Trouble is - I do not trust CBS!  So why should I trust their poll?

Ratings - they seem to be the real poll.

Good point, but why would they do this if it makes them look bad?

I use to wonder about the stupidity of man.  But it kept me awake at night.  So I cut it out.

Why would Dan Rather used an obviously forged document to try to smear Bush?

Better question is was it a voluntary response survey? If, as I believe it was, it was completely voluntary to respond to, then only those who care will answer, resulting in skewing. In this case it is reasonable to assume that fox fanboys flooded the poll to make their station look good.

Then again I dont really care about any of the "major" news stations so...

Perhaps reading the link might shed some light.

I had looked at the graph before I posted, but it still doesn't change the basic statistics principle that in an entirely voluntary survey, only those who care will respond resulting in skewing towards one station or another. So unless this particular portion of the poll had several people go around to homes throughout the country and force people to answer truthfully, there is no way that it is going to be an entirely accurate assesment of the trustworthyness of any of these stations. However, using the graph they show, without any knowledge of how they acquired the information, I'm inclined to say CNN is far more trustworthy than Fox, simply by comparing the amount of the minorities listed.

I agree with Doc though, that a far better way to measure the "trustworthyness" of any "news" station, you almost have to take into acount the ratings during the news programs (and I mean real news not the opinion bullshit that most networks have).

Actually, that is not what it means at all.  The survey CAN be accurate, but as it is not random, there is no way to statistically tell if it is.  You are correct that this type of survey gets more people that care, than those who do not.  But that is all you can say.  You cannot say that they are not representative of the population as a whole (nor can you say they are).

That is why they are generally not used for any type of policy decision.  Because they are basically incomplete.  To be useful, a second survey would have to be done, scientifically, to determine if the respondents are representative of the over all population and thus an accurate poll.  Which seems kind of ridiculous (and it is) to do 2 surveys to get one result.

I hate to say it but you know what they say about people who assume. You are basically "assuming" and not stating that only Foxnews fanboys would care. I would have to say that if this were true (which you can't prove but only assume) then this would make Foxnews even more likable since the other stations can't get people to care. But then you have to accept that if those who voted cared you can't assume they belong to a single group of people. So while in a way your are correct that this is not accurate, your assumption is just that, an assumption that only foxnews fanboys voted. Which is strange considering you ignored the fact that CNN was on top and you only focused on foxnews which is probably what lead to your assumption as you refused, right off the back, to accept this to be possible most likely (not assumed) because you are prejudice to foxnews

To assume FOX "fanboy's" overloaded the polls to skew the results is pretty far fetched IMO. One can just as easily assume FOX haters chimed in to "discredit" FOX. To be accurate one would have to ask who visits CBS.com more Democrats or Republicans? That demographic alone can skew the results (although you'd think if people were on CBS.com, CBS news would have done better themselves). Doc, hit it with the ratings. Who is going to watch news they believe is BS? Of course I don't watch to listen to people I philosophically agree with, I want investigative reporting, whether the news is good or bad, on all areas of concern. I want to know if someone on the right screws up just as much as I would someone on the left. I just don't care for the hypocrisy now that the shoe is on the other foot. Some outlets are candy coating news, if not skipping pieces entirely.

None of them are trustworthy, in my opinion. They're a business, and all businesses are driven by what the market (viewers/etc) dictates. As it is they bring in entertainment, not news.

That's why I get my news online, and from multiple sources.

~L