Jump to content

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than Those Who Don't Watch Any News


cybercoma

Recommended Posts

These bureaucrats will have no choice but to make decisions that will have life or death consequences so it is not wrong to claim they are "death panels".
That's the exact same thing that happens now with insurance companies. It's no different. Obama wasn't "creating" anything.
The poll on the arab spring was gross misrepresentation of the actual results because there is a huge number of "don't knows". When you take that in account the difference is much less than was the headline claim and even then, when you have that many "don't knows" you must assume that a number of "wrong" results were actually "don't knows" by people that were just guessing.

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. We're talking about FOX News viewers being significantly misinformed. "I don't know," is different than logging the wrong answer, like saying Egypt's government has not been toppled yet. It's one thing not to know the answer, it's quite another to think you know the answer and that answer is wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's the exact same thing that happens now with insurance companies. It's no different. Obama wasn't "creating" anything.
Of course. But that does not change the fact that the "death panels" claim is not exactly false. You may not like the spin but it is not a falsehood or "misunderstanding". That is why I say these kinds of studies are biased. Pick a different set of questions that target left wing "spin" and you would get different results.
I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. We're talking about FOX News viewers being significantly misinformed.
No they were not "significantly" misinformed. On one question the difference (2%) was not even outside the margin of error. On another the difference (3%) was largely but with the large numbers of 'don't know' I fail to see why these results are significant in any way. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they were not "significantly" misinformed. On one question the difference (2%) was not even outside the margin of error. On another the difference (3%) was largely but with the large numbers of 'don't know' I fail to see why these results are significant in any way.

They wouldn't characterize it as significant if it was within the margin of error. They wouldn't characterize it as a difference at all if that were the case. That's how statistics work. They build their model around the null hypothesis (there is no difference between viewers of FOX News and others). If the results are statistically significant, they reject that hypothesis.

Nevertheless, if you don't see why it's significant that 8 different studies come to the same conclusion that FOX News misinforms it viewers, then maybe this isn't the thread for you. Or, if you really want to show these studies wrong, you might want to provide an example of some research that actually has the opposite results (supports the null hypothesis that there is no difference).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wouldn't characterize it as significant if it was within the margin of error. They wouldn't characterize it as a difference at all if that were the case. That's how statistics work. They build their model around the null hypothesis (there is no difference between viewers of FOX News and others). If the results are statistically significant, they reject that hypothesis.
As they say: there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Saying that 18% of average viewers vs. 20% of FOX got the answer wrong to an obscur question about international politics does not make a compelling case for the hypothesis no matter what games you play with the statistical definition of "significant".
Nevertheless, if you don't see why it's significant that 8 different studies come to the same conclusion that FOX News misinforms it viewers
And I went through them and every one I looked at either misrepresented the significance of the result or presented the left liberal spin on an issue and found that FOX viewers disagreed with it (surprise, surprise).

What you are missing here are left leaning voters hate FOX news. They resent its influence so they seek to undermine it by constructing "studies" that show the FOX news viewers are idiots. To a certain extent FOX does the same thing but on different topics (like economics). But we don't have many FOX viewers here posting the "counter" studies.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well, it's obvious you're incapable of understanding that this can't be a left vs right thing since most of the studies controlled for partisanship in some form or another (ie, showing Democrats equally misinformed when they watched FOX regularly). You just keep making this a left/right issue, if that makes you sleep better at night. I give up on you. You're just choosing not to understand now.

If the studies are as flawed as you claim, then there would be responses to them out there that indicate as much. Some of these are 4-5 years old. Surely, someone as intelligent as you could put together a research project supporting the null hypothesis if they could in less than 5 years.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

most of the studies controlled for partisanship in some form or another (ie, showing Democrats equally misinformed when they watched FOX regularly).
I went and looked for the data you claim exists. I could not find it. So please provide links and excerpts because I suspect "controlling for political affiliation" does not mean what you claim it means.
If the studies are as flawed as you claim, then there would be responses to them out there that indicate as much. Some of these are 4-5 years old. Surely, someone as intelligent as you could put together a research project supporting the null hypothesis if they could in less than 5 years.
Why would I? I don't think these studies are that important. The only reason we are talking about them hear is because some lefties were looking to validate their world view.

As I said before, there are other studies which show that lefties are idiots when it comes to economics. When FOX wants to play the same game it uses those studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe TimG is just a bit confused because he's been watching too much Faux News. :)
I don't watch FOX. I don't like WWE style reporting. I am only commenting here because I looked at the studies and realized that they are meaningless. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not saying they're meaningless. You continue to incorrectly say that they're politically biased, even though partisanship was controlled. We get it already. You don't understand the research. It's all good.
I understand the studies fine. But my reading is 'controlled for political affiliation' does not mean what you say it means. If you want to make that claim then point to a study which actually break fox viewers who are democrats as a seperate category (the only way to support your assertion above). Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the studies fine. But my reading is 'controlled for political affiliation' does not mean what you say it means. If you want to make that claim then point to a study which actually break fox viewers who are democrats as a seperate category (the only way to support your assertion above).

I don't think they are controlled for political affiliation, as TimG says. They would do that if they were performing regression on multiple variables and wanted to examine other variables than political affiliation.

This is just a slam against FOX, which doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they are controlled for political affiliation, as TimG says. They would do that if they were performing regression on multiple variables and wanted to examine other variables than political affiliation.

This is just a slam against FOX, which doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

Fox has a pretty clear record, and theres a lot more than just this one study. The problem is the chicken/egg paradox. We dont know if fox is actually a causative factor, but theyve been caught publishing so many lies and mistruths that it seems like a reasonable assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theyve been caught publishing so many lies and mistruths that it seems like a reasonable assumption.
All media publish lies and mistruths that happen to support the editorial bias of media in question. The only reason FOX gets beat up is because it is has a right wing bias in a world filled with left wing journalists that are largely blind to their own biases.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All media publish lies and mistruths that happen to support the editorial bias of media in question. The only reason FOX gets beat up is because it is has a right wing bias in a world filled with left wing journalists that are largely blind to their own biases.

No it gets beat up because they have taken bias to a whole new level, and blended editorializing and "new" together to the point where you cant tell which is which. Other networks do exhibit bias, but fox is on a level of its own. Its a political machine, that engages in direct political activity on behalf of one party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All media publish lies and mistruths that happen to support the editorial bias of media in question. The only reason FOX gets beat up is because it is has a right wing bias in a world filled with left wing journalists that are largely blind to their own biases.

There's a difference between biased opinions and making up your own facts. You seem to conflate the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between biased opinions and making up your own facts. You seem to conflate the two.
I googled "fox lies" to see what came up. I see nothing that is more egregious than what other media outlets do all of time. The only difference is FOX-obessed lefties spend a lot of time hunting for and publishing FOX's transgressions. For example, the MSM converage of the Tea Party was filled with outright lies and smears.

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled "fox lies" to see what came up. I see nothing that is more egregious than what other media outlets do all of time. The only difference is FOX-obessed lefties spend a lot of time hunting for and publishing FOX's transgressions. For example, the MSM converage of the Tea Party was filled with outright lies and smears.

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

WHat I find more interesting is the fact fox engages in direct political activity, and contributes money to republicans. CNN for example splits their contributions evenly between democrats and republicans.

Anyhow... your usual refrain of "vast left-wing conspiracy" means about as much here as it does everywhere else you assert it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tickle Me Pinko - Fox says Muppets brought to you by M (Marx)

Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and no songs about clean coal? Fox News TV host Eric Bolling asked essentially that question recently when he claimed that The Muppets encourages children to engage in “class warfare,” because in it the Muppets reunite to stop a cartoonish villain named Tex Richman from buying their Hollywood studio and levelling it to drill for oil.

Maybe they should have a Hungry Muppet, or Food Stamp Muppet – and the evil person be Obama!” said Mr. Bolling, in outrage. Nobody makes movies about using oil “to light a hospital. … They don't want to tell that story,” said his guest, Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, in outrage. “I just wish liberals could leave little kids alone!” bemoaned Fox political analyst Andrea Tantaros, in outrage.

...

I wondered what America's library of children's films would look like if they'd been written instead by Fox commenters:

1. Charlotte's Web of Lies: A rat persuades a pig to take his place in the food chain, after an elitist spider who has far more children than she can reasonably afford tries to talk him into pursuing a iberal education instead.

2. Where the Wild Things Are Hunted to Extinction but Free-Market Capitalism Ensures that Housing is Built. s Built.

3. Mrs. Frisby Rats Out the Welfare Queens of Nim.

4. Cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. Monsters Inc. Busts a Union.

6. Snow White and the Seven – No, Six –

cellent Republican Nominee Hopefuls. Republican Nominee Hopefuls.

7. 101 Dalmations help employ a large number of Furriers.

8. Night at the Creationist Museum: Although exhibits come to life, a man spends a restful night n the museum, because dinosaurs and humans existed together quite peacefully

9. The Land before all the illegal immigrants ruined it.

10. Finding Nemo's Birth Certificate.

11. Harry Potter and the Invisible Hand.

12. The Black Stallion who would not be here if Not for Affirmative Action.

13. The War on Christmas Story

14. Robin Hood and His Entitled Men: The brave Prince John promotes stability by fighting unconstitutional wealth-distribution schemes.

15. Kung Fu Panda Hardly Needs To Be On The Protected Species List, He Knows Kung Fu.

:D

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
This must be old because the issue was quite some time ago, but in this video Jon Stewart just stomps Bill O'Reilly about Common being a guest at the White House.

sweet - O'Reilly was clearly in over his head... Uygur nailed it with the underlying FoxNews premise of 'getting all radical and black together'. Not to outdone by the recent weeks manufactured nonsense railing against Michelle Obama as the, "stereotypical angry black woman'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Not to outdone by the recent weeks manufactured nonsense railing against Michelle Obama as the, "stereotypical angry black woman'!

Do you have cite?………I watch FNC nightly and have yet to see anything suggesting that viewpoint.

My link

Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...