institutions for being biased or inaccurate have been a pretty prominent feature for a pretty long time. and, you know, with president trump kind of being more explicit about attacks on the media and actually even individual reporters, that's only kind of taken a longstanding trendak and made it even more extreme. >> host: one of the things you at as a data point is the president and statements when he said something along the lines of the media is the enemy of the american people. whatlo did you learn from that? >> guest: well, we actually thought we would ask our survey responsibilities whether they literally -- respondents whether they literally believe that statement. so what we found was that 31% -- that's, you know, certainly not by any means, but a substantial minority of americans -- basically endorsed that statement. but again, among trump supporters that figure is about twice as high. >> host: did that surprise you? >> guest: yeah. i mean, that's a pretty extreme statement, you know? so on the one hand, it's troubling to find a substantial number of americans either among trump supporters or in general willing to endorse statements like this. on the other hand, i do suspect that there is some sort of an expressive component to this. you know, if you sort of have some negative feelings about the media or you're sort of annoyed by the media for whatever reason, saying that journalists are an enemy to the people to pollsters might be one way to express that feeling. so it's unclear how many people literally believe it to be true, but it's certainly, it's certainly cause for concern. >> host: you dive into the topic of whether one of your respondents or aou respondent of yours has a high knowledge, medium knowledge or a low knowledge of politics, and then you build some data out of that. what were you looking for, and whatat did you find? >> guest: well, we found that the partisan gaps that i mentioned are actually the most proannounced among both democrats and republicans with the highest levels of knowledge about politics. this is often surprising to people. so, basically, the people with the highest trust and confidence in the press were high knowledge democrats whereas high knowledge republicans have the absolute lowest confidence in the press. actually, lower than republicans with lower levels of knowledge. and so to us, that kind of reinforces this point that it might be elite discourse that is sort of driving a lot of these differentials because it's, of course, the highest knowledge people, the people who are the most attuned to political messages and are paying the most attention to debates in the media and who are actually tuning into the media the most who are kind t of picking up on these messages. and sowh if you're a high knowledge republican, you're actually getting pretty constant communications from both elected officials and from media personalities that the mainstream media is not to be rusted. >> host: andrew guess, one ofat the things you do look at at least in part is where people get their news. you highlight huffington post, you highlight fox news. what do you learn from that, and what were you looking for as far as news new sources? >> >> guest: well, those are just two examples, but they sort of illustrate a pattern that we found which is that partisans tend to overreport that their use of partisan-leaning news sources -- and this is compared to what we actually observe because we are clerk aring data on the -- collecting data on the web sites people use to actually inform themselves about news and information online. so, for example, democrats are going to be more willing to tell us that they used the huffington post for news and information than they actually visit according to our behavioral data. and then republicans are actually more likely to report using fox news than they actually do. so these partisan differentials in, say, visiting huffington post or fox news definitely exist. but even beyond that there's this sort of desire to affirm yourself as ad good democrat or a good republican, as someone who visits the huffington post or fox news regularly. so what that means is that when wesk ask people where they go to get their news about politics, we actually come away with a more skewed picture than there actually is. >> host: the poynter institute, sponsor of this survey of news, particularly how republicans and democrats look at it, poynter.org is where you can find it, professor guess, thanks for your time this morning. >> guest: my pleasure, thank you. >> and we have this for you from the hill a bit earlier today. the supreme court today wrestled with a controversial case centered on whether a colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is protect by the first amendment. the case, which pits freedom of speech and religion against equality, could be pivotal in the fight for civil rights for lgbt americanings. jack phillips, a denver-based cake shop owner, refused to make a decorated cake for a same-sex couple. he argues he can't be forced to make a cake for the wedding of charlie craig and dave mullens due to religious beliefs. read more at thehill.com. attorneys and others from both sides spoke outside the court after the oral argument. >> i'm michael farris, i'm the president and general counsel for alliance defending freedom that defended jack today. the hearing was very lively, the questions were extended, the court session was much longer than the scheduled hour because there was so much interest on all sides of the case. this is the first time in american history where there's a serious consideration of compelling people to deliver a message that's contrary to their beliefs. freedom of speech means the ability to refuse to speak a message you don't agree with and the freedom to speak includes the context where other people might be offended. we recognize that on each side of this question people are going to be offended. if being offended was enough to curtail someone else's religious freedom or their freedom of speech, this would no longer be same country that was founded over 200 years ago. because the essence of america has been for a long time i may disagree with everything you say, but i will defend to your death the right to say it. in this case, it's even worse. people should be defending to the death the right to refuse to engage in speech that violates core reand political -- religious and political convictions.

Related Keywords

Colorado , United States , Washington , Americans , America , Jack Phillips , Michael Farris , Kristin Wagner , Christian Wagner ,