New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Alceste]

Once again, since this is entirely untestable, it's a faith based argument.
Some things are more testable.
Print fiat currency, & money goes down in value.
Borrow money, & your debt service increases.
Tax people more, & they spend less.

Once again, the "fact" in question is whether or not most experts agree that the stimulus package created jobs.

Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com

Whether or not you think these experts are simply wasting their time trying to assess the impact of this or that fiscal policy is a topic for another thread. The study only concerns itself with whether or not the easily verified factual claim that "most experts agree" the stimulus created jobs is true or false.

 

[Alceste]

I think the most interesting thing about the study is the finding that the more you watch Fox, the more likely you are to be misinformed about certain things.

Yes, that is interesting. Not surprising, though. The entire aim of any propaganda outfit is to misinform the public by the organized repetition of carefully constructed falsehoods. The professionals understand it still works even if we know we're being hoodwinked. This study is a good example - most respondents knew they had been repeatedly exposed to misinformation, but still their personal opinions were for the most part closely aligned with those espoused by their network of choice.

 

[.lava]

Spot on! It's absolutely amazing more folks don't see this kind of "survey porn" for what it is: A blatant attempt to discredit our nation's most well informed news consumers and make them look like idiots for choosing Fox.

if that would be the case then may i ask who owns this study and who offers money for it to be done

.

 

[gnomon]

One thing to consider is this:

If people who admit to watching a particular news source almost always is the news source actually reporting a bit of news to lead those viewers to develop that opinion. Most likely they are but if the people who watch FOX news almost always state that they think the stimulus plan did not create jobs was that the way FOX was reporting. As well, if people who almost always use NPR or MSNBC as a source believe that foreign money was being used to finance Republicans were those organizations actually reporting it that way.

Most likely but it questions whether people are reporting what they believe because of what they gleaned from their news source or are they responding based on what they believe despite the news source. I think people in the latter group would be worse because those are the ones who, like young earth creationists, have strongly misinformed opinions and watch a particular news source based on their own bias. I think that the former is more likely. But I don't have the constitution to attempt tracking down mentions from any news source on such a thing.

On a slightly related note a few stories came out about Hinkley, California. One, from primary right wing or libertarian sites, were about the cancer rates in Hinkley. They noted that a number of epidemiological studies showed no increase in cancer rates despite projected increases that were an issue in a 1995 legal case against PG&E. Another highlighted the person who was made famous over the case. Erin Brokovich was highlighted in another news story this last week returning to Hinkley over the same issue involving PG&E. The latter story was reported by NPR.

So people who listen to NPR will be under the impression that the threat was tangible and that there are continuing problems while readers of the other sites will be under the impression that the threat was overblown. So was the case one of the people winning against an uncaring corporation who put all their lives at risk, one in which an ambitious researcher (not a lawyer) and a legal team won a settlement with questionable tactics or somewhere in between the two?

 

[gnomon]

Yes, that is interesting. Not surprising, though. The entire aim of any propaganda outfit is to misinform the public by the organized repetition of carefully constructed falsehoods. The professionals understand it still works even if we know we're being hoodwinked. This study is a good example - most respondents knew they had been repeatedly exposed to misinformation, but still their personal opinions were for the most part closely aligned with those espoused by their network of choice.

I submit that one thing this survey reveals is that no matter anyone's particular bias when it comes to understanding important issues the majority of people are uninformed by the news as well as the inability or lack of desire to educate themselves.

Take, for example, this argument in the thread over the stimulus and job creation. The CBO is relying on economic expert opinion. Back in 1998 and 1999 Congress relied on expert economic opinion regarding derivatives. A small regulatory group, led by Brooksley Born, said otherwise. The majority opinion was obviously wrong. For people like me, who are woefully uneducated on these economic issues and couldn't even begin to tell someone else what a financial derivative is with any confidence, the issue is just way over our heads. We merely have to trust them. I don't have a poor opinion of the CBO but I do know in regards to one of the other questions on the survey, the one about the current health care plan reducing the deficit by some 100+ billion dollars or whatever the latest estimate may be relies on a different method of formulating the future costs of the plan than they used in 1994 under what was called Hillarycare. Of course, I may be misinformed from the sources I'm relying on.

It's at this point the average citizen says to hell with it and turns on Dancing with the Stars.

 

[Kathryn]

So long as you merely offer an opinion without any effort to substantiate that opinion, as you have done here Kathryn, you are merely talking out the wazoo.

I already substantiated my take on it in an earlier, lengthy, well researched, and sourced post. Perhaps you missed it. It was chock full of facts.

 

[Alceste]

One thing to consider is this:

If people who admit to watching a particular news source almost always is the news source actually reporting a bit of news to lead those viewers to develop that opinion. Most likely they are but if the people who watch FOX news almost always state that they think the stimulus plan did not create jobs was that the way FOX was reporting. As well, if people who almost always use NPR or MSNBC as a source believe that foreign money was being used to finance Republicans were those organizations actually reporting it that way.

I believe the finding that levels of misinformation significantly increased in a way that directly corresponds to one's amount of exposure to Fox, and that both those who voted Democrat and Republican showed the same increasingly misinformed result with Fox exposure, successfully controls for this question.

If erroneous personal opinions were being maintained despite the news, it shouldn't make any difference how much news one watches, or which network.

Most likely but it questions whether people are reporting what they believe because of what they gleaned from their news source or are they responding based on what they believe despite the news source. I think people in the latter group would be worse because those are the ones who, like young earth creationists, have strongly misinformed opinions and watch a particular news source based on their own bias. I think that the former is more likely. But I don't have the constitution to attempt tracking down mentions from any news source on such a thing.

On a slightly related note a few stories came out about Hinkley, California. One, from primary right wing or libertarian sites, were about the cancer rates in Hinkley. They noted that a number of epidemiological studies showed no increase in cancer rates despite projected increases that were an issue in a 1995 legal case against PG&E. Another highlighted the person who was made famous over the case. Erin Brokovich was highlighted in another news story this last week returning to Hinkley over the same issue involving PG&E. The latter story was reported by NPR.

So people who listen to NPR will be under the impression that the threat was tangible and that there are continuing problems while readers of the other sites will be under the impression that the threat was overblown. So was the case one of the people winning against an uncaring corporation who put all their lives at risk, one in which an ambitious researcher (not a lawyer) and a legal team won a settlement with questionable tactics or somewhere in between the two?

Well, my knee-jerk reaction is that libertarian / free market websites are not reliable sources, as most of them are financed and maintained by the PR industry on behalf of their corporate clients. IOW, they are basically just very sophisticated ads. I don't believe 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest, and I also don't necessarily believe anything the Heritage Foundation claims to be a fact either. OTOH, I'd be happy to look at whatever study they are referencing to determine whether or not it actually says what they claim it does.

 

[Sunstone]

Fox News Executives tacitly agree the study is accurate by refusing to attack it on its merits.

 

[Alceste]

I already substantiated my take on it in an earlier, lengthy, well researched, and sourced post. Perhaps you missed it. It was chock full of facts.

It helps when your facts are related to the question at hand, which is whether or not exposure to Fox appears to cause people to become factually incorrect on a number of important topics, as the study clearly indicates.

If your facts don't have anything to do with that question, you're pretty much wasting your time.

 

[Sunstone]

I already substantiated my take on it in an earlier, lengthy, well researched, and sourced post. Perhaps you missed it. It was chock full of facts.

Did you read Spinkles response to your post? I thought he did a pretty good job taking your position apart, leaving you little or nothing to stand on -- to say nothing of Alceste's point in post #189.

 

[gnomon]

I believe the finding that levels of misinformation significantly increased in a way that directly corresponds to one's amount of exposure to Fox, and that both those who voted Democrat and Republican showed the same increasingly misinformed result with Fox exposure, successfully controls for this question.

If erroneous personal opinions were being maintained despite the news, it shouldn't make any difference how much news one watches, or which network.



Well, my knee-jerk reaction is that libertarian / free market websites are not reliable sources, as most of them are financed and maintained by the PR industry on behalf of their corporate clients. IOW, they are basically just very sophisticated ads. I don't believe 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest, and I also don't necessarily believe anything the Heritage Foundation claims to be a fact either. OTOH, I'd be happy to look at whatever study they are referencing to determine whether or not it actually says what they claim it does.

Scientific studies in the media are always questionable. I remember Ben Goldacre highlighting one media source providing two contradictory views regarding a scientific study within a relatively short time frame. The vaccine/autism debate is a prime example of poor reporting in the media with people such as Oprah and Larry King providing a platform without criticism for people with the most extravagant claims.

 

[Sunstone]

if that would be the case then may i ask who owns this study and who offers money for it to be done

.

Actually, that one was a joke.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You know, every time a study has come out showing that Fox viewers are less well informed than viewers of other news sources, the Fox viewers have ended up squealing that "all news sources are biased" -- and they have done that rather than face up to the fact the study suggests they might be more misinformed than many -- or most -- others in this country. I guess they feel better about themselves that way.

You were right, Sunstone. It's the old shift-the-debate-away-from-the-real-issue tactic.

If the right started distancing themselves from the religious right, would that be a good thing or a bad thing? You may be on to something FH, there are enough Republicans in the Senate to pass the repeal of DADT. Why don't we get real, it seems to me that the bottom line is Congress is all about furthering ones agenda and personal enrichment. The Democrats and Republicans are very much alike, it seems to me there may even be some role reversal going on, but what do I know, I'm suppose to be ignorant and misinformed.

If that were possible, definitely. In the last couple of years, I've had a lot more trouble telling the difference between the Religious Right and the rest of conservatives, because the perception from this side of the field is that they're all in the same camp. True libertarianism, not the libertarianism-in-name-only that has surged in the last two years, is something that I may not agree with economically, but I do agree with it socially.

There's also the consideration that a lot of the questions are BS. What 'most economists' think has no bearing on what actually is. And to expect people to know what most economists think is to expect them to shut their thinking skills off in favor of what the establishment tells them.

But if people whose life purpose is to study and summarize economic issues, who are we to turn for honest analysis? Random Joe? Fox "News"? Many people pick the latter, and it's why we're in the mess we're in with Fox.

Well done for actually reading it before forming an opinion on what it says!

:foryou:

You win the prize.

The size of the sample group is one of my criticisms. In a nation of 30 million +, it's hard to see how under a thousand people can be seen to be representative, even though they were randomly selected.

Our nation has more than 300 million, not 30 million. In any case, if the variance of the sample size's results to the entire population is directly proportional to the sample size's inverse square, then based on the numbers given it is actually a reasonably accurate study.

 

[Kathryn]

It helps when your facts are related to the question at hand, which is whether or not exposure to Fox appears to cause people to become factually incorrect on a number of important topics, as the study clearly indicates.

If your facts don't have anything to do with that question, you're pretty much wasting your time.

Oh, I agree that I'm probably wasting my time, but I've got it to waste this evening, so it's no biggy.

However, my facts were directly related to the OP and the study, and the website that the OP cited. In fact, they were taken directly FROM those sources. So I'd say that my facts were pertinent to the subject at hand.

Now - whether or not you care to discuss the big picture is totally up to you. But that has very little to do with the question of pertinence.

 

[Kathryn]

Did you read Spinkles response to your post? I thought he did a pretty good job taking your position apart, leaving you little or nothing to stand on -- to say nothing of Alceste's point in post #189.

Yes, I've read the entire thread, though I have to admit that I'm becoming bored with it (it's gotten quite repetitive at this point).

I think in spite of the repetition, some good points have been made by several posters.

You and I will probably not see eye to eye on this topic, but it really doesn't matter now, does it? If everyone agreed on everything, this forum would pretty much dissipate.

I read the OP, the article you took it from, the study (in full), much of the website from the organization that sponsored the study, and some biographies of some of the people involved in that organization. I think the study is second-rate - but that's not surprising. Most studies of this nature are. The questions and the scope of the study (number of respondents, for example) were simply not "enough," - on several different levels. Too few questions, and a large portion of them were poorly worded, confusing, and weighted to evoke particular answers. Like I said - this is a common practice when it comes to "studies" of this nature, so I wasn't surprised.

It's OK - I understand your affection for the study. It dovetails nicely with your personal beliefs.

 

[Requia]

But if people whose life purpose is to study and summarize economic issues, who are we to turn for honest analysis? Random Joe? Fox "News"? Many people pick the latter, and it's why we're in the mess we're in with Fox.

Real facts? Talk about what the unemployment numbers have been doing, or how the consumer price index was effected. Talk about how different schools of economics interpret those figures. Hell, just say 'Chicago school economists think X, Keynesian economists think y, and astrologers think z' Really any discussion that involves something *other* than ad populi and appeal to authority is better than talking about what most economists believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

You were right, Sunstone. It's the old shift-the-debate-away-from-the-real-issue tactic.

It's to counter the the old narrowly-focused-argument-where-he-clings-to-the-desperate-hope-for-some-kind-of-insignificant-win-to-make-up-for-Obama's-failure-&-feel-elite-again.

True libertarianism, not the libertarianism-in-name-only that has surged in the last two years....

We had a surge? I never saw it....but, woo hoo!

 

[Requia]

I wouldn't celebrate about that surge Revoltingest, I think he's talking about the teabaggers.

 

[Alceste]

Our nation has more than 300 million, not 30 million. In any case, if the variance of the sample size's results to the entire population is directly proportional to the sample size's inverse square, then based on the numbers given it is actually a reasonably accurate study.

Oh yeah - I always get my zeros mixed up when it gets beyond two or three of them. That's MY nation that has 30,000,000.

 

[Alceste]

Scientific studies in the media are always questionable. I remember Ben Goldacre highlighting one media source providing two contradictory views regarding a scientific study within a relatively short time frame. The vaccine/autism debate is a prime example of poor reporting in the media with people such as Oprah and Larry King providing a platform without criticism for people with the most extravagant claims.

That's why I didn't even bother reading the Alternet article, but went straight to the study itself and read it from beginning to end.