New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry you're right, I am a bit confused because apparently there was no decision to "ban" Fox News per se.

Fox still does seem to run counter to British requirements.

It's not all relative. If you criticize someone and you do not extend an invitation to appear on the show so they have an opportunity to defend themselves, that's a failure to be objective and impartial, no matter how you tilt your head at it. Simple practices such as that should be expected from a "straight" news source no matter what your political beliefs -- unless you're a nihilist and you don't believe objective truth exists, or something.

I see advantages in enforced objectivity & neutrality, but I also see risks - that's a lot of power to grant government. Advocacy journalism
as we have in the US is biased & divisive, but it gives broad coverage & diverse voices to those who cast a wide net. I prefer the latter.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I see advantages in enforced objectivity & neutrality, but I also see risks - that's a lot of power to grant government. Advocacy journalism
as we have in the US is biased & divisive, but it gives broad coverage & diverse voices to those who cast a wide net. I prefer the latter.

I'm inclined to agree with you, I prefer the latter in terms of government enforcement. But, going back to my point earlier, the fact that Fox News does not meet the UK's impartiality standards is one more piece of evidence, in addition to the OP study and the other studies I cited, which supports the conclusion that Fox News misinforms viewers. (In spite of the only slightly right-of-center program they used to have with Brit Hume! )

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm inclined to agree with you, I prefer the latter in terms of government enforcement. But, going back to my point earlier, the fact that Fox News does not meet the UK's impartiality standards is one more piece of evidence, in addition to the OP study and the other studies I cited, which supports the conclusion that Fox News misinforms viewers. (In spite of the only slightly right-of-center program they used to have with Brit Hume! )

I can't argue that Fox doesn't misinform viewers. But I discount the significance of that, since other highly respected sources also misinform.
I also can't quantify the differences, but I see examples of leading viewers astray with NYT, NPR, MSNBC, etc. For the Foxers to obsess over
sins of a single news source, & exclude scrutiny of the others is in itself misleading....a parade of horribles fallacy perhaps. Perhaps even
worse than agenda laden news, is a tendency for voters to get their news from comedy shows such as Colbert, Stewart & SNL. Tina Fey's
influence does us no service.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just to tell you off the bat (as someone who will be conducting research). This study proves absolutely nothing (by scientific standards) because it is quasi-experimental (not an experiment). It consists of polling and therefore carries little, if any, weight. And, I say this as someone who personally hates Fox news.

This particular study is called a correlation study. There are many aspects of psychology that are conducted on a correlation study basis, such as how religion effects one's approach to end of life issues, because there are many groups that you can't randomly assign people to. Studies looking at age even have their own special category because you can't randomly assign that one either.
Now correlation studies are never taken for hard evidence, but more of a trend in behavior in certain groups, but they are still used to gather data.

 

[Alceste]

I can't argue that Fox doesn't misinform viewers. But I discount the significance of that, since other highly respected sources also misinform.
I also can't quantify the differences...

Oh, but you can. This study attempted to do exactly that - quantify the differences. And it determined that Fox viewers were the most misinformed of viewers of any other network studied.

Haven't you read it yet?

... but I see examples of leading viewers astray with NYT, NPR, MSNBC, etc. For the Foxers to obsess over
sins of a single news source, & exclude scrutiny of the others is in itself misleading....a parade of horribles fallacy perhaps. Perhaps even
worse than agenda laden news, is a tendency for voters to get their news from comedy shows such as Colbert, Stewart & SNL. Tina Fey's
influence does us no service.

If you would like to critique the study's methodology or conclusions, please be specific. One anecdotal example of MSNBC or PBS misinforming viewers doesn't discount the study's overall finding that Fox is by far the worst of the bunch, or the findings of the numerous other studies Spinkles has linked to.

FYI, one such study found that regular viewers of Stewart's Daily Show were FAR more accurately informed than regular Fox viewers. Jon Stewart himself is appalled by that, as well he should be, seeing as his is a COMEDY show.

 

[Requia]

The study did not find that Fox was 'worst' You will not find the writers saying that, at all.

 

[Alceste]

The study did not find that Fox was 'worst' You will not find the writers saying that, at all.

They didn't find it was the 'worst', they found it was the worst. (Note how the lack of quotation marks indicates I am not quoting verbatim). Here's how they put it, verbatim:

In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

• most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• the economy is getting worse (26 points)
• most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

That's followed by a single instance of misinformation advanced by MSNBC (to a far lesser degree, statistically speaking) and a single instance of misinformation advanced by TV networks in general (again to a lesser degree).

To me, that sure as hell looks like Fox is the worst, at least as far as this study is concerned. The numbers are all there for you to review and comment on.

 

[Christian Gnosis]

Well what can we say friends? Fox News= garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

Namaste

 

[dust1n]

I firmly don't believe any news service is unbiased.

I don't like this sentence. It suggests that any news service is the same in its bias. A news organization that has the interest in telling the truth about one thing and not another is not going to have similar goals as any other news organization.

NPR is alright, especially for the car radio, but really the best solution is to read multiple media outlets on whatever it is you are trying to find out about.

A good stiff drink might help as well.

No doubt.

 

[dust1n]

Of course, Fox is biased. So is WaPo, HufPo, NYT, NPR, MSNBC, ABC, etc, etc. The real danger is when one has faith in
the illusion that their own sources are "neutral & objective".

And perhaps even more dangerous when you ignore the gray area between 'bias/truth'. Does it not occur to anyone that a news organization might be biased to tell the truth? Seeing how it is likely to increase readership, or what not.

They will yelp, whine, stamp their feet, & rage at those who
don't share their singular obvious truth. This disorder can afflict any of us, regardless of political orientation.

Sure. Anyone who takes that much of faith in anything sucks.

The symptoms?
An excess of certainty, demonizing the opposition, & endless citing of carefully culled "facts" validating their faith.

True and dandy, but what does this have to do with the OP?

 

[dust1n]

Your linked article doesn't say that Fox was banned....only Med TV.

Here is an interesting read about bias in news....
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

"The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found."

"Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist."

The above underlining is mine.

Centrist to me seems to be about as close to the 'truth/untruth ratio' and the 'truth/convenient truth ratio'. Centrist just implies that it lies in between partisan ties. I fail to see the world on a lie, especially consider most countries in this world do not have a 'two party system'.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, but you can. This study attempted to do exactly that - quantify the differences. And it determined that Fox viewers were the most misinformed of viewers of any other network studied.
Haven't you read it yet?

I perused it. I'm unimpressed.

If you would like to critique the study's methodology or conclusions, please be specific. One anecdotal example of MSNBC or PBS misinforming viewers doesn't discount the study's overall finding that Fox is by far the worst of the bunch, or the findings of the numerous other studies Spinkles has linked to.

You certainly attach great importance to a single study which happens to confirm your Foxphobia.

FYI, one such study found that regular viewers of Stewart's Daily Show were FAR more accurately informed than regular Fox viewers. Jon Stewart himself is appalled by that, as well he should be, seeing as his is a COMEDY show.

All studies are agenda laden. They only take on meaning when part of meta-studies. I'm no stranger to academic studies, & have learned to distrust them.
Going by my experience, I find that those who decry Fox the most, will hold some pretty loopy views about economics, conspiracies, politics & human nature.

 

[Revoltingest]

Centrist to me seems to be about as close to the 'truth/untruth ratio' and the 'truth/convenient truth ratio'. Centrist just implies that it lies in between partisan ties. I fail to see the world on a lie, especially consider most countries in this world do not have a 'two party system'.

Centrism isn't "truth".
In the case of The Drudge Report, centrism is the result of it's showing a wide variety of sources or many persuasions.

 

[Skeptisch]

And it determined that Fox viewers were the most misinformed of viewers of any other network studied.

It seems that Fox News, more that any other American news network, presents its news as if scientific truth did not exist. That Glenn Beck character should be an insult to any human being who believes in reason.

 

[dust1n]

Centrism isn't "truth".
In the case of The Drudge Report, centrism is the result of it's showing a wide variety of sources or many persuasions.

Not familiar with that definition of centrism.

 

[dust1n]

[youtube]NXbCwq4ewBU[/youtube]
YouTube - Rap News 5: Wikileaks & the war on journalism (ft. Julian Assange)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Beautiful

 

[Alceste]

I perused it. I'm unimpressed.

You certainly attach great importance to a single study which happens to confirm your Foxphobia.

You certainly seem determined to ignore the fact I have read several such studies, all of which reach the same or similar conclusions, and no studies that reach any other conclusion. I've mentioned it in this very thread. Links were provided. No links were provided to counter-evidence by any of Fox's valiant champions.

Anything but admit that contempt for Fox is quite rational and justifiable given the weight of empirical evidence against them, I suppose.

All studies are agenda laden. They only take on meaning when part of meta-studies. I'm no stranger to academic studies, & have learned to distrust them.

lol - I'm not surprised, since your political views are of the ilk that are quite dangerously threatened by any flicker of empiricism or rationality.

Going by my experience, I find that those who decry Fox the most, will hold some pretty loopy views about economics, conspiracies, politics & human nature.

Loopy according to who, or what? You don't believe in facts and you believe all studies are "agenda-driven". Anything goes in a world like that. No opinion is any loopier than any other.

 

[Requia]

All studies are agenda laden. They only take on meaning when part of meta-studies. I'm no stranger to academic studies, & have learned to distrust them.

Meta-studies are the worst of the lot actually.

If you would like to critique the study's methodology or conclusions, please be specific. One anecdotal example of MSNBC or PBS misinforming viewers doesn't discount the study's overall finding that Fox is by far the worst of the bunch, or the findings of the numerous other studies Spinkles has linked to.

I did this, very specifically. You ignored me and continued to spout off the same nonsense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Meta-studies are the worst of the lot actually.

I disagree, since they can examine variability of individual studies,
determine confidence levels, & suggest where further work is needed.

I did this, very specifically. You ignored me and continued to spout off the same nonsense.

You are responding to someone else's post...not mine.
It would be good to make that clear by showing whom you're quoting.