Fox Republicans Vs. Non-Fox Republicans

[tytlyf]

Does Fox News Cause Ignorance, or Do Ignorant Viewers Prefer Fox News? A new study reveals the gap between the channel's fans and the rest of America

The Brookings/PRRI report surveyed 1,538 adults focused on immigration reform, but also included questions on their news preferences and a collection of other policy issues. The focus on news preferences allowed the researchers to divide the Republican respondents into two groups: those that most trust Fox News “to provide accurate information about politics and current events” and those that most trust a different network. The former, whom the authors label “Fox News Republicans,” made up 53 percent of Republican respondents. “Non-Fox News Republicans” made up the remaining 47 percent. This was an easy split to make, but for Democrats there was no clear divide on news preferences. Thirty one percent of Democrats most trusted broadcast news stations (ABC, NBC, and CBS) while another 26 percent chose CNN. Smaller percentages chose public television (14 percent), MSNBC (10 percent) and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (9 percent).

This isn't really anything new, but just backs up the fact that Fox shouldn't be used as a source for reporting.
Brookings Survey: Fox News Home of Most Conservative Republicans | New Republic

 

[esmith]

Seems you left a little out of the article. Seems that FNC is the most trusted source of news of all Americans between Broadcast News, CNN, PBS, Daily Show with John Stewart, and MSNBC. Names in order of trust. See Fig 13 in the article. Now I do admit that the viewers on FNC are more conservative; However, you must admit that it is a good business decision to provide a news source that people want to listen to. That is called "good business".

Brookings Survey: Fox News Home of Most Conservative Republicans | New Republic

 

[Sunstone]

Seems you left a little out of the article. Seems that FNC is the most trusted source of news of all Americans between Broadcast News, CNN, PBS, Daily Show with John Stewart, and MSNBC. Names in order of trust. See Fig 13 in the article. Now I do admit that the viewers on FNC are more conservative; However, you must admit that it is a good business decision to provide a news source that people want to listen to. That is called "good business".

Brookings Survey: Fox News Home of Most Conservative Republicans | New Republic

You seem to be confusing "good business" with what's good for the country, esmith.

 

[Sunstone]

Does Fox News Cause Ignorance, or Do Ignorant Viewers Prefer Fox News?

My hunch is that, while it's likely to be a bit of both, people with a predisposition to favor a conservative ideology over facts will be attracted to a network that gives them exactly that.

 

[sun rise]

"Confirmation bias" is a feature of almost everyone. People seek out news that confirms what they believe to be true. Fox (and all the media outlets) make money by providing their customers what they want to "buy".

A lot of people enjoy being fearful and angry - it makes them feel alive. By sensationalizing events, the media satisfies this demand.

As a "recovering news junkie", I'm thinking of myself as well as I write this. Now I find that I can keep track of what is going on with a lot less time including almost zero TV news watching. My personal bias is PBS but I seldom watch even PBS news.

So overall the report that started this thread is to be expected from human nature and how business works.

 

[Sunstone]

"Confirmation bias" is a feature of almost everyone.

It's just a fact of life that some people are significantly better at dealing with confirmation bias than others. I think the reasons for their relative adeptness in dealing with it most likely include their genes, their education, their essential personality, their motivation, their intellectual honesty, and so forth. I know of no one who is entirely free from confirmation bias, but I do know of many people who are much more adept at dealing with it than the average person.

 

[Sunstone]

To me, the most interesting thing about the study cited in the OP is that there are significant differences between FOX viewing Republicans and non-FOX viewing Republicans. Apparently, FOX turns people into reactionaries.

 

[Sunstone]

If the United States had laws against a news organization lying to its viewers, FOX could not exist, but most of the others would probably get by.

 

[sun rise]

It's just a fact of life that some people are significantly better at dealing with confirmation bias than others. I think the reasons for their relative adeptness in dealing with it most likely include their genes, their education, their essential personality, their motivation, their intellectual honesty, and so forth. I know of no one who is entirely free from confirmation bias, but I do know of many people who are much more adept at dealing with it than the average person.

Good point. Knowing about it and being self-reflective to try to spot it is something that too many people don't do.

 

[BSM1]

If the United States had laws against a news organization lying to its viewers, FOX could not exist, but most of the others would probably get by.

I think you are referring to MSNBC. Can you cite one incident where Fox News lied?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think you are referring to MSNBC. Can you cite one incident where Fox News lied?

You can't be serious. There are a few websites out there that track this. Don't get me wrong. MSNBC has its moments not delivering all the information in context. Ed Shultz from time to time leaves info out. While I'm not a fan..I've heard that Maddow will get something wrong and will come back in the same show or the next night and on air and issue a correction.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you are referring to MSNBC. Can you cite one incident where Fox News lied?

I have to assume you're trolling. If not, you can check out Media Matters.

 

[tytlyf]

Seems you left a little out of the article. Seems that FNC is the most trusted source of news of all Americans between Broadcast News, CNN, PBS, Daily Show with John Stewart, and MSNBC. Names in order of trust. See Fig 13 in the article. Now I do admit that the viewers on FNC are more conservative; However, you must admit that it is a good business decision to provide a news source that people want to listen to. That is called "good business".

Brookings Survey: Fox News Home of Most Conservative Republicans | New Republic

But trust isn't equivalent to truth/facts/honest reporting. I know fox likes to demonize MSNBC as their #1 target, but from Fig. 13, you'll see that not even democrats trust them the most. Broadcast news is going to be the best bet for honest reporting without the spin.

 

[esmith]

But trust isn't equivalent to truth/facts/honest reporting. I know fox likes to demonize MSNBC as their #1 target, but from Fig. 13, you'll see that not even democrats trust them the most. Broadcast news is going to be the best bet for honest reporting without the spin.

Only if you report the news not ignore it as broadcast fluff does. Broadcast news has a tendency to ask softball questions and does not follow-up on the interviewee answers. Good example is the interview done by Diane Sawyer with Hillary Clinton. Broadcast news and to some extent the other media sources do not want to embarrass or challenge those that have the same bias as the interviewer. Now as far as your left wing media source, Media Matters for example along with the joke called MSNBC really get their tits-in-a-wringer when they are challenged. For example:
CNN Adopts Flawed Right-Wing Logic On School Shooting Numbers | Blog | Media Matters for America
Even though the data was proved to be totally inaccurate they still insist they are right.

 

[tytlyf]

Only if you report the news not ignore it as broadcast fluff does. Broadcast news has a tendency to ask softball questions and does not follow-up on the interviewee answers. Good example is the interview done by Diane Sawyer with Hillary Clinton. Broadcast news and to some extent the other media sources do not want to embarrass or challenge those that have the same bias as the interviewer. Now as far as your left wing media source, Media Matters for example along with the joke called MSNBC really get their tits-in-a-wringer when they are challenged. For example:
CNN Adopts Flawed Right-Wing Logic On School Shooting Numbers | Blog | Media Matters for America
Even though the data was proved to be totally inaccurate they still insist they are right.

Softball questions? You'd prefer an interview with a fox employee because that would mean hardball questions? Like O'Reilly and Obama on superbowl night?
Who would you suggest to interview Hillary?
Media Matters may be a progressive non-profit, their mission is to find and dissect (fact check) conservative misinformation in the media whether it be fox, cnn, msnbc, etc.. Fox just doesn't like MMFA because they expose them and fact check what they are doing for Americans to see.
You're still under the well trained illusion that all media besides fox is left wing biased. When in reality, it's main stream America. Fox is the new guy on the block, I'd say broadcast news (local news) is where you'll find the least bias.

 

[BSM1]

I have to assume you're trolling. If not, you can check out Media Matters.

This is your best source? Could you not anyone more biased? No wonder you don't smile as much as you could.

 

[Sunstone]

This is your best source? Could you not anyone more biased? No wonder you don't smile as much as you could.

You really are trolling me, aren't you? It's easy for you to accuse Media Matters of bias -- and thus imply they are an unreliable source -- but I notice you seem reluctant to make any effort at backing up those claims with facts. Your notion they are unreliable is just as silly and unfounded as your speculation that I don't smile much. Media Matters seldom gets its facts wrong.

 

[BSM1]

You really are trolling me, aren't you? It's easy for you to accuse Media Matters of bias -- and thus imply they are an unreliable source -- but I notice you seem reluctant to make any effort at backing up those claims with facts. Your notion they are unreliable is just as silly and unfounded as your speculation that I don't smile much. Media Matters seldom gets its facts wrong.

When you make up facts and spin everything out of context of course you appear credible.

 

[Revoltingest]

To me, the most interesting thing about the study cited in the OP is that there are significant differences between FOX viewing Republicans and non-FOX viewing Republicans. Apparently, FOX turns people into reactionaries.

Another explanation is that Fox attracts its audience. My theory is that this & your underlined statement
both play roles. (People are now commonly referring to at as the "echo chamber" effect.) I notice the
same synergy with readers/listeners/viewers of MSNBC, Infowars, NPR, Alternet, Mother Jones, etc.
Diversity in news sources will mitigate the problem.

Btw, if lies would kill a news source, we'd lose NPR, NYT, Mother Jones & Alternet.
We might be left getting our news from the Dilbert cartoon strip.

 

[tytlyf]

Another explanation is that Fox attracts its audience. My theory is that this & your underlined statement
both play roles. (People are now commonly referring to at as the "echo chamber" effect.) I notice the
same synergy with readers/listeners/viewers of MSNBC, Infowars, NPR, Alternet, Mother Jones, etc.
Diversity in news sources will mitigate the problem.

Btw, if lies would kill a news source, we'd lose NPR, NYT, Mother Jones & Alternet.
We might be left getting our news from the Dilbert cartoon strip.

The echo chamber is given to right wing media. It's a well known propaganda technique called 'saturation.'
This fox vs. non-fox republican survey is highlighting the misinformation of fox republicans compared to non-fox republicans. Fox republicans are more misinformed on current issues than non-fox republicans. Non-fox republicans are more in line with America as a whole.
IOW, fox isn't a reliable source.