POLL: People respect O'Reilly and Stewart, negative to Limbaugh and Olbermann.

The results of the George Washington U poll about the media and elections. (PDF)

As I see it, the most interesting question involves the perception of political commentators. Bill O'Reilly has a net positive rating (positive influence minus negative influence) of +17. Jon Stewart has the second-highest net positive at +12. Among people who are familiar with the broadcasters, Jon Stewart's +/-ratio is about identical to O'Reilly's, but Stewart's overall score suffers from the fact that 34% of the people polled never heard of the guy.

On the other end of the scale, Rush Limbaugh is the worst at -16 and Keith Olbermann is second-worst at -2. (Limbaugh is therefore lowest by a wide, wide margin.)

Note that there does not seem to be much bias toward the political positions of the individuals, O'Reilly and Stewart are on opposite sides of the spectrum, as are Limbaugh and Olbermann. But the key element, as I see it, is that O'Reilly and Stewart are not radicals and will take hard shots at their own sides, or even cross over the line from time to time. Limbaugh and Olbermann are more or less intractable radical ideologues.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe people just think Olbermann and Limbaugh are obnoxious while O'Reilly and Stewart have some charm.

The other interesting question involves which sources people turn to for election news. The shock to me is that, in response to "do you use this source," the big three broadcast networks finish fifth! The most pervasive source is cable news, followed by friends and family, local TV, then newspapers, and finally the ABC/CBS/NBC triumvirate. They're running behind newspapers, as badly as that industry is sinking? I reckon the memory of Ed Murrow and Cronkite has all but faded.