Regarding the sources you provided links to, I thought we were talking about Australia and not New Zealand or the UK – both substantially different markets and cultures. Why not make comparisons to Zimbabwe – I hear politicians rate well there … or else!

I also notice that the NZ source is that well-respected bastion of research – Reader’s Digest – no methodology, sample size or actual data provided. Talk about laughter being the best medicine! At least for the UK, Ipsos Mori is a resepected research company, with a sample sie of n=1981 (vs. Morgan’s phone poll of n=687).

Further, I notice neither of the other sources reported on where advertising professionals rate. Maybe the headline should read “Journalists trusted 50% more than advertising people” … and I think various comments posted here would go a long way to explain why. As a researcher one learns to park one’s preconceptions and not hunt for or fabricate the data to support your own case.

Finally for the record, I am NOT trying to defend the integrity of journalists, but merely reporting the latest Australian data to hand without qualification or interpretation, as is my professional and ethical responsibility as a member (and Qualified Practicing Market Researcher) of the Australian Market and Social Research Society. And no, I do not work for Morgan and I have never worked for Morgan.

Here they’re almost in a dead-heat in last place with politicians:
http://www.marketresearchworld.....;Itemid=77

Can’t find the one I’m thinking of atm…

“The fact that for *decades* journalists have been ranked below used-car salesmen for “trustworthiness” entirely escapes their notice.”

Can we be as ruthless and harsh on your lack of checking out real data before making a general claim

BTW cheers John for the Chris Anderson hook up. Whoa … he takes douche to a new level.

Headline to read “Journalists marginally more trustworthy than used car salesmen and advertising people” … in the interests of getting the facts and the balance right … and we have a deal.

Let’s revise the headline: “Journalists marginally more trustworthy than used car salesmen.” Doesn’t sound any better to me.

June 2009 Morgan data on the Image of Professions. Last is ‘car salesmen’ = 3% (rated high or very high). Second last is ‘advertising people’ = 6%. Third last is ‘newspaper journalists’ = 9%. Last time I checked 9% was higher than 3% – so much for fact-checking.

Also, looking at the data since 1979, used-car salesmen have NEVER rated higher than journalists. As a matter of fact for the 28 years of data I have, there are only 7 instances where journalists failed to rate higher than advertising people. Pot … meet the black kettle.

And if you REALLY want to see arrogance redfined, do a search for Chris Anderson’s (Wired’s editor – as reported by Henry Blodget in Silicon Valley Insider’s ‘The Business Insider’) interview with Jim Spiegel to discuss the media world, in which Spiegel refuses to even use the words ‘journalist’, ‘news’ or ‘media’. Quite hysterical really – apart from the fact the apparently Spiegel was serious!

The fact that for *decades* journalists have been ranked below used-car salesmen for “trustworthiness” entirely escapes their notice. They have this puffed-up view of themselves as upholders of truth and freedom as if they’re some kind of Superman figure. But the public do not like and do not trust the media.

And if News Ltd really believes it’s fair to pay for content, perhaps they might like to start paying all their so-called “interns” who keep their online operations going.

And start paying the public for their pictures and videos.

And Ben … very nice!

Yes, the text of the speech was provided (although I still should have amended that for the right version of principle). I won’t change it in the above though, as your comment would then be a bit confusing for anyone who arrives later…

Cheers,

Tim