New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Revoltingest]

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.
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.
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.

Sigh....at least I make you laugh.

 

[Requia]

Sorry, fixed, and Metastudies tend to be heavily manipulated. Its very very easy to discard studies that have the wrong results, or to do what the people in this thread are doing and ignore that the details of the study don't support the data being used that way. There's no way to tell if the metastudy is doing this or not without being an expert in the subject the study is talking about (in which case you've read all the things the metastudy is talking about, and don't need the metastudy).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here's an example of the "fair & balanced" interviews Fox News conducts. First, they unsuccessfully try to humiliate a spokesperson for Greenpeace:
[youtube]QVK96kDAFqs[/youtube]
YouTube - Greenpeace Wipes Away Fox News

Next, Fox News gives Sarah Palin a few polite, softball questions and plenty of time to say whatever she wants, basically this is not an interview but just air-time they give to Palin as damage control, after she had an embarrassing interview with Katie Couric:
[youtube]aIWns9ieUv4[/youtube]
YouTube - Sarah Palin Post Debate Interview

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, fixed, and Metastudies tend to be heavily manipulated. Its very very easy to discard studies that have the wrong results, or to do what the people in this thread are doing and ignore that the details of the study don't support the data being used that way. There's no way to tell if the metastudy is doing this or not without being an expert in the subject the study is talking about (in which case you've read all the things the metastudy is talking about, and don't need the metastudy).

Meta-studies are no more vulnerable to manipulation, either artful or accidental, than individual studies.
But the variability of individual studies can at least be addressed in meta-studies. Example: Surveying
cold fusion work, I can discard the work of the highly qualified (formerly, anyway) Pons & Fleischmann as an "outlier".

 

[Requia]

They are substantially more vulnerable. A regular study tells you all the methods that were used. You can look at the study, determine if the methods were sound, and then decide if the study is useful, and how useful. The only real way to cheat is to fake the data, or lie about methods. A metastudy doesn't have all those details.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are substantially more vulnerable. A regular study tells you all the methods that were used. You can look at the study, determine if the methods were sound, and then decide if the study is useful, and how useful. The only real way to cheat is to fake the data, or lie about methods. A metastudy doesn't have all those details.

A metastudy has the details, ie, the included studies.
Individual studies are regularly faked too.
But it seems we must agree to disagree on this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry, fixed, and Metastudies tend to be heavily manipulated. Its very very easy to discard studies that have the wrong results, or to do what the people in this thread are doing and ignore that the details of the study don't support the data being used that way. There's no way to tell if the metastudy is doing this or not without being an expert in the subject the study is talking about (in which case you've read all the things the metastudy is talking about, and don't need the metastudy).

Okay, but as someone who is currently doing research , I have posted several studies which show Fox News viewers are misinformed, and a bunch of specific examples of Fox News misinformation (splicing in footage from different events to make crowds look larger, etc.) I have not deliberately discarded any studies which showed Fox News viewers no more misinformed than people who use other news sources. I simply have not come across any such studies.

If anyone can provide a study, or a poll, which shows Fox News viewers are generally more informed than consumers of other news sources, or other news sources are more misinformed, by all means post a link. Revoltingest was almost but not quite able to do this: he found that one former news program on FN was centrist. Whooptey-doo.

 

[Requia]

You aren't doing a metastudy, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to what I said.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You aren't doing a metastudy, I fail to see how any of this is relevant.

I'm not disputing your criticism of meta-studies. What I said is relevant to the topic of the thread, Fox News viewers are exceptionally misinformed and studies support this conclusion.

 

[Revoltingest]

....Fox News viewers are exceptionally misinformed and studies support this conclusion.

Is even the "exceptionally" aspect supported in the studies?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Okay, but as someone who is currently doing research , I have posted several studies which show Fox News viewers are misinformed, and a bunch of specific examples of Fox News misinformation (splicing in footage from different events to make crowds look larger, etc.) I have not deliberately discarded any studies which showed Fox News viewers no more misinformed than people who use other news sources. I simply have not come across any such studies.

If anyone can provide a study, or a poll, which shows Fox News viewers are generally more informed than consumers of other news sources, or other news sources are more misinformed, by all means post a link. Revoltingest was almost but not quite able to do this: he found that one former news program on FN was centrist. Whooptey-doo.

But you're asking for FACTS. In favor of a "news" organization with a heavy slant to the Right. That's like asking a fundamentalist to give a rational defense of atheism.

Is even the "exceptionally" aspect supported in the studies?

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you.

 

[Requia]

I'm not disputing your criticism of meta-studies. What I said is relevant to the topic of the thread, Fox News viewers are exceptionally misinformed and studies support this conclusion.

Ok, but that's not what anybody else is talking about either. The question is whether FNC viewers are more or less misinformed than other media viewers. I have yet to see a possible experiment that could even attempt to answer that question, let alone a study conducted along those lines.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you.

Woof!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Revoltingest: yes I think the studies show Fox News viewers are "exceptionally" misinformed but you are free to judge for yourself, I gave links to all the studies and polls.

When 67% of Fox viewers are misinformed about whether there was "clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization", while only 49% of Americans at large were misinformed, and only 16% of the NPR-PBS audience was misinformed, yes I consider that exceptional.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest: yes I think the studies show Fox News viewers are "exceptionally" misinformed but you are free to judge for yourself, I gave links to all the studies and polls.

When 67% of Fox viewers are misinformed about whether there was "clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization", while only 49% of Americans at large were misinformed, and only 16% of the NPR-PBS audience was misinformed, yes I consider that exceptional.

Just asking your opinion. So, Foxers, please spare me the rancor.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ok, but that's not what anybody else is talking about either. The question is whether FNC viewers are more or less misinformed than other media viewers. I have yet to see a possible experiment that could even attempt to answer that question, let alone a study conducted along those lines.

Then you must not have read post #214 and the studies and examples contained therein.

 

[Requia]

Those studies were about Fox News, not about Fox News viewers. You can speculate based on that, but it is only speculation.

 

[Alceste]

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

I must have missed that post. Can you recap briefly where you think they've gone wrong, other than just vaguely suggesting they've manipulated the questions to produce desired "liberal" results?

 

[Alceste]

Is even the "exceptionally" aspect supported in the studies?

Yes, if you had read the study this thread was about you would be acquainted with one such study yourself. There are many.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, if you had read the study this thread was about you would be acquainted with one such study yourself. There are many.

I was interested in what Mr Sprinkles thought, rather than your constructive criticism. Although I appreciate your generosity.