New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Magic Man]

I love that when you start talking about how ridiculously biased and unconcerned with facts Fox is, the only response you get is "Oh yeah? Well, most other sources are biased, too", as if they're as bad as Fox. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat the fact that there's a difference between being biased while using actual facts and real information, and being biased while using lies and misinformation. Whether or not other sources like NPR or MSNBC are biased is irrelevant until they start lying to people and using selective facts along with buzz words designed specifically to demonize what they're arguing against.

But as others have said, I guess it's like trying to talk sense to a creationist. Sorry, but all news sources are not equal. There's Fox at the bottom, and then everyone else starts a few levels up.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

And furthermore, the question has nothing to do with the unemployment rate going up or down. The question is about whether or not the stimulus created or saved jobs, i.e. unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.

Do you think this is even knowable?
There is no experiment capable of verifying or disproving this assertion, which make it at best a guess, & at worst mere faith.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems creationists and Fox viewers employ many of the same debate tricks. Somehow that amuses me.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems creationists and Fox viewers employ many of the same debate tricks.

Is this the Guilt-by-Association fallacy you're using? Or perhaps Poisoning-the-Well?
That's a common creationist tactic, eg, linking Darwin to Hitler. (Godwin made me bring him up.)

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.

This is a typical Foxer tool....to limit discussion to a narrow examination
of Fox's faults, never addressing similar problems with their own sources.

Perhaps Foxphobes need a "Foxer DIR" forum were they may fulminate without interference from outsiders?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Brilliant? Perhaps. But aren't ethics, honor, honesty and integrity still important? Or has The Right finally stopped pretending to have the moral high ground and acknowledged that it regards such things as being trivial and frivolous?

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

....but what do I know, I'm suppose to be ignorant and misinformed.

If I may be slightly less cynical for a moment......by & large, I think the media all want us to be informed, but they differ on what is true & relevant
as a result of bias & agenda. I'm sure there are honest people at Fox, MSNBC & every organization in between, but they have greatly different perspectives.
That will color what they tell us. (Yes, at times there is blatant dishonesty...but even that has happened to the most vaunted sources, eg, the NYT, ABC.
But that isn't the norm.) Since people are more likely to believe what they want, the net effect is that they select the "truth" that suits them. Every side
seems to believe the other is trying to mislead & corrupt the viewer. Every side thinks their own is smarter, more ethical, more educated, & more rational.
To all, I say: Don't buy into this illusion. Try defending someone you don't agree with for a change. It's good for you.

Btw, note that I didn't extend the same olive branch to politicians. I find them far more dishonest than the media.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Somehow that amuses me.

FOX amuses me. I don't take it seriously. I believe 20% of this country is in for a rough ride for the next two years. :yes:

 

[Sunstone]

FOX amuses me. I don't take it seriously.

As a news source, I don't think it warrants being taken seriously. At least not often. After all, we have memos where Fox executives are ordering their news casters and reporters to slant things in a particular way.

I believe 20% of this country is in for a rough ride for the next two years. :yes:

If you mean economically, then I would suppose it's more than 20% of us who are in for a rough ride.

 

[Kathryn]

An informed person would be informed of the fact that most economists and experts, from the CBO to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to the Financial Times of London, estimate the stimulus created or saved jobs. It's a fact that most experts and economists estimate this to be true.

And furthermore, the question has nothing to do with the unemployment rate going up or down. The question is about whether or not the stimulus created or saved jobs, i.e. unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.

Thank you for helping make my point about the study.

The question posed in the study had nothing to do with whether or not the stimulus created or saved jobs.

The question posed (and I quote directly from the study) was:

Respondents were asked their impression of what "most economists who have studied it estimate" about the economic impact of the stimulus.

Do you see the difference? Many of the questions in the study weren't actually about actual outcomes of the issues, policies, etc. in the news this past year. They were about what "most experts' opinions were." There is a big difference, but the questions themselves are confusing.

Polls and studies are easily manipulated simply by the way that questions are posed. It's the oldest trick in the world when it comes to "studies," marketing, and manipulating facts.

 

[Reverend Rick]

As a news source, I don't think it warrants being taken seriously. At least not often. After all, we have memos where Fox executives are ordering their news casters and reporters to slant things in a particular way.

Like Hanity and O Riely need coaching.

If you mean economically, then I would suppose it's more than 20% of us who are in for a rough ride.

But... but...butt, wait a minute, your survey said things are getting better :yes:.

 

[Kathryn]

Why do certain kinds of people use caps, Kathryn? Perhaps you can shed some light on that?

At any rate, despite your emphatic use of caps, you seem to have committed a logical fallacy of relevance, here. At issue is not whether all news sources are biased; at issue is whether the viewers of some news sources are comparatively less well informed on certain issues than the viewers of other news sources. There's a difference between those two things.

Why do you so often try to make a debate personal? Bad form, Sunstone. Don't lecture me on "form" when you're stooping to such tactics.

 

[Panda]

Not surprised that Fox "news" is like this. Much prefer BBC or Channel 4 news because they just seems to hate everyone equally

 

[Kathryn]

By the way, not to put too fine a point on it, but please note that I am not defending Fox. Personally, based on my perusal of all major news sources, I consider Fox to be at least as biased in it's coverage as the others.

My issue with the study, the OP, and the coverage on the AlterNet site is that, after reading the study in it's entirity (which makes me wonder how many people on this thread have also done so), looked carefully at it's methodology, and the group which sponsored it, read the mission statement from AlterNet, and the abundant clarity of Sunstone's general political position, is this:

I simply don't think that the study is a particularly good one - like most studies of it's type, the questions and methodology seem to lend some bias, or at the least, confusion, to both the questions and the outcome.

Add to that, the blatant bias of the AlterNet coverage of the study, and I believe that the spin on the study itself is obviously biased. I find that ironic considering that the very TOPIC of the study is the misinformation that is so prevalent in our news sources and coverage.

 

[Sunstone]

By the way, not to put too fine a point on it, but please note that I am not defending Fox. Personally, based on my perusal of all major news sources, I consider Fox to be at least as biased in it's coverage as the others.

My issue with the study, the OP, and the coverage on the AlterNet site is that, after reading the study in it's entirity (which makes me wonder how many people on this thread have also done so), looked carefully at it's methodology, and the group which sponsored it, read the mission statement from AlterNet, and the abundant clarity of Sunstone's general political position, is this:

I simply don't think that the study is a particularly good one - like most studies of it's type, the questions and methodology seem to lend some bias, or at the least, confusion, to both the questions and the outcome.

Add to that, the blatant bias of the AlterNet coverage of the study, and I believe that the spin on the study itself is obviously biased. I find that ironic considering that the very TOPIC of the study is the misinformation that is so prevalent in our news sources and coverage.

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.

 

[Sunstone]

Why do you so often try to make a debate personal? Bad form, Sunstone. Don't lecture me on "form" when you're stooping to such tactics.

Spare me the theatrics that you are so obviously using to divert attention from the real issue.

 

[Sunstone]

Like Hanity and O Riely need coaching.

Hannity and O'Reilly are not newscasters or reporters. Double check what I said, please.

But... but...butt, wait a minute, your survey said things are getting better :yes:.

Where?

 

[Alceste]

Please do.

Ok. The factual claim in the study is that "most experts agree" that the stimulus package created over 2 million jobs. They back this with a survey of economists published by the Wall Street Journal.

Your article does not address this claim at all, even peripherally. It relates to dropping wages and job losses in particular states. Just as the snowfall in England doesn't refute global warming, job losses in certain states do not refute the claim of job gains nationally. Payroll data is not relevant at all, and in any case the factual claim is that "most experts agree", so the only relevant evidence you could post would be a survey of experts demonstrating that they do not agree that the package created millions of jobs.

And don't forget to take into account job losses from taking the stimulus money from us in the first place.

You should take your criticism to the experts surveyed by the Wall Street Journal. It isn't relevant here.

The gist of the thread has moved beyond your narrow Foxphobic focus. This larger context is more interesting

No, this thread is still about a study which found the viewers of Fox become increasingly misinformed on particular topics in a way that directly corresponds to their exposure. I know you're having a lot of trouble with that because it throws your bias against "liberals" into disarray, but your effort to change the subject has failed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok. The factual claim in the study is that "most experts agree" that the stimulus package created over 2 million jobs. They back this with a survey of economists published by the Wall Street Journal.

I didn't see this in the linked study. Source?
But even if a majority of some group of economists believe something, knowledge of that seems insignificant
compared to whether the news consumer knows what is actually occurring. Tis as though Sunstone is picking
a narrow battle which he can win, & from which make insinuations, rather than discussing real issues. It must
be tough to be an Obama supporter these days.

Your article does not address this claim at all, even peripherally.

Au contraire....it points to a worsening economy. One would think that a majority of economists would be aware
of this....& venture opinions which comport with it. I've yet to see support for your claimed expert consensus.

.....global warming...

Irrelevant.

You should take your criticism to the experts surveyed by the Wall Street Journal.

Again, I saw no mention of the WSJ in the study.

No, this thread is still about a study which found the viewers of Fox become increasingly misinformed on particular topics in a way that directly corresponds to their exposure. I know you're having a lot of trouble with that because it throws your bias against "liberals" into disarray, but your effort to change the subject has failed.

Why object to the thread tackling larger issues? All threads wander from the OP to interesting & related topics,
so the persistent objections to it suggest that some posters have something to fear....a weak agenda perhaps?

OK, OK...this horse is beaten to death & there's too much sniping. (I'm guilty too.)
As things stand, I have nothing new to add. I'll check in occasionally though.

 

[Requia]

The methodology of the survey clearly allows you to determine, for the issues chosen by the researchers, which viewers are better informed than other viewers. Moreover, it allows you to determine whether heavy viewers of a particular source are better informed on any of the chosen issues than light viewers of the same source. Lastly, the chosen issues are arguably fairly representative of the major issues of the day. So what's to complain about?

While the researchers did make an effort to balance questions between right wing and left wing talking points, there's no balance between right and left wing media, this means that MSNBC gets to split its idiocy with NPR and the like, Fox has no chance to split its idiocy with Rush Limbaugh listeners though.

There is no objective means to determine how to wight the misinformation of each question. I can say, for exapmple, that being a birther (which should in theory be obviously false) represents 10 times as much misinformation than believing Russia Invaded South Ossetia in 2008 (which is media misinformation that was difficult to detect if you didn't know the region), or I can say that they represent equal misinformation. Neither of these is really the 'correct' way of doing it. If you decide to use the first and weight the questions differently, how do you know how much to weight each question?

The question base is too small. There's no way to determine if they just got lucky when picking right wing talking points, but had a harder time figuring out what particular piece of idiocy on the left people fell for hardest.

They were not trying to determine who was the most biased. You can use unrelated studies to formulate a hypotheses, but you really really aren't supposed to use somebody else's data in lieu of running your own experiments.

No statistical analysis was run on the data, even if you ignore all the above points, you have *no idea* if the results were significant or not. If you really really think you can get around this one, by all means tell me P for the theory that FNC viewers are more misinformed, using the data in the study.