New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Danmac]

From "New Study Confirms Fox News Makes Your Stupid":

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.

So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.

In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)​

The study can be found here (.pdf).

Source:

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). 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.

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
​

What do you make of this?

Maybe they should have polled at least one conservative. Personally I get a warm tingling sensation up my leg every time i watch the Factor. The blind man may applaud the blind leader without knowing that he is in a ditch.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hqdZ4AWSaI

 

[Kathryn]

None of which are at all relevant to the question of whether or not "most experts agree" that the economy is growing.

When I reviewed the study in detail, this was the first question I questioned myself - and then as I read more, I realized that a large percentage of the questions posed were worded similarly.

Asking what "most experts" think is an oddly worded, and in my opinion, erroneous, sort of question for a purportedly serious "study" to include.

"Most?" "Experts?" How many is "most?" What's an "expert?" Was there a poll of all who may be experts? And how does one define "expert?" I mean - that right there could be a debate. Did one have to graduate with a doctorate in order to be an expert? Did one have to work for a particular organization or school? Have his/her work published recently? I mean, what is the criteria to be considered an expert, and once that criteria is met, how does one poll those experts in order to come to the conclusion that most of them believe a certain thing? And was this done? If so, I didn't see it in the study.

Therefore, I think the questions which were posed in that manner are poor choices to include in a serious study. Their "experts" seemed to come from a very small group of organizations.

That's akin to a study asking "Do most experts agree that Jesus is the Son of God?" but only pulling pulling the experts from a pool of theologians from the Vatican, College of the Holy Cross, and Salve Regina University. If someone disagrees - they're misinformed - OBVIOUSLY.

 

[Revoltingest]

Asking what "most experts" think is an oddly worded, and in my opinion, erroneous, sort of question for a purportedly serious "study" to include.
"Most?" "Experts?" How many is "most?" What's an "expert?" Was there a poll of all who may be experts? And how does one define "expert?"

It struck me as prevaricating, since the question asks something very specific while inspiring the audience to respond more generally.

Story Time
Back when Carter was prez, Mrs Rev once worked for a public health think tank (the now defunct Institute For The Study Of Human Systems)
in Columbia MD, a bedroom community of DC. (Yes...we're ancient.) They were to do a study for the feds about minority elderly getting their
fair share of some benefit...I forget which one. I recall the drama in her office when they made the unforgivable mistake of reaching the
wrong conclusion. By finding that minority elderly fared well in comparison, they had trouble getting funding again. So when someone pays
the piper, a piper who wants a steady income darn well better play the customer's favorite tunes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Asking what "most experts" think is an oddly worded, and in my opinion, erroneous, sort of question for a purportedly serious "study" to include.

"Most?" "Experts?" How many is "most?" What's an "expert?" Was there a poll of all who may be experts? And how does one define "expert?" I mean - that right there could be a debate.

Totally. I mean, when the U.S. National Acadamies of Science conducts a poll finding that 97% of scientists who study climate agree with the consensus on global warming, what does that even mean? Who is this so-called "National Academies of Science"? What is a "scientist"? What does "97%" mean? This is all so confusing.

That's akin to a study asking "Do most experts agree that Jesus is the Son of God?" but only pulling pulling the experts from a pool of theologians from the Vatican, College of the Holy Cross, and Salve Regina University. If someone disagrees - they're misinformed - OBVIOUSLY.

Yeah I mean, when they ask if "most scientists believe climate change is occurring", are they excluding the sciences of law, politics, language and history? What about cops, i.e. those who study criminal science? Because last time I checked, physicists and chemists aren't the only people who study "science". Obviously, if you exclude all those people and you only include "experts" whose expertise is relevant to climate change, those "experts" are going to agree climate change is occurring. This doesn't prove "most scientists believe climate change is occurring" it just proves the questioner's arrogance and bias.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do "most scientists believe the universe is 14 billion years old"? I can't imagine how we could even begin to know whether or not this statement is true. It's totally subjective.

True, you might go to a physics conference and see hundreds of research posters on the universe being 14 billion years old. But maybe all I see is the guy selling pretzels, next to the bathrooms. It's all in the eyes of the beholder, if you insist one view is "superior" that's just your bias showing. Who are you to say the pretzel guy is not an "expert" in his own way, and that his views on climate change are somehow worthless?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do "most scientists believe the universe is 14 billion years old"? I can't imagine how we could even begin to know whether or not this statement is true. It's totally subjective.

Not totally subjective. One can quantify the age based upon the definition of "universe" & criteria for just what its beginning is.
So if the big bang is starting point, it's rather objective. But this is an arbitrary assumption. A different form of our universe
could've existed beforehand. One must know the limitations of one's theories/models of the physical world. We're often presented
with "facts" without the underlying assumptions & alternatives. Bare facts by themselves are useless. Their value is in understanding
why we consider them factual, understanding their limitations, & understanding how they fit together in the larger scheme of things.
Too many lazy debaters will proffer unquestionable facts as though this alone constructs an argument. This is inadequate.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not totally subjective. One can quantify the age based upon the definition of "universe" & criteria for just what its beginning is.
So if the big bang is starting point, it's rather objective. But this is an arbitrary assumption. A different form of our universe
could've existed beforehand. One must know the limitations of one's theories/models of the physical world. We're often presented
with "facts" without the underlying assumptions & alternatives. Bare facts by themselves are useless. Their value is in understanding
why we consider them factual, understanding their limitations, & understanding how they fit together in the larger scheme of things.
Too many lazy debaters will proffer unquestionable facts as though this alone constructs an argument. This is inadequate.

Let me put it this way: knowing the fact that most physicists believe the universe is 14 billion years old is a necessary condition for having an informed view of the matter. It is not a sufficient condition; but it is necessary.

On the other hand, believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and believing that most scientists agree or opinion is divided evenly on the matter -- these are sufficient grounds to consider that person a complete dunderhead.

The same goes for climate change. If you think climate change is not occurring, and you think most scientists agree with you, well ... you're fundamentally misinformed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me put it this way: knowing the fact that most physicists believe the universe is 14 billion years old is a necessary condition for having an informed view of the matter. It is not a sufficient condition; but it is necessary.

No argument...but to understand is better than to know.

On the other hand, believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and believing that most scientists agree or opinion is divided evenly on the matter -- these are sufficient grounds to consider that person a complete dunderhead.

Again, no argument. But I have many dunderheaded friends whom I don't inform of their condition.

The same goes for climate change. If you think climate change is not occurring, and you think most scientists agree with you, well ... you're fundamentally misinformed.

Dang it....nothing to disagree about.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

to understand is better than to know.

Thanks, Confucius. :bow:

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks, Confucius. :bow:

I got a million of'm.
Tis better to have pecker tracks on one's zipper, than zipper tracks on one's......

On a slightly more serious note, when I was studying engineering, all our tests were open book.
You could bring any textbook or reference materials you want to a test. You didn't need to
remember any facts, since you could look up what you needed. They stressed understanding
the material & being able to apply knowledge. It all seemed so real worldish. Fortunately,
some students still managed to do worse than others, so grades still separated the wheat from
the chaff.

Btw, in a heat transfer class we were graded on homework, & the solutions were posted before
it was due. I loved that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am now convinced people are better off watching Ren & Stimpy than Fox News, because people who watch Fox News are misinformed, while people who watch Ren & Stimpy are merely ignorant.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am now convinced people are better off watching Ren & Stimpy than Fox News, because people who watch Fox News are misinformed, while people who watch Ren & Stimpy are merely ignorant.

Now I know why you're so erudite!
I prefer Kent Brockman for my news.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now I know why you're so erudite!
I prefer Kent Brockman for my news.

Stan MacFarlane for me.

 

[Alceste]

Totally. I mean, when the U.S. National Acadamies of Science conducts a poll finding that 97% of scientists who study climate agree with the consensus on global warming, what does that even mean? Who is this so-called "National Academies of Science"? What is a "scientist"? What does "97%" mean? This is all so confusing.
Yeah I mean, when they ask if "most scientists believe climate change is occurring", are they excluding the sciences of law, politics, language and history? What about cops, i.e. those who study criminal science? Because last time I checked, physicists and chemists aren't the only people who study "science". Obviously, if you exclude all those people and you only include "experts" whose expertise is relevant to climate change, those "experts" are going to agree climate change is occurring. This doesn't prove "most scientists believe climate change is occurring" it just proves the questioner's arrogance and bias.

Lol. My sentiments exactly. First the questions are "biased" because there's reason to doubt climate change and whether or not TARP was signed under Bush. Then when it's pointed out that an effort was made to control for a diversity of reasonable opinions by asking not whether these claims are factual but whether they represent the concensus of experts in the field, the questions are biased.

That's American conservatism for you. There's no such thing as facts and everybody's an "expert."

 

[Revoltingest]

That's American conservatism for you. There's no such thing as facts and everybody's an "expert."

You have this all inside out. Conservatives are all about facts & experts, as are liberals. Neither seems to recognize the other side's
legitimacy because they're so entrenched in their "facts" & their "experts". Very few of us in this forum have an antipathy towards the
inerrancy of & over-reliance upon facts. A survey is needed to determine our demographics! (But I haven't figured out how to do polls yet.)

 

[Alceste]

You have this all inside out. Conservatives are all about facts & experts, as are liberals. Neither seems to recognize the other side's
legitimacy because they're so entrenched in their "facts" & their "experts". Very few of us in this forum have an antipathy towards the
inerrancy of & over-reliance upon facts. A survey is needed to determine our demographics! (But I haven't figured out how to do polls yet.)

You and your "team" have yet to deliver a single fact or expert that calls the conclusions of the numerous, consistent studies already posted into question.

It may shock you to learn that if any of you could find a credible one, my opinion would change to accommodate it.

Not all opinions are created equal.

 

[Revoltingest]

You and your "team"....

I have a team? How many atheistic moral relativistic libertarian geeks haunt this forum?
We could meet for hot cocoa & plot the downfall of Western civilization!

....have yet to deliver a single fact or expert that calls the conclusions of the numerous, consistent studies already posted into question.
It may shock you to learn that if any of you could find a credible one, my opinion would change to accommodate it.

I'm not big on facts & studies, although at times I'll provide some, with links. But they're usually ignored.

Not all opinions are created equal.

True dat.

 

[Alceste]

I have a team?

Yes, the Fox lovers. Characterized by being completely incapable of processing the idea that one network can be demonstrably more biased and less factual than all the others - unless it turns out to be MSNBC.

I'm not big on facts & studies, although at times I'll provide some, with links. But they're usually ignored.

I follow links. How else would I know anything about Paula Jones and whatserface Willy?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, the Fox lovers.

I'm not a Fox viewer. I don't know who here admits to being one.
Goodness...you Foxers always want to make everything personal.