Some fascinating results from a ConservativeHome survey on the impact of different media platforms were published at the end of last week.

Respondents were asked to rate the impact of the various platforms from a politician's point of view.

The survey states that it did deliberately did not define 'impact', and the results are based on self-selecting responses from readers of the site rather than the public as a whole.

Nevertheless the figures offer an interesting insight on impact or perceived impact of the different ways politics is covered in the press. After all, the platform on which inaccurate information is aired will could have an determine how influential such information proves to be.

The findings are published in full on ConservativeHome, but the top ten is as follows.

1. Prime 7.50am or 8.10am slots on Radio 4's Today programme: 7.44

2. Significant mention on BBC1's Six or Ten O'Clock News: 7.30

3. Panel member of BBC1's Question Time: 7.28

4. Front page story in a national Sunday newspaper: 7.17

5. Front page story in a national daily newspaper: 7.16

6. Interview on Sunday morning's Andrew Marr show: 6.69

7. Significant mention on one of ITN's evening news bulletins: 6.65

8. Prominent story inside a national Sunday newspaper: 6.60

9. Prominent story inside a national daily newspaper: 6.57

10. Any slot on the Today programme: 6.41

It is interesting to note that just over half of them are broadcast platforms rather than print. The problem being if an interviewee on say Andrew Marr, or the Today Programme makes a claim that is inaccurate, there is not the equivalent of a printed correction.

At the moment it is up to the interviewer to be across the facts enough to challenge whoever it is talking, such as when Today's Evan Davis, followed up our factcheck to challenge Unite leader Len Mcluskey on his deficit figures.

Of course, this doesn't always happen, and a suitable way for broadcasters to correct errors made by presenters, reporters and interviewees needs to be found.

Likewise, from a corrections point of view, half of the outlets in the top ten are BBC platforms, where the complaints process was recently described by a House of Lords Committee as "convoluted and overly complicated".

But in addition to 'impact' another aspect aspect to consider is how much people trust the information they get from these outlets and others.

As with impact the BBC has quite a strong showing in this research as well.

A 2008 survey carried out by the Ipsos-Mori for the BBC found the following about how much people trusted their regular TV channel or radio station to tell the truth.





In addition the survey asked the same question for how far people trusted the newspaper that they were recorded as having read in the previous two weeks.



The significance of this being that being trusted to tell the truth doesn't equate to accurate reporting. While one could hope that those at the top of the tables are trusted because they have earned it, it also means that when a report is inaccurate the claim could be more likely to be accepted.

Similarly, while people dismiss some of the newspapers at the lower end of this trust scale, such papers are still trusted by a significant proportion of their readership, if not overall majorities

Meaning that while expectations might be lower, accuracy standards should still remain high, whatever the platform.