Survey: BBC and FOX Are Most Trusted TV News Brands In U.S.

200px-bbcsvg180px-Foxnewslogo.svgA survey  by Research Intelligencer by Brand Keys found that BBC, Fox News and PBS are the most-trusted TV news brands in the U.S.  The survey covered over 4,000 news viewers.  It is most interesting that BBC can in first in the United States — a well-deserved distinction for the venerable news organization but a bit of an embarrassment for U.S. media.

BBC came in first with 90 percent of those surveyed.

Fox News and PBS came in second and third with 87 percent and 86 percent respectively.

download-11.jpgNotably, Bloomberg came in fourth with 81 percent and MSNBC came in fifth with 80 percent. They were followed by CBS, NBC, and ABC in that order.  In a blow to CNN, which has a motto as the “most trusted names in news”.  CNN came in 9th at 70 percent and almost tied with Sinclair at 69 percent. CNN has covered the conservative-leaning Sinclair with some tough commentary.

It is extraordinary that the British Broadcasting Corporation can now claim to be the most trusted name in news in the United States.


106 thoughts on “Survey: BBC and FOX Are Most Trusted TV News Brands In U.S.”

  1. It’s a shame on CNN they have cobsistently focused on destroying their president Trump that now they are experiencing boomerang. lol.

  2. Downthread, the little-girl reporter wrote:

    “Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says: August 3, 2018 at 11:21 PM
    To anonymous

    I am beginning to think that you don’t like being BUSTED! But, you could let this be a learnable moment for you.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter”

    More tripe.

    Go hang out in your bunker, Squeeker. And do try to grow up.

  3. Oh, and for anybody interested in Chomsky, there was an article today on Zerohedge, the same article as mentioned below, and here is some other stuff Chomsky had to say. Since this is an old thread here, I will post most of the article, with a link in case you want to watch the videos, or read more:

    “so, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that’s almost a joke.

    First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

    Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done…

    I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015….

    Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to – calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.

    So if you happen to be interested in influence of – foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.

    I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There’s nothing more elementary than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States.

    There’s ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters’ attitudes with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the population, they’re basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent – the rich and the powerful, the corporate sector.

    The elections—Tom Ferguson’s stellar work has demonstrated, very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That’s only one part of it. Lobbyists practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined. Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the society functions.

    So, if you’re concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian hacking.

    And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he’s perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia.

    Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes – Russia shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done.

    But they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better – right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re very close to that.

    Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama.

    The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns.

    So, yes, there’s tensions at the Russian border – and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern.

    The fate of – the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. “Chomsky: Mainstream Media Is ‘Basically a Joke’ Now — And Fox News Is ‘State Media'”

    “The professor has strong words for America’s most popular press operations.”

    By Amy Goodman / Democracy Now!

    “NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, my frank opinion is that — I must say I don’t pay much attention to television, so I don’t know a great deal about it. But, in general, I think the media — first of all, Fox News is, by now, basically a joke. It’s, as you said, state media. The other media, I think, are focusing on issues which are pretty marginal. There are much more serious issues that are being put to the side.”

    1. Only a True Intellectual can say, ” I don’t pay much attention to television, so I don’t know a great deal about it. . . But, in general, I think the media — first of all, Fox News is, by now, basically a joke.”

      In that vein, let me say that “I don’t pay much attention to Noam Chomsky but he is basically a joke.”

      And everybody should take what I say seriously, even though I don’t pay much attention to Noam.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeeky,…
        I was going to say the same thing about Chumpski but you beat me to it.

        1. What was that old saying, “Great minds don’t pay much attention. . .”


          Geeesh! Can you imagine the chutzpah of saying you don’t really know much about something, but you have an opinion people should listen to??? And then some noodlehead like Amy Goodman has the idea it is a quotable statement???

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      2. Squeeky – I have to agree with you, Noam is a joke and a poor joke at that. 😉

    2. From the Amy Goodman interview, linked above

      “But this kind of media activism also just goes to…the issue of Fox News becoming really state media, with — you have the person who supported the sexual harasser Roger Ailes, Bill Shine, now a top aide to President Trump in the White House. That’s gotten little attention. So you have Fox being a mouthpiece for Trump and a place for him to hear what people have to say, and the other networks very much running counter to Trump…”

      So Amy Goodman called it, first.

      “AMY GOODMAN: Well, Barbara L’Italien said a lot there, but she was then cut off, with the shock of the Fox & Friends crew in the morning that they had the wrong Democratic congressional candidate. But this kind of media activism also just goes to the whole issue of the media, Noam Chomsky, the issue of Fox News becoming really state media, with — you have the person who supported the sexual harasser Roger Ailes, Bill Shine, now a top aide to President Trump in the White House. That’s gotten little attention. So you have Fox being a mouthpiece for Trump and a place for him to hear what people have to say, and the other networks very much running counter to Trump, on certain issues, CNN and MSNBC.”

      Chomsky and Goodman are right.

      1. But, but, but Chomsky hasn’t paid much attention to it, sooo why does his opinion matter. Face it, you’re a dingleberry, and when Noam said something that confirmed your own bias, you jumped on it like Gospel, even while the speaker is telling you he doesn’t know what he is talking about. AND, you jumped on it right out in public for everybody to see!

        Your kind of person is what makes up UFO cults, and Creationist Covens, and 9-11 Truthers and Moon Landing Denier Clubs. But not Bigfoot Believers, because Bigfoots really exist.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. @ the little Squeeker — the narcissistic “girl reporter” who will never grow up:

          I knew exactly what was said when I posted it, Squeeker. Many people don’t bother with TV these days, but do catch FOX stories via the internet. He and Amy both know enough about FOX…to be able to call it what it is: “state media.”

          It would be great fun, though, to see you and/or Tommy-boy go head to head with Chomsky and/or Amy Goodman. (There’s a reason that you’re a frequent commenter on Jonathan Turley’s blog as opposed to anyone of any merit in the real world.)

          And here’s something about your ilk — specifically your pal:


          1. Sooo, if you “know exactly what it said”, then you must have intentionally left out the main thrust of what Chomsky said, which is that the Russian Collusion crap is a joke. Funny isn’t it, how you skipped over all that stuff and focused in the minute little “FOX is a joke” stuff.

            Hmmm. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that you wanted to pick and choose out of what he said, and just provide the stuff that confirms your bias while ignoring the rest of what he said, which pretty much supports Trump. Either that, or you are just being a deceptive shill.

            Oh well, not to worry! I posted his Russian Collusion is a joke stuff above sooo that people can get a more accurate picture of what he said.

            I would call you, BUSTED!

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. My god you’re an idiot, Squeeks:

              Squeeker-girl concluded: “…then you must have intentionally left out the main thrust of what Chomsky said, which is that the Russian Collusion crap is a joke.”

              Ah…., no. But keep on jumping to erroneous conclusions. The posting is about which TV news brands are the “most trusted.”

              Go smoke one of your pipe and play with your cats. Don’t burn yourself or get scratched.

              1. Hmmm. Sooo Chomsky says FOX News is a joke, and then he says the other networks coverage of Russian collusion is a joke.

                Gee, everybody loves a good joke! But how come all you could bring yourself to “laugh” about was “FOX News being a joke”, and then punt on “The other media are focusing on the Russian Collusion which is a joke.”

                BOTH are Chomsky calling the media a joke, but you are not an honest purveyor of the news. You only point out one thing he said, which confirms your bias, and then leave out the other stuff, which is just as media-relevant.

                You can call me names, but just face it, you have been BUSTED!

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Rant on, Squeeks.

                  If you want to believe that I’ve “been busted” — then, go for it. It doesn’t make it true.

                  1. Look, I read the Chomsky thing on zerohedge this morning before I got out of bed. That one did not even mention the FOX News boo-boo at all, but started in on the part about the Russian Collusion stuff being a joke and a “marginal” topic for CNN, MSNBC, etc, – all the non FoxNews ones.

                    I don’t know if you read an article that left out the MSM part of his interview. Whatever, Chomsky was not just negative toward FOX, but all the rest, too. Which I think is the larger story. I don’t know if you just stopped reading when you found the FOXNews comment, and got all giddy about it. If so, you ought to just say so. Nobody is perfect.

                    But if you did know the whole story, and only presented the FOXNews part of it, then I think you should probably be asking yourself WHY you did that.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Go blow, Squeeks. And careful about jumping to erroneous conclusions…and those quick leaps… You might not see that cliff.

                2. Squeeky – did he do this as a podcast or was he on one of those horrible networks?

        2. Squeeky – Bigfoot does exist. I know someone who knows someone who knows someone who actually saw Bigfoot. That is proof positive!!!

          1. I believe! I bet there are Thylacenes and Megalodons out there, too. I am thinking about moving to an area where there are supposedly Bigfoots, sooo I will have extra strong locks on my door.

            Plus, I saw you guys had an Apocalyptic Dust Storm in Phoenix. Are you OK???

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky – yes, we are okay. We will be dusting the furniture and washing the car, but all is okay in my area. Other areas really got hit. Mayer got flooded, some homes had roof blown off.

    1. This girl’s argument seems to be that Democrats aren’t nice. And that seems to be Walkaway’s main pitch: ‘Democrats are rude”.

      But what committed Democrat would be swayed by a pitch like that?

      1. Go to that channel on the website, and there are a slew of them. Some are old people who say that the modern Democratic Party is unrecognizable to them.

        And yeah, I think putting on masks and picking up baseball bats to clobber those who don’t agree with you is a tad more than rudeness.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. In any decade there will be voters who vacillate politically. The ‘Undecided’ types who choose their candidates the Sunday before Election Day.

          And I would be willing to bet those ‘Walkaway’ Democrats, if indeed they ‘were’ Democrats, are wishy-washiy in their politics.

          The girl in this video appears wishy-washy. She doesn’t strike me as political. Her opening statement tips us off to that. A lot of people don’t honestly care about politics. Whoever they hang with the Sunday before Election Day will probably decide their vote.

        2. Peter and Squeeky,..
          I’ve only been involved in a few campaigns, all at the local level in a smaller (c.25,000) community.
          One of those campaigns was particularly contentious, and the opposition was particularly aggressive in attacking the group of candidates that we were backing.
          They clearly had the local newspaper on their side, and that support from “the press” went well beyond the editorial page and shaped how “reporting” was done.
          The 2-3 young reporters covering the issue(s) knew damn good and well where the editorial board was at on the issues, and I’d have to say that they were very considerate and respectfull of the editors’ political positions in their reporting.
          There were some other entrenched, established businessmen ….bankers, retail store owners, a large medical clinic, etc…,,that backed the opposition.
          This largely had to do with their relationships….spouses, siblings, etc…….that were incumbents.
          And those incumbents were almost automatically re-elected year after year, often unchallenged.
          This time around was different.
          That’ the background. Well into the campaign, there were a few people involved in our campaign(s) who suggested meeting with the “other side”, the other candidates, for “common ground” and “a better understanding”.
          My position was that these guys have been sh**ing all over our candidates, had the newspaper in their pocket, and had basically come after us with a baseball bat, not an olive branch.
          And you want to “go talk to these people”.
          Ultimately, we decided to take a far more aggressive, uncompromising position under those circumstances.
          Then time for “reaching across the aisle” had long since past, and they had shown absolutely no interest in taking that path.
          There’s a reason why, when one side makes a habit of using words like “deplorables”, Fox News devotees, uneducated, etc. that it tends to backfire.
          That snotty, superior attitude is counterproductive.
          It might be a “feel good” indulgence for those displaying that attitude and making those statements, but it’s one of the dumbest moves politically that I’ve ever seen.
          And aside from the positions taken on the issues, how a side presents it’s views on the issues will have a latge impact on how the other side, and voters, respond.

          1. TN – I saw a comment the other day that made me laugh – some person wrote the only reason to reach across the aisle is to wring a neck =) Seriously, the Liberals consistently fail to do the hard task of introspection and figure out what went wrong. Blaming it on Trump voters allows them to ignore the fact that Left Independents will not come out and vote for the same ol same ol – we don’t want Obama 2.0 which they should have learned last time around. But when faced with any valid critique they just vilify

          2. did my comment disappear? At any rate TN you are spot on. A commenter somewhere else wrote the only reason to reach across the aisle would be to wring a neck which I thought was funny.

            Demonizing Trump voters is pathetic – Dems need to wake up and realize that Independent Lefties are NOT gonna fall in line. We do not want Obama 2.0 Everytime someone criticizes him they are vilified.

            1. Autumn,
              A friend who was our group supporting the candidates was, like me, a movie buff.
              We had both seen The War of the Worlds, a pretty good early 1950s film about Martians invading earth.
              The leading lady’s uncle, a minister, courageously decided on his own to try to discuss peace with the Martians, after the Martians had already wiped out a bunch of humans.
              He was promptly incinerated by the Martians before he had a chance to “talk peace”.
              My friend and I joked that the small conciliatory group who wanted to meet with the opposition, given all that all that had already happened, would probably end up like the minister in the movie.😊

              1. Tom, that “War Of The Worlds” production was my favorite movie in grade school. It played frequently on TV. The special effects were great for ’53.

                Yeah, I know, conservatives love to label liberals as ‘elitists’ throwing ‘snotty labels’ about. But that doesn’t make the so-called ‘Walkaway’ movement credible. We’ll only know if its credible the morning after Election Day this fall.

                1. Peter,
                  Larry Sabato has, overall, an excellent record of predicting election results.
                  I’ll have to check to see if he has updated any Nov. 2018 forecasts.
                  He has actually “nailed it”, right down to the exact number for each party, at least once.
                  ” The Day the Earth Stood Still”, another early 1950s movie, is among my SciFi favorites.
                  “Mars Attacks” is also one of my favorites. I caught that “on the road” when I was in a motel in upstate New York.
                  My girlfriend was in the shower during the first part of the movie; she could hear me laughing in there and was wondering what I was watching.

                  1. Tom Nash – “The Day the Earth Stood Still” is excellent and still holds up. “2001: A Space Odyssey” is the most thoughtful. (The colors, man, the colors). “Star Wars” (Star Wars IV) was the most ground-breaking. “Mars Attacks!” is great fun.

                  2. Tom, Paul, I just read in Wikipedia that “Mars Attacks” was originally a series of trading cards, in the early 1960’s, distributed by Topps, best-know for their baseball cards. The “Mars Attacks” cards depicted scenes of hideous Martians taking over earth and were considered somewhat disturbing for little kids.

                  3. Larry missed the 2016 election completely. He predicted HRC as the Winner. The only person who predicted Trump winning was Ann Coulter.

                    1. Elise,…
                      Yes, Sabato predicted that Hillary would get 322 Electoral voted.
                      I was not aware of Sabato’s forecast when my own expectations were that Hillary would get 320.
                      Trump had to “thread the needle” in so many states, even after sweeping Florida, lOhio, and Pennsylvania that I thought it unlikely that he’d win.
                      States that had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since the 1980s….I think Pennsyvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all in that category……votes narrowly for Trump in 2016.
                      Huffington Post gave Trump a 2% chance of winning; while he was the underdog, he was not a 50-to-1 underdog.
                      Wishful thinking by Huffington Fluff was a poor substitue for realistic analysis.
                      Going forward, I would pay more attention to Sabato over Ann Coulter in their preditions.
                      There was another forecaster who made good on his bet to eat a bug if Hillary lost.
                      Sabato was good-natured about the ribbing he took for being wrong.
                      I don’t think anyone was AS wrong as the Huffington Toast.
                      Despite the shock of the greatest upset since 1948, Trump opponents, like Natacha and others here, bravely accepted the results without whining or complaining.😉😏

      2. Democrats are great at using social media.
        Except when they aren’t, and then, per Cambridge Analytica, its a subject of an invidious right wing conspiracy

  5. Hi All,
    New here..
    Two things:
    1) In the 1970s, congress found that the Central Intelligence Agency was paying (or blackmailing) something like 450 “journalists” in the United States and overseas. Is there any reason to believe it would be otherwise today? As Sharyl Attkisson puts it in the video below, everything you see in the media was placed there on purpose for a specific reason, and it cost them a lot of money. Here:
    2) For very interesting updates and accurate predictions on America’s wars, I have found nothing better than

Comments are closed.