New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Alceste]

I suspect only a ******* idiot can't see the real issue here is not how biased a news source is but how poorly informed it's viewers are.

I think the issue is that a ******* idiot does not accept that it is even possible to be well informed, so the question simply does not compute. If you believe there are no facts, there's no way to prove who is better acquainted with them than whom.

Reminds me of those evolution vs. creation threads actually.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Your prediction seems pretty accurate, but you left out the where the apologists for Fox News think they can score a point by saying that all news organizations are biased.

That line turns out to be a logical fallacy, a fallacy of irrelevance, because the issue here is not whether Fox News is more or less biased than other news organizations, but rather whether Fox News viewers are more or less well informed when compared to the viewers of other news services.

As it turns out, the Fox viewers are quite often less well informed when compared to other people.

Yup. Evidence does not lie.

I believe that is what got us into this fiscal mess in the first place. :yes:

Likely for very different reasons, I agree.

I suspect only a ******* idiot can't see the real issue here is not how biased a news source is but how poorly informed it's viewers are.

No comment!

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the issue is that a ******* idiot does not accept that it is even possible to be well informed, so the question simply does not compute. If you believe there are no facts, there's no way to prove who is better acquainted with them than whom.

Are you perhaps exaggerating the issue of "facts". Tis not about their non-existence, but rather the paucity of real ones, the plethora of dubious
ones, & the reliance upon the latter. Apparently, this is a difficult concept to convey to those who see things in stark terms of good vs evil.

All this smug venom directed at Fox & it's viewers raises a question. Which detractors here see themselves as exemplifying superior knowledge of news?

 

[Blackheart]

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.

I dont live in the US but I thought that everybody already knew that Fox news wasnt for adults???​

 

[Alceste]

But it's like complaining that McDonalds sells unhealthy fast food...as though they're worse than Burger King or White Castle.

It's not quite like that. It's like studying the health of people who eat regularly at one of these fine establishments and carefully, empirically comparing the incidence of obesity and heart disease in each group in order to determine whether one franchise is more or less healthy than the others. You see, it's about studying knowable facts, not about opinion. Not your ball park at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

You see, it's about studying knowable facts, not about opinion. Not your ball park at all.

Strong with you the faith is!

 

[Alceste]

Are you perhaps exaggerating the issue of "facts". Tis not about their non-existence, but rather the paucity of real ones, the plethora of dubious
ones, & the reliance upon the latter. Apparently, this is a difficult concept to convey to those who see things in stark terms of good vs evil.

All this smug venom directed at Fox & it's viewers raises a question. Which detractors here see themselves as exemplifying superior knowledge of news?

Just read the study, smart-***. Would you or would you not concur that a question such as "most scientists agree that climate change is occurring" is a knowable fact? What about Obama's birthplace? What about whether TARP was signed into law under Bush or Obama?

This tired old drum you're banging, that you think everybody but you is simply indulging in confirmation bias at all times, is just embarassing to read, especially in this context. This is a discussion of a particular study. Read it and comment on the flaws in its methodology, or don't read it and don't bother commenting at all. Don't fail to read it and make up a bunch of garbage about what you think it probably says.

 

[Alceste]

Strong with you the faith is!

As well it should be. I actually read studies before commenting on their quality and findings.

 

[Revoltingest]

As well it should be. I actually read studies before commenting on their quality and findings.

Now, if only I teach you the ways of skepticism.

 

[Alceste]

Now, if only I teach you the ways of skepticism.

I have already mastered them. That is why I read the studies.

 

[Requia]

It's not quite like that. It's like studying the health of people who eat regularly at one of these fine establishments and carefully, empirically comparing the incidence of obesity and heart disease in each group in order to determine whether one franchise is more or less healthy than the others. You see, it's about studying knowable facts, not about opinion. Not your ball park at all.

Except this study didn't determine, and wasn't meant to determine, that one was worse than the other, just that a problem exists.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have already mastered them. That is why I read the studies.

Therein lies the problem. Once one believes one has mastered something, & one is irrevocably certain, then all hope is lost.
Understanding should be a dynamic thing, ready to adapt to experience & new perspectives.
"Studies", after all, are just someone's musings with a sprinkling of carefully culled data....much like sacred scriptures. One shouldn't be wedded to them.

 

[Alceste]

Except this study didn't determine, and wasn't meant to determine, that one was worse than the other, just that a problem exists.

The study was designed to measure a number of things relating to misinformation and public perception AND ALSO found that those who watch Fox were misinformed on a large number of specific factual questions in a way that directly correlates to their exposure.

 

[Sunstone]

Some people are of the opinion that no studies they find personally embarrassing can possibly be anything more than mere opinion. But at least believing such bunk let's them maintain their holier than thou act. After all, we need all the holier than thou people we can get in this world.

 

[Sunstone]

The study was designed to measure a number of things relating to misinformation and public perception AND ALSO found that those who watch Fox were misinformed on a large number of specific factual questions in a way that directly correlates to their exposure.

That's my understanding of it too.

 

[Alceste]

Therein lies the problem. Once one believes one has mastered something, & one is irrevocably certain, then all hope is lost.
Understanding should be a dynamic thing, ready to adapt to experience & new perspectives.
"Studies", after all, are just someone's musings with a sprinkling of carefully culled data....much like sacred scriptures. One shouldn't be wedded to them.

But you've missed the point. I won't just read this study, I'll read the next one too. I read several of the previous studies. In fact, I don't bother to form an opinion at all before researching the knowable facts, and my opinion alters with new information.

Studies are studies. If you had ever read one, you'd realize academics have a tendency to try to take every possible step to ensure their own bias is minimized so that objective facts can have a chance to come to light. They don't always succeed, but where they fail, their failures are KNOWABLE. IOW, you can look at the methodology and see where they might have gone astray. You can even repeat the study yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Howard Stern's study clearly shows that Obama voters are hopelessly uninformed.
Even Fox News viewers look like geniuses in comparison. It's true....a study said so!

 

[Sunstone]

Studies are studies. If you had ever read one, you'd realize academics have a tendency to try to take every possible step to ensure their own bias is minimized so that objective facts can have a chance to come to light. They don't always succeed, but where they fail, their failures are KNOWABLE. IOW, you can look at the methodology and see where they might have gone astray. You can even repeat the study yourself.

I don't think the person you are talking with has ever read a scientific study in his life. But I could be wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

But I could be wrong.

Bingo!

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think the person you are talking with has ever read a scientific study in his life. But I could be wrong.

On the other hand, give the man's silly opinions, I doubt I am that far off the mark when I say he's never read a scientific survey in his life. I mean, I suppose a person can claim anything on the net. He can even claim to have read more than a dozen scientific surveys in his whole life. But if he don't act like he knows what a scientific survey is, then what are the odds he's telling the truth?