It all depends, many times the analysis is implied in the way the facts are said or presented. A drastic example of this is the well known "Bridge to Nowhere" that everyone was up in arms over a few years ago. What the bridge actual was supposed to be was a road connection to an airport located on an island (currently only via ferry) tall enough to all cargo and cruise ship under it.

Personally I tend to need to see facts in multiple place before I feel comfortable with them and even then the analysis to me can be suspect. Also I compare what the news sources in my country (USA) are saying on events compared to other countries. In addition to the domestic news sites, I tend to keep an eye on news.bbc, france24, china daily, and the likes.

the hypodermic needle model (HNM) (slave of the media) while popular and sometimes possible in countries with only a central news station (north Korea) research has suggested that the news can only affect people in subtle ways.


The (HNM) theory, espoused by Lasswell, is that the media injects ideas and beliefs into one’s mind, not unlike a hypodermic needle. Once the information is injected, there’s little that can be done to combat the ideas, the media has taken control (Pooley 2006).


In contrast, Laarfeld et al. found that the media had little effect on viewers, instead believing that the media only reinforced pre-existing beliefs. This is the self-selection model, of the information retention. That people self-select which information to take in, choosing only to receive information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs (Pooley 2006).


Self-selection is related to how the media actually impacts the publics, it introduces concepts and ideas to the public that they can reject or accept. It is not how people are “manipulated” by the media that demonstrates the effects of the media, but rather how they choose to believe certain information. This is clearly demonstrated in the “Cultivation” model (Pooley 2006 Iyengar and Kinder 1987).


Gerbner’s cultivation model suggests that exposure to the media can alter how people perceive reality. People have a limited sphere of experience to draw upon and they fill in the gaps with accounts from differing sources. Not everyone has friends who can discuss how the Canadian criminal justice system, or British elections, or condition of the Brazilian rainforest, so they turn to the media (Pooley 2006 Iyengar and Kinder 1987).


Heavy exposure to information about a subject cultivates belief in said subject. An example would be the elderly’s perception of their safety in the world. As the media exaggerate the dangers the elderly face in the world, the more the elderly are inundated by these messages, the more likely they are to believe them (Bartels 1993 Pooley 2006).


This creates a distorted view of reality, that the world is far more dangerous for the elderly than is the reality. Under the perception of this new reality, people live their lives, making assumptions about the world that simply does not hold true, but they don’t have any other way of knowing. The exception to this use of the media is if there is preexisting knowledge (Bartels 1993 Pooley 2006).


As explained, the media only fills in blanks; it does not superimpose itself over actual knowledge of the world. An example would be if the media bombarded a public with the perception that a city had an inordinately high crime rate. If the public had extensive preexisting knowledge of this city and knew the reports to be true, it would choose not to select the media messages regarding the city. Media messages can only change weakly held perceptions (Bartels 1993).

You are right EvilHomer, it depends.

In my case I become un able to believe or trust any political news because all news channels here at MiddleEast have hidden agendas that belong to different ploitical sides. Last year we have a contradictory news for same news here at Middle East.

It really depends..

I mostly get my news from yahoo and John Stewart. Which is sad, I know. When I hear something crazy or provocative that someone *else* has gotten from the TV, I do my best to research it--not always an easy task! It's difficult to suss out who is trustworthy these days.

I'm not sure I understand one of the poll options... Why would I accept the conclusion and analysis of news that I find suspect?

I am a Canadian living in China. Before China I work for the government with airports during 9/11.

My opinions of the media are somewhat... different.

I wrote this on a blog where the poster was talking about a news report asking basically the same type of question you are.

I am glad you mentioned “angle” and this is something that really bursts my bubble. I hate media and the way that they “make a stand” against everything and everything. That they no longer (or if they ever did) have any morals or ethics of any kind is a huge issue. They spin a story how they want it told, to get societies knickers in a twist and angry, upset, up in arms, demanding retribution, all giving a collective sigh you name it at whatever they think needs it at any given time.

They make the public beleive that what is going on in celebrities lives is more important than the actual state of affairs in the world. They spin a story to get a story sold rather than actually reporting the news. In fact, I do feel that all news station tag lines should be, “giving you the news the way we see it; not the way it is”. And then! They wonder why society seems “depressed”… tisk tisk tisk shame on them.

And… since I am already rambling, the way Western society views China really irks me. Ever notice that those that don’t like something complain the loudest and everyone seems to hear it? Yet when someone praises something or other, no one hears it? And then as soon as someone (internationally) complains or criticises the way American’s does things American’s seem to get up in arms about it. And then get nasty the way many countries have a stereotype regarding Americans.

It seems as if the news these days are attempting their very own hate crimes, but yet no one seems to see it.

Grr! Yes. My knickers are in a twist.

One thing I do have to say at the moment in the media here in China, the people are no longer as blindly following what the media says about situations in China. They are calling for better investigations and public knowledge of some of the corruption and bribes that occur. It seems as if the people are beginning to stand up too (SLOWLY) to powers that be and not backing down.

But this being said... because my internet is now open and I can see all the news reports, when I ask about something happening in China... many do not know about it till weeks later.

When it comes to the media, everybody lies. But they are not always aware that they are not telling the truth. They are telling their side, and not both sides from an impartial view point. When it comes to re-telling a story, we do not always tell the truth because we are telling it from our point of view. Does this make sense?

History is the same way, it's told by the victors and the losers have a very different opinion on what happened.

I either ignore all media, or read it with a grain of salt then read the other side of the fence and make my own conclusion.

It depends on the article. If it looks straightforward enough I'll accept it. If it's extensive then I'll look up other sources to corroborate it. I only accept conclusions from sources I know to be non-biased.

Depends on the source. I'll be entertained by Jon Stewert, but prefer to be informed by the BBC and NPR.

I prefer to stay away from most news media outlets for the very reason that everyone has to analyze it and twist it. I like the absolute facts and there's not many places that offer that.