in Canada.

Oh my Gawd, they've killed irony!

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

A couple of professors at East Carolina University have published a 27-page study (pdf here) claiming that young people who watch The Daily Show with John Stewart are more cynical than your average college kid. Here's the Washington Post on the study.

Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris of East Carolina University said previous research found that nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this age group watched "The Daily Show" and only 23 percent of show viewers followed "hard news" programs closely.

To test for a "Daily Effect," Baumgartner and Morris showed video clips of coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates to one group of college students and campaign coverage from "The CBS Evening News" to another group. Then they measured the students' attitudes toward politics, President Bush and the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

The results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media, according to the researchers' article, in the latest issue of American Politics Research.

"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.

Note that they say ''could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls." In fact, they acknowledge that Stewart-watchers are more politically savvy than non-watchers. This is from their conclusion:

Although viewers of The Daily Show have slightly higher levels of political knowledge than nonviewers (National Annenberg Election Survey, 2004), there are some detrimental effects as well. Our findings suggest that exposure to The Daily Show’s brand of political humor influenced young Americans by lowering support for both presidential candidates and increasing cynicism. The experiment results confirmed a causal connection, and the crosssectional survey data illustrated that the relationship holds up outside the experimental setting.

But as Rachel Joy Larris at Tom Paine points out, researchers are never able to prove that watching entertainment causes action. (She also lists a bunch of academic studies on the show.)

Everyone, from politicians to academics, is interested in finding out whether “The Daily Show” is some kind of programming, unique in all of cable television, that is both funny AND good for you. But showing causality between watching "The Daily Show" and thinking or acting in a certain way is going to be a tough nut to crack. Academics and politicians have been trying to show causal links between entertainment and bad effects in teenagers (violence, increased sex drive, or political apathy) ever since the movies were first invented. I would caution anyone—news media outlets in particular—from making headlines out of any study that purports to show that "The Daily Show" causes its viewers to be anything other than entertained.

The funny thing is, watching Stewart does indeed cause inaction. That's because you're probably prostrate with laughter. Indeed, the profs, contrary to what the right-wing bloggers who have seized upon this study are claiming, are not so sure that watching Jon Stewart is such a bad thing at all.

Alienation could drive the show's watchers away from polls during election, they said. Discontent could also spawn greater involvement.

Another possibility: As "Daily Show" viewers grow more confident in political knowledge — a byproduct of "getting" Stewart's humor — they could become more active voters, Baumgartner said.

"Participation breeds more participation and informed participation" he said. "So that by itself would be a net positive."

Here's Jeff Jarvis' bang-on take, ever so-slightly edited for a family blog such as mine:

Could it just be that the mainstream press protects the mainstream political structure and when Jon Stewart calls bullsh*t on both camps, he’s telling the truth that others dare not tell? And could it just be that he’s not making a joke of politics; politics already is a joke?

Not to mention what a joke the U.S. cable news nets, and the Sunday morning partisan talk shows, can be. But hey, the rightwingdingosphere is just jumping all over this because they know how subversive Stewart (and his spin-off Stephen Colbert) can be.

Meanwhile, Fox News channel is working on its own -- read ''conservative'' -- version of the Daily Show.

... (Laura) Ingraham's pilot is known as "Watch This Right Now." The tipster calls it "an absolutely terrible rip off of Daily Show" including a "music and video montage" and "mouth replacement of known news figures." (Huh?) "They want to keep it a secret so they hired all freelance tech people," the tipster adds. "The writers and producers should be embarassed to show this one to Roger."

And I thought Fox News already had enough fake news.

Hat tip to Carlos.

UPPITY DATE (June 26/06): Bill Doskoch wrote to point out that the Star reported on the Jon Stewart study a month ago, well ahead of the Washington Post. Here's some of Bill's take on it from his post on the matter:

Isn't absurd for political scientists to be worried about satirists reducing public trust in politicians when you have giant cock-ups like the -- and I'm phrasing it in the most charitable way possible -- "mistakes" made with the WMDs-in-Iraq file.

Millions of people the world over protested against the invasion of Iraq -- before it even happened. Name a historical precedent to that.

And yet the war went ahead anyway. What lesson did that teach young people about democracy and trust in politicians?

There are many things eroding peoples' trust in politicians and other institutions. I wouldn't put news satirists in my top 100 list of most erosive factors.

Rich bitching

Here's today's treeware column, inspired by last week's Maclean's 11-page cover opus on media baron Ken Thomson's progeny -- a story which, hmmm, I can't find online. (Can anybody help?)

I blogged a little about this last week.

Anyway, the column is a riff on how newspapers are loathe to report on their proprietors, except if it's good news about increased readership or stock dividends.

The only way to control your press is to own it.

That, with apologies to A.J. Liebling, sums up the situation in Canada, where our family compact of media moguls manages to escape a great deal of the personal scrutiny that typically befalls lesser mortals.

Whether the name is Rogers or Shaw, Thomson (Bell Globemedia) or Asper (CanWest Global), Desmarais (Power Corp.) or Péladeau (Quebecor), trust that they will get mostly no-press-is-good-press treatment of domestic squabbles, drugs, drinking and other vices. (Not to leave out the five families who control the Star, but they're not nearly as colourful or wealthy as the aforementioned clans.)

We rarely report on our own proprietors, not unless they do some do-gooding and pose with giant cheques.

This has been great for Frank magazine, the scurrilous rag that ventures where no reputable papers go. In it, you'll learn of newspaper editors socking their spouses and media owners cheating on their wives. You know, stuff we'd report in a heartbeat on other famous or influential figures — as long as they don't sit on our boards.

But all's fair in a newspaper war.

As brave an effort as the Maclean's piece is, and as the first major take-out on the heirs to the Thomson title it is very brave indeed, it poses a big fat question: How long before we can expect to see the Rogers clan -- which controls Rogers Communications which owns Maclean's -- get such extensive and less than favourable treatment in the pages of Canada's newsweekly?

(Fingers drumming on table, thumbs twidding ...)

Here's what dropped out of the column for lack of space in the paper: Frank magazine, which has been providing all the gory details on the messy divorce battles in the Thomson baronial manours, alleges:

The (Maclean's) story rehashed much of what has been reported in the satirical press, including the fact that David (Thomson) dropped his divorce application on Laurie (Ludwick) Mar. 10, the same day she gave birth to their son, Benjamin, the only male successor to the Thomson throne.

The Maclone's coverage last week drove the Thomson clan underground. Ken, a fixture at Rosedale's Dog Shit Park, had flunkies take care of walkies. Wife Marilyn and daughter Lynne/Taylor, publicity shy at the best of times, dropped off the radar.

That's not completely true. In fact, there was a rare photo of Ken and David Thomson prominently displayed last week in the Globe and Mail's Report on Business Section.

Far more interesting is Frank editor/publisher Michael Bate's contention that something fishy may be going on here. As he said to me in an email:

A week after we wrote about David Thomson dropping divorce papers on Laurie Ludwick on March 10, the documents went missing.

We have been back to the University Ave. court house three times (as recent as May 3) and the file remains empty. Ludwick's response to David, which she filed April 26, has also disappeared (although it is registered electronically.)

I presume the Thomsons would be happy to see the court documents sealed (highly unusual) as they did in the case of the custody battle involving Lynne/Taylor's Thomson's child in 2003.

In the meantime, public documents are no longer public.

Yet another thing that makes me go hmmmmmmm.