Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

[Lueda Alia]

The title of the article made me laugh, so I had to share this.


Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.
December 15, 2010

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 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=) 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 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc) that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1370) 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)

Read more (http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_ you_stupid).

[caveBEAR]

Heh.

[<*)))><]

Meh

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Leh

[tottivillarossi]

Peh





that's quite incredible though.

[bridgeofeldin]

Eeh

It's funny they needed a study to prove it.

[Tyler Vagyler]

the last one is the worst

[caveBEAR]

the last one is the worst

That's how it always goes with sequels. No one over tops the original.

[Smash Adams]

That's how it always goes with sequels. No one over tops the original.
I missed the first Our President is a Socialist and a Terrorist

[kidinthebushes]

As opposed to most Democrats not being informed at all.

[caveBEAR]

As opposed to most Democrats not being informed at all.

:ahem:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

[Midget Pirates]

The title of the article made me laugh, so I had to share this.




Read more (http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_ you_stupid).

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2010/12/18/alternet-soros-funded-study-says-fox-viewers-are-stupid/

specifically look at the rebuttals at the bottom. and if this study was indeed funded by George Soros, then I think that would be a major conflict of interest.

[Lueda Alia]

As opposed to most Democrats not being informed at all.
Wait, what? It's better to be misinformed than not informed? Is that what you're saying?

[Lueda Alia]

:ahem:
A+.

[Midget Pirates]

:ahem:

F

http://itmakessenseblog.com/2010/11/29/48-out-of-50-states-have-lost-jobs-since-democrats%E2%80%99-stimulus-law/

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/study-some-viewers-were-misinformed-by-tv-news/

[LoginBanned]

People who watch Fox news aren't looking to be informed, they're looking for someone to validate their opinion.

[J.C.]

F

http://itmakessenseblog.com/2010/11/29/48-out-of-50-states-have-lost-jobs-since-democrats%E2%80%99-stimulus-law/

Yeah, the stimulus is definitely what lost those jobs. They would've been kept otherwise.

[Midget Pirates]

Yeah, the stimulus is definitely what lost those jobs. They would've been kept otherwise.

who knows. at the very least, it shows that the Stimulus has not met expectations to stimulate job growth according to the Administration's own initial projections. as of right now. Obviously it could change for the better and time will tell.

[Scrandon]

F

http://itmakessenseblog.com/2010/11/29/48-out-of-50-states-have-lost-jobs-since-democrats%E2%80%99-stimulus-law/
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the stimulus, increased the number of people employed during the second quarter by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, according to a new report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf) from the Congressional Budget Office.
The report also states that the stimulus can be credited with lowering the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points during the same time period.

http://i54.tinypic.com/5jzq4w.png

However, the reported number of jobs funded is not a comprehensive measure of ARRA’s effect on overall employment, or even of those provisions of ARRA for which recipients’ reports are required. The actual impact could, in principle, be significantly larger or smaller than the number of jobs reported.

Recipients’ reports also do not include indirect effects that could increase or decrease the impact on employment. Among those effects are potential declines in employment in other businesses or economic sectors as demand shifts toward the recipients of ARRA funding—a phenomenon often called the “crowding out” effect of government policies. Conversely, spending under ARRA could lead to higher employment at companies that are not directly connected to that spending—for example, because of additional purchases made by people who would be unemployed were it not for ARRA funds. CBO estimates that, under current conditions, the positive indirect effects outweigh the negative indirect effects. Taken together, in CBO’s estimation, ARRA’s indirect effects boost the law’s impact on economic output and employment.

[troubledbyinsects]

This is funny.

[Midget Pirates]

those are estimates. the data I gave came from the actual statistics from the Bureau of Labor.

[Scrandon]

those are estimates. the data I gave came from the actual statistics from the Bureau of Labor.
Lets walk through this. You were promised 3 million jobs. The estimated job creation for calendar year 2010 is between 1.3 million and 3.3 million jobs. That is to say, those jobs would be non-existent without the stimulus, which is to say, the stimulus created those jobs. You can't just look at aggregate numbers and compare them without any context whatsoever, it's extremely misinformed.

[*crying stars*]

100% of recent viewers probably think that there is a war on Christmas also. It's a bit frightening that Fox News is continually the highest rated cable news channel, but perhaps it's the old people who are watching.

[Midget Pirates]

Lets walk through this. You were promised 3 million jobs. The estimated job creation for calendar year 2010 is between 1.3 million and 3.3 million jobs. That is to say, those jobs would be non-existent without the stimulus, which is to say, the stimulus created those jobs. You can't just look at aggregate numbers and compare them without any context whatsoever, it's extremely misinformed.

it seems as if the estimates don't reflect reality. those estimates only speculate.

[Debut_Fin]

My grandparents watch Fox News religiously and I really wish I could convince them not to. I don't know how you can respect a "news" station that has referred to Michelle Obama as Barack's "baby mama".

Fucking Republicans

[Scrandon]

it seems as if the estimates don't reflect reality. those estimates only speculate.
Have you ever been involved involved in any kind of science in your life? Estimate ≠ speculation. You're incredibly dense.

[zion the lion]

I know and love a lot of people who watch fox news, I wouldnt call them stupid, maybe paranoid and gullible, but not stupid. I know some people who watch Glenn Beck and then quote him in their prayers. Those same people truly think that Christians are going to have to leave the country for religious freedom in the next few years. They're just sweet, sweet, gullible people.

[Midget Pirates]

Have you ever been involved involved in any kind of science in your life? Estimate ≠ speculation. You're incredibly dense.
what i'm saying is those estimates are only their projections. what they expect to happen..

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/06/new-fed-study-suggests-net-job-creation-from-porkulus-was-zero/

[Scrandon]

what i'm saying is those estimates are only their projections. what they expect to happen..

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/06/new-fed-study-suggests-net-job-creation-from-porkulus-was-zero/
No, it's not, read the fucking report. Obviously 2011 and 2012 are projections, but the part you are contesting, 2009 and 2010, has been empirically measured. Read the non-partisan report by respected economists before you continue linking me to conservative blogs.

[loveisdead]

what i'm saying is those estimates are only their projections. what they expect to happen..

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/06/new-fed-study-suggests-net-job-creation-from-porkulus-was-zero/

You're right. The stimulus has lost us jobs.

[xapplexpiex]

My grandparents watch Fox News religiously and I really wish I could convince them not to. I don't know how you can respect a "news" station that has referred to Michelle Obama as Barack's "baby mama".

Fucking Republicans
Every time I see them, that is exactly what I do to mine.

[loveisdead]

Every time I see them, that is exactly what I do to mine.
Don't forget about the terrorist fist bump.

[caveBEAR]

:lol: @ Midget Pirates. Thank you, Scrandon.

[Scrandon]

:lol: @ Midget Pirates. Thank you, Scrandon.
It's like, if we can't even agree on measurable facts, how are we going to... I just... ugh.

[caveBEAR]

It's like, if we can't even agree on measurable facts, how are we going to... I just... ugh.

Doesn't that really sum up FoxNEWS, though? When someone doesn't understand that if Obama was Kenyan, he couldn't become the fucking President, where else is there really to go?

I like how he bastardized 'estimate' the same way most FoxNEWS viewers bastardize 'theory', though.

[Juan Jose]

you should have included the part about CNN and MSNBC not being that much better, I think Fox is pretty much propaganda but the other are biased too, at least Fox is more open about their bias

[J.C.]

what i'm saying is those estimates are only their projections. what they expect to happen..

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/06/new-fed-study-suggests-net-job-creation-from-porkulus-was-zero/

Your inability to follow the argument is mindboggling.

The stimulus did not occur in a vacuum. It occured in the midst of dire economic circumstances. You're arguing(or, more accurately, just linking to blogs) against the idea the stimulus had any positive impact, but are doing so by ignoring the backdrop with which the numbers were pitted against. It's disingenuous to ignore the fact they were spurring job growth at a time when the economy was losing a record number of jobs before they even acted. You're also working under the false impression that because their employment projections were off, it means they misdiagnosed what the actual stimulus package was capable of doing. It would probably be more accurate to say they misread where the economy would ultimately bottom out. That's not good, but it points more to the argument that the original package should've been bigger, not that it shouldn't have been passed.

[caveBEAR]

you should have included the part about CNN and MSNBC not being that much better, I think Fox is pretty much propaganda but the other are biased too, at least Fox is more open about their bias

CNN has no bias, they're just inept, and almost all the MSNBC commentary shows just harp on the shit FoxNEWS is saying, which makes their bias pretty obvious, too. As well, I don't now, and never have, understood how people think that because FoxNEWS doesn't even try to hide their bias, that this is somehow commendable, like, "oh, at least FoxNEWS tells you they're full of shit, before then telling you something is truthful and should be considered 'news'". Give me a fucking break.

[J.C.]

at least Fox is more open about their bias

You mean blatant, not open. Open would suggest they don't pass themselves off as fair and balanced. Blatant at least hints at the idea it can be unspoken.

[Scrandon]

Your inability to follow the argument is mindboggling.

The stimulus did not occur in a vacuum. It occured in the midst of dire economic circumstances. You're arguing(or, more accurately, just linking to blogs) against the idea the stimulus had any positive impact, but are doing so by ignoring the backdrop with which the numbers were pitted against. It's disingenuous to ignore the fact they were spurring job growth at a time when the economy was losing a record number of jobs before they even acted. You're also working under the false impression that because their employment projections were off, it means they misdiagnosed what the actual stimulus package was capable of doing. It would probably be more accurate to say they misread where the economy would ultimately bottom out. That's not good, but it points more to the argument that the original package should've been bigger, not that it shouldn't have been passed.
Basically what I was trying to get across when I said he was ignoring the context. Thank you for putting it much more eloquently, haha.

[Midget Pirates]

Your inability to follow the argument is mindboggling.

The stimulus did not occur in a vacuum. It occured in the midst of dire economic circumstances. You're arguing(or, more accurately, just linking to blogs) against the idea the stimulus had any positive impact, but are doing so by ignoring the backdrop with which the numbers were pitted against. It's disingenuous to ignore the fact they were spurring job growth at a time when the economy was losing a record number of jobs before they even acted. You're also working under the false impression that because their employment projections were off, it means they misdiagnosed what the actual stimulus package was capable of doing. It would probably be more accurate to say they misread where the economy would ultimately bottom out. That's not good, but it points more to the argument that the original package should've been bigger, not that it shouldn't have been passed.

no i understand your argument. my argument isn't that the net jobs loss is because of the stimulus. I'm arguing only that the stimulus was not as effective as their projections. maybe without the stimulus, then it would've been even worse. I don't know. Maybe you're right and that it should've been a bigger package. like I said, time will tell.

[caveBEAR]

I love it when we all come together to let someone know they have no idea what they're talking about.

no i understand your argument. my argument isn't that the net jobs loss is because of the stimulus. I'm arguing only that the stimulus was not as effective as their projections. maybe without the stimulus, then it would've been even worse. I don't know. Maybe you're right and that it should've been a bigger package.

No 'maybe'. If you even think it's a 'maybe', you don't understand what happened at all.

[Matt Chylak]

the pirate midget is funny.

[Lueda Alia]

you should have included the part about CNN and MSNBC not being that much better, I think Fox is pretty much propaganda but the other are biased too, at least Fox is more open about their bias
I didn't forget to mention anything.

Also, scroll down to the bottom of my original post.

[Scrandon]

I would like to see the stats for other networks, because this isn't to say that the other viewers are scoring well, just better than Fox viewers.

[Juan Jose]

I didn't forget to mention anything.

Also, scroll down to the bottom of my original post.

I don't see it.... I just see the stats and stuff maybe we're talking about different quotes? I mean this

By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.

[caveBEAR]

The lesson to take away from this all is that if you rely only on 24 hour news networks, you're misinformed. You're more misinformed if you watch FoxNEWS than CNN, and more misinformed if you watch CNN over MSNBC.

Either way, you're misinformed.

[Juan Jose]

CNN has no bias, they're just inept, and almost all the MSNBC commentary shows just harp on the shit FoxNEWS is saying, which makes their bias pretty obvious, too. As well, I don't now, and never have, understood how people think that because FoxNEWS doesn't even try to hide their bias, that this is somehow commendable, like, "oh, at least FoxNEWS tells you they're full of shit, before then telling you something is truthful and should be considered 'news'". Give me a fucking break.

http://zoneshot.com/server/dg/ButthurtPost2.jpg

You mean blatant, not open. Open would suggest they don't pass themselves off as fair and balanced. Blatant at least hints at the idea it can be unspoken.
Yea basically, I just have bad word choice

[caveBEAR]

meme from a kid who thinks it's commendable that FoxNEWS is blatantly biased and full of shit.

Awesome, bro.

[troubledbyinsects]

Awesome, bro.
i love your posts just saying..

[loveisdead]

A few more things on the stimulus I have saved.

ABC could not find an economist (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/abc-cant-find-economists-who-think-the-stimulus-failed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+matthewyglesias+ (Matthew+Yglesias)) who thought the stimulus failed.

Politifact rated Scott Brown's claim that the stimulus didn't create one new job as liar liar pants on fire (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/17/stimulus-report-card/).

Also,
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt_graphic/17leonhardt_graphic-popup.jpg

[S7ranburgLar]

I used to follow american news on CNN.com, but the journalism there is horrendous, and it's by far the best of the three. News corporations owned by a corporate body are always going to have problematic journalism.

[abstain]

Correlation, not causation.

[caveBEAR]

Correlation, not causation.

As in, only morons watch FoxNEWS, so they can't retain information anyway? Not much better.

[Juan Jose]

Awesome, bro.

never said it was commendable, it's just easier to tell they're full of shit so you know to go elsewhere for news. You're the one getting mad over a sentence in an internet post. You could just not read other comments and save yourself the trouble of having a bitch fit

[Mitch]

This whole study can be confirmed by the following Facebook post:

Fox news covered the Health Care Reform and both democrats and republics both said that the health care reform from the beginning was a terrible idea. It doesn't work in Canada and it will not work here. It wasn't the republicans idea to have people pay for not having health care, because the majority of republics were disgusted by it. Fox news is not the plague it is a station that tells the truth even if ignorant liberals do not wish to hear it. During their special segments they have both republicans and democrats debate the issues of the nation at hand. And since when is it ok for the President to make a public display of mocking people? He should be held to a higher standard, for god sakes the man wants to write children books but he is gonna laugh in the face of a person who possibly voted for him and consider what she has to say as frivolous? That's ridiculous. And as for me being racist- I am surely not however I'm sure that if Mrs. Bush introduced her husband as her "Baby's Daddy" it would be an uproar but a Black President's wife does it, and it's considered funny and classy. Point is a large chunk of the people who voted for Obama were black and hispanic. It was always part of his campaign to get the "minorities" voices to be heard and to vote for him because he could speak for us. Which is retarded- why is he more qualified than any other candidate? because he's Black? Now that's racist.
He is unprofessional because he acts this way, from the way he performs his handshakes to the usage of a fist pump. Where is this nation's Class anymore?
I'm really done with this conversation. We can agree to disagree and I'm gonna really just leave it at that.

[caveBEAR]

never said it was commendable, it's just easier to tell they're full of shit so you know to go elsewhere for news. You're the one getting mad over a sentence in an internet post. You could just not read other comments and save yourself the trouble of having a bitch fit

This;
at least Fox is more open about their bias
does not sound like 'it's just easier to tell they're full of shit so you know to go elsewhere for news'. It sounds like the exact same commendable tone that people who watch FoxNEWS have about their blatant bullshit, so my 'butthurt rant' was towards people who think that way. Sorry that your post came across sounding like a moron's. My bad.

[Midget Pirates]

A few more things on the stimulus I have saved.

ABC could not find an economist (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/abc-cant-find-economists-who-think-the-stimulus-failed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+matthewyglesias+ %28Matthew+Yglesias%29) who thought the stimulus failed.


ABC didn't look very hard.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/index.htm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-every-economist-from-the-left-and-right-says-stimulus-has-saved-or-created-at-least-.html

ABC must have ignored it's own reporting by Jake Tapper too.

[WTG]

90% of viewers in this thread regarded these results as fact, without questioning the sample method or size.

But hey, it's on the internets, it must be true!!!!!111!!!1!one!!

[loveisdead]

ABC didn't look very hard.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/index.htm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-every-economist-from-the-left-and-right-says-stimulus-has-saved-or-created-at-least-.html

ABC must have ignored it's own reporting by Jake Tapper too.

Where in the Jake Tapper article does it say that it failed? It mentions people being more skeptical of the numbers. However, ABC didn't ignore his report, because his report never quoted any economist as saying that it was a failure.

[Juan Jose]

This;

does not sound like 'it's just easier to tell they're full of shit so you know to go elsewhere for news'. It sounds like the exact same commendable tone that people who watch FoxNEWS have about their blatant bullshit, so my 'butthurt rant' was towards people who think that way. Sorry that your post came across sounding like a moron's. My bad.

If that's what you want to believe I meant by that one clause, in a whole sentence that was about something else then go ahead. You're still the one getting yourself riled up over shit that's only in your head, good job.

[myplanforescape]

90% of viewers in this thread regarded these results as fact, without questioning the sample method or size.

But hey, it's on the internets, it must be true!!!!!111!!!1!one!!

The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection.

It has been a little while since I've had stats, but I don't really see anything wrong with that. :shrug:

[Midget Pirates]

Where in the Jake Tapper article does it say that it failed? It mentions people being more skeptical of the numbers. However, ABC didn't ignore his report, because his report never quoted any economist as saying that it was a failure.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/10/economists-stimulus-not-working-obama-must-rein-in-spending.html

like i said, ABC didn't look very hard if they couldn't find an economist who thinks it failed.

[loveisdead]

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/10/economists-stimulus-not-working-obama-must-rein-in-spending.html

like i said, ABC didn't look very hard if they couldn't find an economist who thinks it failed.

And that's fine with me. ABC is nearly as bad as Fox when it comes to news. That doesn't change the fact that an overwhelming number of economists will tell you that thinking the stimulus didn't create any jobs is insane.

[Midget Pirates]

And that's fine with me. ABC is nearly as bad as Fox when it comes to news. That doesn't change the fact that an overwhelming number of economists will tell you that thinking the stimulus didn't create any jobs is insane.

I understand. though I would argue that economists against the stimulus aren't necessarily arguing that it didn't create jobs, but that the jobs it did create are unsustainable.

[badger52683]

I watch Fox News... Derrrrrrrrr!

I think it's funny how liberals will complain about Fox News being biased. So what? You think MSNBC is fair and balanced?

[loveisdead]

I understand. though I would argue that economists against the stimulus aren't necessarily arguing that it didn't create jobs, but that the jobs it did create are unsustainable.

In that they were hired for short term government projects?

[caveBEAR]

I watch Fox News... Derrrrrrrrr!

I think it's funny how liberals will complain about Fox News being biased. So what? You think MSNBC is fair and balanced?

No. We just watch neither of them.

[badger52683]

No. We just watch neither of them.

Good for you. I don't really watch TV news, but I will watch FNN if I'm going to watch it.

Hey, I live in Ormond Beach. Small world.

[Midget Pirates]

In that they were hired for short term government projects?

that would be one example they would use probably.

[loveisdead]

that would be one example they would use probably.

But wouldn't they then not calculate in private business's growth from those projects?

[J.C.]

I think it's funny how liberals will complain about Fox News being biased. So what? You think MSNBC is fair and balanced?

_fcEnJic__4

[Midget Pirates]

But wouldn't they then not calculate in private business's growth from those projects?

what private business growth?

[loveisdead]

what private business growth?

Say the government sponsored 100 people to fix a road. The supplies to fix that road have to be bought somewhere.

[Midget Pirates]

Say the government sponsored 100 people to fix a road. The supplies to fix that road have to be bought somewhere.

gotcha...to answer your original question, I don't know. I'd be interested in any stats that might show how some of these public sector jobs and how it affected growth in the private sector.

[loveisdead]

gotcha...to answer your original question, I don't know. I'd be interested in any stats that might show how some of these public sector jobs and how it affected growth in the private sector.

I mean, infrastructure jobs are gonna positively effect public sector jobs just from a commerce standpoint alone.

[loveisdead]

gotcha...to answer your original question, I don't know. I'd be interested in any stats that might show how some of these public sector jobs and how it affected growth in the private sector.

Also, it certainly fueled a stock market rally. That was a good thing for all private businesses.

[movingxpictures]

Is anyone actually surprised?

[re7ard1337]

i find this more concerning than funny...

we're fucked.

[loveisdead]

Is anyone actually surprised?

Not in the least.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

i find this more concerning than funny...

we're fucked.

I agree. The problem is not so much what is being said but the fact that Fox News is the highest rated among the news networks and so many people are believing what is said to be true. I keep hearing conservatives saying that moderates and liberals feel threatened over the power of such figures as Palin and Beck. No, we are more threatened by the mass audience that is eating this up.

[xapplexpiex]

Don't forget about the terrorist fist bump.
Uh, what?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Uh, what?

http://deadball.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obama-fist-bump.jpg

[xapplexpiex]

http://deadball.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obama-fist-bump.jpg
Oh, right.
But I don't understand what that had to do with my post.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

G_vmQrTi3aM

[caveBEAR]

G_vmQrTi3aM

This whole segment just seems like an old man complaining about how kids wear their shorts low nowadays.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I feel sorry for the bros at Media Matters who have to watch Fox in order to monitor it.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I feel sorry for the bros at Media Matters who have to watch Fox in order to monitor it.

Same goes for the Daily Show staff

[saysmydoctor]

Concerning the stimulus and jobs: recovery.gov

The jobs created are right there. While, I guess it could be argued that Obama and his economic advisors may have underestimated the scope of the economic downturn (their approach says otherwise in my opinion), the stimulus was never intended to be the end-all. It was never meant to halt unemployment from rising. It was supposed to numb the fall, so to speak.

Kind of tangential, but I remember when the Census was in full swing and how Fox News in particular used to always make a careful mention when job reports came out showing growth that a lot of the jobs were temporary Census jobs--adding yet another fabric to their narrative that the stimulus is a failed piece of legislation (it's definitely got some problems). Republicans too. Guess they forgot:

"Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

-- Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States

Duh. Somehow still Obama's fault.

[music09]

91% is incredible. I don't think I've ever seen a poll show a result of 91%.

Fairly confident that I could make a poll that simply said "vote yes" and more than 9% of people would say no. (If anyone is bored enough, you should make a poll like this in PL (because there's nothing better to do in there))

[Lueda Alia]

I don't see it.... I just see the stats and stuff maybe we're talking about different quotes? I mean this
I know what you mean, but that's not "leaving anything out." I simply linked to it because I never copy the entire article. Linking to it =/= leaving it out.

[bite2brkskn12]

90% of viewers in this thread regarded these results as fact, without questioning the sample method or size.

But hey, it's on the internets, it must be true!!!!!111!!!1!one!!
this.

[Debut_Fin]

because all republicans think like that

Fucking idiots

obviously i believe that ALL republicans think that

[eons]

lol@leftwing nutjobs.

[caveBEAR]

lol@leftwing nutjobs.

What leftwing nutjobs have been in this thread?

[loveisdead]

lol@leftwing nutjobs.

I know, right?

[StephenYoung]

Newsflash: Most american news channels are fucked.

[topher465]

I'm an independent. I hate it how liberals always point out how "dumb" republicans are and I hate how republicans always demonize liberals. No one is getting anywhere with that type of dialogue.

[loveisdead]

I'm an independent. I hate it how liberals always point out how "dumb" republicans are and I hate how republicans always demonize liberals. No one is getting anywhere with that type of dialogue.

What's your solution?

[J.C.]

The argument isn't that Republicans are inherently stupid, the point is that the main source of news for many of them is an outlet that frequently distributes false information. It's one thing to have bias, it's another to simply lie.

[caveBEAR]

I'm an independent. I hate it how liberals always point out how "dumb" republicans are and I hate how republicans always demonize liberals. No one is getting anywhere with that type of dialogue.

I know a handful of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who all are extremely intelligent and have well-thought out rationale behind their beliefs, no matter where their beliefs may end up on a 'left-right' scale.

I know tons more people who are fucking idiots. They're, unfortunately, the loud ones.

[apoemtothedead]

this.
848 participants (or whatever it was) is more than enough to create a random sample. Any introductory stats class will teach you that.

[bentleyj98]

I bet there was some biased in this study too. Everyone knows Fox News has a Conservative biased. CNN has a Liberal Biased though too. I think every news station is at least somewhat biased, so I don't regard the study as anything true or important.

[J.C.]

I bet there was some biased in this study too. Everyone knows Fox News has a Conservative biased. CNN has a Liberal Biased though too. I think every news station is at least somewhat biased

We're not talking about bias. We're talking about lying.

so I don't regard the study as anything true or important.

Because of your own bias.

[eriatarka24]

What's your solution?

are you saying that like you think it's okay?

[loveisdead]

are you saying that like you think it's okay?

I'm asking what your solution would be to fixing it and what outcome you expect.

[rawspinner]

I'm asking what your solution would be to fixing it and what outcome you expect.

Watch the CBC and the BBC.

[DeviateRogue]

I know and love a lot of people who watch fox news, I wouldnt call them stupid, maybe paranoid and gullible, but not stupid. I know some people who watch Glenn Beck and then quote him in their prayers. Those same people truly think that Christians are going to have to leave the country for religious freedom in the next few years. They're just sweet, sweet, gullible people.

Gotta say the same here, my dad love's Fox News, if it isn't Fox News it's socialist media to him!

[bite2brkskn12]

848 participants (or whatever it was) is more than enough to create a random sample. Any introductory stats class will teach you that.

yeah but some people just believe whatever they are told. I wonder how many people actually looked into this themselves.

[chixdigget]

that blog post looks really refutable...

[bite2brkskn12]

obviously i believe that ALL republicans think that

well when you make a post like that, that's how it comes off. It would've been different if you said " some republicans are idiots"

[DeviateRogue]

I'm an independent. I hate it how liberals always point out how "dumb" republicans are and I hate how republicans always demonize liberals. No one is getting anywhere with that type of dialogue.

I myself am a moderate like most Americans, I tried to tell my dad that the opposing parties name calling is ridiculous. He continuously demonizes Liberals and worships Fox News it's infuriating.

[Matt Chylak]

has anyone tried saying "correlation =/= causation" yet?

[*crying stars*]

yeah but some people just believe whatever they are told. I wonder how many people actually looked into this themselves.
...

That's what the study is showing. What are you trying to argue?

[Spenny]

F

http://itmakessenseblog.com/2010/11/29/48-out-of-50-states-have-lost-jobs-since-democrats%E2%80%99-stimulus-law/
Because that website is obviously an unbiased, reputable source for information.

:hitself:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

has anyone tried saying "correlation =/= causation" yet?

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=81750702#post81750 702

[loveisdead]

Watch the CBC and the BBC.

I read the BBC. What's your point?

[bite2brkskn12]

...

That's what the study is showing. What are you trying to argue?

i'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just saying, just because you read a poll or an article doesn't mean it's true. People should do research on their own if they are given statistics. This thread is full of people who have no idea what they are talking about. How many people in this thread really watch the news or pay attention to anything important in the world. I'm sure there's lots of people hating on fox news because they want to get "quoted" or think thats what they should do. I don't watch fox news or any news really so I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on this topic that's presented so I didn't make a comment that had to do with the data, just a comment saying that some people just believe something b/c someone on the internet posted it.

[loveisdead]

i'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just saying, just because you read a poll or an article doesn't mean it's true. People should do research on their own if they are given statistics.

So I should conduct my own study?

[bite2brkskn12]

So I should conduct my own study?

no just try to find the same data from more than one source. I wasn't trying to argue or anything. It's just like some people adopt every idea they are given by college professors without doing any research on their own.

[peder458]

i'm not trying to argue anything. I'm just saying, just because you read a poll or an article doesn't mean it's true. People should do research on their own if they are given statistics. This thread is full of people who have no idea what they are talking about. How many people in this thread really watch the news or pay attention to anything important in the world. I'm sure there's lots of people hating on fox news because they want to get "quoted" or think thats what they should do. I don't watch fox news or any news really so I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on this topic that's presented so I didn't make a comment that had to do with the data, just a comment saying that some people just believe something b/c someone on the internet posted it.

....??

this whole post is nonsense.

[bite2brkskn12]

....??

this whole post is nonsense.

i'm saying there's a lot of people posting in this thread who are uninformed and are posting things when they have no idea what they are talking about

[Scrandon]

See, he doesn't know us, so he's allowed to make the assumption that we're all ignorant unsubstantiated Fox haters. But, if we didn't know anything about Fox, we're not allowed to make those same assumptions about them, it's really quite simple.

[bentleyj98]

We're not talking about bias. We're talking about lying.



Because of your own bias.
It could be. I don't even watch fox news. That's just my point of view.

[Scrandon]

i'm saying there's a lot of people posting in this thread who are uninformed and are posting thing's when they have no idea what they are talking about
Find something that was said that was incorrect then. Don't just go saying, "You know what, I think there's a lot of crap in this thread that is just uninformed and inaccurate. I'm not going to bother pointing out any specific example, cause that would be hard. Oh yea, and you guys are clueless, I'm not going to offer up any counter-argument or alternative opinion, but you all are just so wrong."

[peder458]

i'm saying there's a lot of people posting in this thread who are uninformed and are posting things when they have no idea what they are talking about

you admitted yourself that you don't know what you are talking about...

you seem to be saying "no one in here knows anything about this stuff" followed by "i don't know anything about this, so i can't comment on it" - so don't comment on it then. correct me if i am wrong.

[peder458]

See, he doesn't know us, so he's allowed to make the assumption that we're all ignorant unsubstantiated Fox haters. But, if we didn't know anything about Fox, we're not allowed to make those same assumptions about them, it's really quite simple.

OHHH, now it makes sense. :)

[rawspinner]

I read the BBC. What's your point?

I think that if the general populace would be able to see how their country is viewed in the global community, it would reduce people's need to make antagonists out of people that don't necessary agree with them. Part of combatting misinformation is providing all the information (I wasn't trying to single you out, I was talking about a solution in a broader sense, sorry if I made it seem llike I was attacking you).

[loveisdead]

I think that if the general populace would be able to see how their country is viewed in the global community, it would reduce people's need to make antagonists out of people that don't necessary agree with them. Part of combatting misinformation is providing all the information (I wasn't trying to single you out, I was talking about a solution in a broader sense, sorry if I made it seem llike I was attacking you).

No I didn't think you were attacking me at all. I think so long as people have their own opinions on how to better the country (and they always will), name-calling is going to happen. I'm don't think their source of news will change that.

[Dat4]

I think it's funnier that any of you (me included) think you actually know what is going on because you watch/read/listen to the "news".

[Matt Chylak]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=81750702#post81750 702

haha i was hoping for more of those. my friend said that on my facebook post about this article and i tore him apart

[Matt Chylak]

I think it's funnier that any of you (me included) think you actually know what is going on because you watch/read/listen to the "news".

this is hilarious for so many reasons. nice troll.

[bite2brkskn12]

Find something that was said that was incorrect then. Don't just go saying, "You know what, I think there's a lot of crap in this thread that is just uninformed and inaccurate. I'm not going to bother pointing out any specific example, cause that would be hard. Oh yea, and you guys are clueless, I'm not going to offer up any counter-argument or alternative opinion, but you all are just so wrong."

i'm not saying it about anything in this thread specifically. i'm saying in general. I was just making a statement. I'm sorry if it rubbed people the wrong way. This all started because I agreed with somone who said I wonder how many people did further research on this. I agree with him/her because there are always people like that.

[Theseventhson]

I think it's funnier that any of you (me included) think you actually know what is going on because you watch/read/listen to the "news".

:yawn:

[bite2brkskn12]

you admitted yourself that you don't know what you are talking about...

you seem to be saying "no one in here knows anything about this stuff" followed by "i don't know anything about this, so i can't comment on it" - so don't comment on it then. correct me if i am wrong.

No i'm not saying that no one knows what they are talking about. There a lot of people in this thread who you can tell really know what they are talking about. I was just making the statement that I bet a lot of people in this thread just immediately accepted this data and ran with it without any further research. That's all. Again, i didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way.

[caveBEAR]

No i'm not saying that no one knows what they are talking about. There a lot of people in this thread who you can tell really know what they are talking about. I was just making the statement that I bet a lot of people in this thread just immediately accepted this data and ran with it without any further research. That's all. Again, i didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way.

Who the fuck are you rubbing?! That's harassment!

[saysmydoctor]

ABC didn't look very hard.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/index.htm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/president-obama-every-economist-from-the-left-and-right-says-stimulus-has-saved-or-created-at-least-.html

ABC must have ignored it's own reporting by Jake Tapper too.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Matt Chylak]

No i'm not saying that no one knows what they are talking about. There a lot of people in this thread who you can tell really know what they are talking about. I was just making the statement that I bet a lot of people in this thread just immediately accepted this data and ran with it without any further research. That's all. Again, i didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way.

short comments rather than paragraphs does not indicate knowledge, but rather an indifference to this particular topic or mode of communication. plenty of blowhards know nothing and say a lot (see: thread topic). unimportant observation is unimportant.

[topher465]

What's your solution?

Listen to each other.

I know a handful of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who all are extremely intelligent and have well-thought out rationale behind their beliefs, no matter where their beliefs may end up on a 'left-right' scale.

I know tons more people who are fucking idiots. They're, unfortunately, the loud ones.

As do I, that's why this type of things frustrates me.

[Ricketts]

People that militantly go after Fox News annoy the shit out of me. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Deal with it. I don't fucking like it but I don't give a shit that it's there either. Stupid people will be stupid, they gravitate to the channel that agrees with them.

[eriatarka24]

Listen to each other.



As do I, that's why this type of things frustrates me.

just wanted to go off topic for ONE second:

Your musical compatibility with ivegotallthelov is SUPER
Music you have in common includes Circa Survive, Foals, dredg, The Academy Is... and Anberlin.


Added! :wave: haha

[GeeBee]

People that militantly go after Fox News annoy the shit out of me. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Deal with it. I don't fucking like it but I don't give a shit that it's there either. Stupid people will be stupid, they gravitate to the channel that agrees with them.
It would be that simple if their misinformation wasn't affecting the public discourse. It is.

Now just man up and admit you have a crush on Shepard Smith.

[Ricketts]

It would be that simple if their misinformation wasn't affecting the public discourse. It is.

Now just man up and admit you have a crush on Shepard Smith.

I don't buy that though. I think these people were dumb as hell waaaay before they watched Fox News.
Also, my man crush on Shepard Smith is no secret. He is an adorably handsome man.

[J.C.]

I have a crush on Shep.

[GeeBee]

I don't buy that though. I think these people were dumb as hell waaaay before they watched Fox News.
Also, my man crush on Shepard Smith is no secret. He is an adorably handsome man.
No one's disputing the longevity of the stupidity. You're asserting that everyone should just shut up about Fox News and not watch if they don't like it, as if it won't affect them. But the misinformation affects elections and public policy...so that's not a viable option.

Also, welcome to the club. Shep is a stunner.

[Scrandon]

Listen to each other.

As do I, that's why this type of things frustrates me.
I agree, it's a great thing that we can all have our own opinions; however, the study regards the viewer's misconception of solid facts, not opinions. It needs to be shown and harped on until the problem is fixed. Then, when we are all operating from a point where we agree on facts but disagree on the implications of them, we can respectfully agree to disagree.

[mfields10]

CNN has no bias, they're just inept, and almost all the MSNBC commentary shows just harp on the shit FoxNEWS is saying, which makes their bias pretty obvious, too. As well, I don't now, and never have, understood how people think that because FoxNEWS doesn't even try to hide their bias, that this is somehow commendable, like, "oh, at least FoxNEWS tells you they're full of shit, before then telling you something is truthful and should be considered 'news'". Give me a fucking break.

Cut down on your comma use and get the fucking point across.
Oh yeah, to say a network has no bias is fucking bullshit. especially cnn. Maybe you don't realize it, but they are.
It's okay. you don't have to listen to what I say though, because I'm a dumb fucking republican. It's probably why I'm trying to move to Canada after school and stuff.

And what is bad about admitting your news channel is biased?
Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?

[*crying stars*]

And what is bad about admitting your news channel is biased?
Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?

... Except Fox News doesn't claim that they hold any bias- they play it off as "fair and balanced." Actually, I'll point you to this post:

You mean blatant, not open. Open would suggest they don't pass themselves off as fair and balanced. Blatant at least hints at the idea it can be unspoken.

It's not even the bias that just offends, it's the fact that they have made up stories that they have passed off as"fact" in order to push their own agenda. Which isn't even always the conservative agenda.

[Matt Chylak]

Cut down on your comma use and get the fucking point across.
Oh yeah, to say a network has no bias is fucking bullshit. especially cnn. Maybe you don't realize it, but they are.
It's okay. you don't have to listen to what I say though, because I'm a dumb fucking republican. It's probably why I'm trying to move to Canada after school and stuff.

And what is bad about admitting your news channel is biased?
Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?

i'm sure that most people in here agree that our news channels (ideally) shouldn't lean politically in any direction, and though all of them (unfortunately) carry biases, fox news has the most warped political view of our country's national media. also, stop being a dick to a nice guy.

[Scrandon]

Cut down on your comma use and get the fucking point across.
Oh yeah, to say a network has no bias is fucking bullshit. especially cnn. Maybe you don't realize it, but they are.
It's okay. you don't have to listen to what I say though, because I'm a dumb fucking republican. It's probably why I'm trying to move to Canada after school and stuff.

And what is bad about admitting your news channel is biased?
Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?
Care to explain how CNN "are bias"? Or maybe at least your hate for commas?

[dretti]

I know this is off-topic on Fox News (don't worry they are the worst, I agree with all of you) but its funny just reading the headlines for various stories when you go across different media outputs.

A good friend of mine, who is a huge supporter of Israel, loves to show how things change across the pane from what's reported in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yesterday, 5 people were killed, and here is how each was reported:

Al Jezzera:
"Israeli attack kills Gaza fighters"
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/12/2010121823546201234.html

CNN:
"5 Palestinians killed after Israeli airstrike in Gaza" http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/18/gaza.israel.strike/index.html?hpt=T2

Yahoo:
"Israeli air strike kills five Gaza militants"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101218/wl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_strike

Haaretz:
"Israeli air strike kills five Palestinian militants in Gaza"
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-air-strike-kills-five-palestinian-militants-in-gaza-1.331351

Arutz 7:"Air Force Foils Rocket Attacks on Israel; 5 Terrorists Killed"
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141206

I think he has updated this since yesterday even, but I find it humorous to see the biases come in across the board. It makes it really difficult to have any indication of what ACTUALLY happens anymore.

[dretti]

Care to explain how CNN "are bias"? Or maybe at least your hate for commas?

CNN is no perfect angel either. While it may be the most "moderate" of the major three, its far from without bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

[Scrandon]

CNN is no perfect angel either. While it may be the most "moderate" of the major three, its far from without bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
It's not network-wide bias. I think we would be sadly mistaken to even mention that in the same breath as Fox or MSNBC. This is by no means an appraisal of CNN, I actually find it much more valuable when there are arguments being made one way or another.

[dretti]

It's not network-wide bias. I think we would be sadly mistaken to even mention that in the same breath as Fox or MSNBC. This is by no means an appraisal of CNN, I actually find it much more valuable when there are arguments being made one way or another.

I'll agree with you on that, I prefer CNN to the others, personally. Fox News is by far the worst, although MSNBC without question has a near network wide left-leaning bias. Although it is not near as prevalent and obvious as Fox News.

I'm home for the holidays right now, and my dad spends his afternoons watching Fox News. I sat with him and watched for awhile today (it was whatever the blonde afternoon anchor/lawyer chick's name is) and it was so bad it was almost comical.

[Matt Chylak]

CNN is no perfect angel either. While it may be the most "moderate" of the major three, its far from without bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

compare that to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

and your link seems inconsequential

[aaroncapps]

Cut down on your comma use and get the fucking point across.
Oh yeah, to say a network has no bias is fucking bullshit. especially cnn. Maybe you don't realize it, but they are.
It's okay. you don't have to listen to what I say though, because I'm a dumb fucking republican. It's probably why I'm trying to move to Canada after school and stuff.

And what is bad about admitting your news channel is biased?
Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?

Nothing wrong with owning up to bias on your preferred news channel. It becomes a problem when its your only source of news and you still want to be informed. If you want to listen to people shout your own opinions back at you, then go for it. Just know that, at the end of the day, you aren't getting the whole story and you don't know shit. Also, please don't think this is a republican bashing, this applies to both Fox News and MSNBC (CNN, though irresponsible in their own right, are nowhere near as tilted on the political spectrum and cannot, for purposes of fairness, be grouped with other clearly partisan networks).

Post Script.
Commas are essential to getting complex points across in a concise manner. Don't hate on punctuation, bro.

[caveBEAR]

Whew. Here we go;

Cut down on your comma use and get the fucking point across.

Most of my writing here is done in a very 'stream of consciousness' style, which, unfortunately, leads itself to many commas, especially if I add in, depending on my mood, a text piece, like so, 'do you see what I'm doing here?'

Oh yeah, to say a network has no bias is fucking bullshit. especially cnn. Maybe you don't realize it, but they are.

CNN barely has a bias at this point (they still lean left, but to make a point of that around educated people is like making a point to let someone know the sky is blue and ice is cold; no shit) because they've been trying to become the iNews network and spend most of their day catering to Twitter.

It's okay. you don't have to listen to what I say though, because I'm a dumb fucking republican.

I don't have to listen to what you say because you didn't really make a point, you just rambled on and on. Funny, considering you opened up the post telling me to get to the point; funnier still, the point was so obvious in my post that it actually started a pretty long argument, which leads me to believe that, Republican or not, you're probably still dumb.

It's probably why I'm trying to move to Canada after school and stuff.

You're moving to Canada after school because you're a dumb Republican? Well, that does sound like something a dumb Republican would do...

And what is bad about admitting your news channel is biased?

See all the posts about FoxNEWS marketing themselves on being not-biased while being the most blatantly biased. As well, when you are biased you stray from the truth (that's what a bias is), and when you are the news, you're supposed to tell the truth; therefore, you convince the people watching that your half-truths are reality.

Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?

Not when you're a news channel. Objectivity should be their strongest belief.

SPOLIER ALERT: It's not.



Well, that was fun.

[caveBEAR]

Care to explain how CNN "are bias"? Or maybe at least your hate for commas?

Man, fuck commas. You know how many people a year never wake up from them?

[topher465]

just wanted to go off topic for ONE second:

Your musical compatibility with ivegotallthelov is SUPER
Music you have in common includes Circa Survive, Foals, dredg, The Academy Is... and Anberlin.


Added! :wave: haha


Nice! I love last.fm.


I agree, it's a great thing that we can all have our own opinions; however, the study regards the viewer's misconception of solid facts, not opinions. It needs to be shown and harped on until the problem is fixed. Then, when we are all operating from a point where we agree on facts but disagree on the implications of them, we can respectfully agree to disagree.

Exactly. I often find myself defending my beliefs so hard that I'm not even listening to what the other person is saying. It's not healthy, and it's not a dialogue.

[caveBEAR]

I agree, it's a great thing that we can all have our own opinions; however, the study regards the viewer's misconception of solid facts, not opinions. It needs to be shown and harped on until the problem is fixed. Then, when we are all operating from a point where we agree on facts but disagree on the implications of them, we can respectfully agree to disagree.

:appl: x1,000

[Matt Chylak]

Well, that was fun.

I laughed

[mfields10]

Care to explain how CNN "are bias"? Or maybe at least your hate for commas?

I don't know, have you tried googling it?
Wikipedia has about 20 instances of controversies...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

And, does it really, really make much sense, if people on boards, like AP, start using 7, 8, or 9, commas, or other forms of punctuation, such as semi-colons, or colons, or etc, when they are trying, to get a point across, that could easily be said, in like, you know, probably about 9 or 10 words, at the most?

[mfields10]

Nothing wrong with owning up to bias on your preferred news channel. It becomes a problem when its your only source of news and you still want to be informed. If you want to listen to people shout your own opinions back at you, then go for it. Just know that, at the end of the day, you aren't getting the whole story and you don't know shit. Also, please don't think this is a republican bashing, this applies to both Fox News and MSNBC (CNN, though irresponsible in their own right, are nowhere near as tilted on the political spectrum and cannot, for purposes of fairness, be grouped with other clearly partisan networks).

Post Script.
Commas are essential to getting complex points across in a concise manner. Don't hate on punctuation, bro.

Alright. I can agree with this. But to say that republicans are dumb because the watch fox news is bull shit. Only fuckers that were dumb enough to get all of their news from one source are the people that only watch fox news. And... does that mean fox news is making people stupid? no, they were already stupid. Fucking politics, always blaming the other party. I'm sure there are democrats that get there news from only one source, one which is biased.

Reply to your post script:
If he used them correctly, maybe I wouldn't have called him out on it. You don't use commas before the word and. At least, not the way he did. He wasn't being concise... If he was being concise, he would have said: "Also, I have never understood how people find it commendable that FoxNEWS doesn't hide their bias, like, {whatever his quote was}."

[caveBEAR]

I don't know, have you tried googling it?
Wikipedia has about 20 instances of controversies...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

And, does it really, really make much sense, if people on boards, like AP, start using 7, 8, or 9, commas, or other forms of punctuation, such as semi-colons, or colons, or etc, when they are trying, to get a point across, that could easily be said, in like, you know, probably about 9 or 10 words, at the most?

You're trying very, very hard to make using complex punctuation properly into something to be looked down upon; however, it's just making you look like an English class dropout. No worries, there's always community college.


If he used them correctly, maybe I wouldn't have called him out on it. You don't use commas before the word and. At least, not the way he did. He wasn't being concise... If he was being concise, he would have said: "Also, I have never understood how people find it commendable that FoxNEWS doesn't hide their bias, like, {whatever his quote was}."

I've never been one for brevity. Fuck off.

As well, using a comma before the beginning of a spoken passage (i.e., 'something like this') is completely acceptable. It's up to the author, and I always love to give a breath before spoken passage. You never know if someone likes to read it aloud in a different voice.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't know, have you tried googling it?
Wikipedia has about 20 instances of controversies...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

And, does it really, really make much sense, if people on boards, like AP, start using 7, 8, or 9, commas, or other forms of punctuation, such as semi-colons, or colons, or etc, when they are trying, to get a point across, that could easily be said, in like, you know, probably about 9 or 10 words, at the most?
Calling CNN biased is a sign of how uninformed you are and how you clearly haven't tuned into CNN in the past...I'd say like four years. Not even open for debate, they've very blatantly tried to be the middle between MSNBC and Fox News. See: shitty hours of television called ParkerSpitzer

[mfields10]

You're trying very, very hard to make using complex punctuation properly into something to be looked down upon; however, it's just making you look like an English class dropout. No worries, there's always community college.




I've never been one for brevity. Fuck off.

As well, using a comma before the beginning of a spoken passage (i.e., 'something like this') is completely acceptable. It's up to the author, and I always love to give a breath before spoken passage. You never know if someone likes to read it aloud in a different voice.

Alright! CC! can't wait.
And thanks for the grammar lesson, bro.
Maybe, if I used your sentence structure in english 101, I would have gotten an A+, instead of an A, and I would have been a lot happier, with myself, and my gpa, if I had only used, maybe a couple more commas, each sentence, maybe.
You see, I forgot that commas help get concise points across.
And that you weren't one for brevity.
Oh wait, that doesn't make sense. It's kind of contradictory.
Whatever, you're a democrat, so you must be right.

[dretti]

Alright! CC! can't wait.
And thanks for the grammar lesson, bro.
Maybe, if I used your sentence structure in english 101, I would have gotten an A+, instead of an A, and I would have been a lot happier, with myself, and my gpa, if I had only used, maybe a couple more commas, each sentence, maybe.
You see, I forgot that commas help get concise points across.
And that you weren't one for brevity.
Oh wait, that doesn't make sense. It's kind of contradictory.
Whatever, you're a democrat, so you must be right.

lol wut

[mfields10]

Calling CNN biased is a sign of how uninformed you are and how you clearly haven't tuned into CNN in the past...I'd say like four years. Not even open for debate, they've very blatantly tried to be the middle between MSNBC and Fox News. See: shitty hours of television called ParkerSpitzer

So they haven't been biased since we have had a democratic president in office.
That kind of makes sense, because THERE'S A DEOMCRATIC PRESIDENT IN OFFICE.
What are they going to get for being biased right now? A cookie?
Honestly, they have nothing to gain from being biased right now when the democrats are in office...

And to answer your question, no I haven't turned it to cnn. or FoxNEWS, or any other good for nothing news channel that overgeneralizes everything.
I have my beliefs. I do research about the candidates. I vote for whoever has my beliefs, or against whoever doesn't have most of my beliefs.

[caveBEAR]

Right. I don't think those posts require my response to make them look any worse than they do on their own.

[saysmydoctor]

So they haven't been biased since we have had a democratic president in office.
That kind of makes sense, because THERE'S A DEOMCRATIC PRESIDENT IN OFFICE.
What are they going to get for being biased right now? A cookie?
Honestly, they have nothing to gain from being biased right now when the democrats are in office...

And to answer your question, no I haven't turned it to cnn. or FoxNEWS, or any other good for nothing news channel that overgeneralizes everything.
I have my beliefs. I do research about the candidates. I vote for whoever has my beliefs, or against whoever doesn't have most of my beliefs.
Your logic would make sense except for the fact that MSNBC finds something to bitch about every day.

CNN is a lot of things: terrible, working a flawed brand, unintelligible, obnoxious, milking the Katrina aftermath, too attached to Twitter, the employer of Nancy Grace--biased? Nope.

[Mitch]

God I'm so glad that someone else also hates Nancy Grace.

[caveBEAR]

God I'm so glad that someone else also hates Nancy Grace.

I can't stand that bitch. You'd think my Mom and stepdad were going to find all these missing kids with Nancy.


......





........


ONLY NANCY NEVER, EVER FINDS THEM.
(Yet carries a tone of voice like she does all the time)

Ugh, bitch.

[Scrandon]

Having some hack on the O'Reilly factor explain to me what "real bias" in the "liberal media" is = priceless.
(Especially with this thread in mind.)

[loveisdead]

Having some hack on the O'Reilly factor explain to me what "real bias" in the "liberal media" is = priceless.
(Especially with this thread in mind.)

What did he say?

[Scrandon]

What did he say?
He said real bias is when a network picks and chooses what news stories to report on (obviously). I think it's something Fox does regularly.

[loveisdead]

He said real bias is when a network picks and chooses what news stories to report on (obviously). I think it's something Fox does regularly.

Fox does.

[perceptrons]

Fox does.
Bologna. Fox doesn't choose the stories, it runs the stories that the American people want, and need, to know about. Fox is just the voice of this exceptional nation, and I, for one, salute them for their efforts. God Bless Fox News.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I can't stand that bitch. You'd think my Mom and stepdad were going to find all these missing kids with Nancy.


......





........


ONLY NANCY NEVER, EVER FINDS THEM.
(Yet carries a tone of voice like she does all the time)

Ugh, bitch.

WUkxxI0Rm08
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUkxxI0Rm08)

[awfulwaffle]

All TV news outlets are shit, do your own reading on CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc. You may learn something instead of listening to some halfwit on television

[loveisdead]

God I'm so glad that someone else also hates Nancy Grace.

To be fair, Sean hates everyone.

[Simulcast]

lol

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

All TV news outlets are shit, do your own reading on CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc. You may learn something instead of listening to some halfwit on television

Are you suggesting Heritage is not biased?

[awfulwaffle]

Are you suggesting Heritage is not biased?

No, I'm not suggesting that CATO and Brookings aren't without bias either. Merely stating my preference for reading qualified scholars discuss policy rather than a random, inane person in front of a teleprompter

[J.C.]

There are people who don't hate Nancy Grace?

[caveBEAR]

To be fair, Sean hates everyone.

Have Sean and I (other Sean) just become one being of unadulterated hatred?

[loveisdead]

Have Sean and I (other Sean) just become one being of unadulterated hatred?

I was talking about saysmydoctor Sean. I've always viewed him that way.

[saysmydoctor]

If you don't hate Nancy Grace, I want your drugs.

[caveBEAR]

If you don't hate Nancy Grace, I want your drugs.

:lol:

[paper halo]

If you don't hate Nancy Grace, I want your drugs.

I don't even know who she is. Jealous?

[drpepper09]

There are people who don't hate Nancy Grace?

My Grandma watches her program regularly. It makes me induce vomiting whenever I visit her. Can't stand Nancy Grace. Always yelling. Her Voice. FUCK.

[Matt Chylak]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/cable-news-ratings-2010-t_n_801987.html#s216062

13 out of the top 15. wow.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/cable-news-ratings-2010-t_n_801987.html#s216062

13 out of the top 15. wow.

I watch Glenn Beck for ironic reasons.

[speakhandsforme]

As opposed to most Democrats not being informed at all.

I'm just going to trust that the rest of the AP community gave you your lashings in the previous 13 pages and leave it at that.

[Under The Knife]

Fox News doesn't make you stupid, stupid people who lack critical thinking skills watch Fox News and believe everything they see and hear.

[crackedthesky]

No, I'm not suggesting that CATO and Brookings aren't without bias either. Merely stating my preference for reading qualified scholars discuss policy rather than a random, inane person in front of a teleprompter

But random, inane people behind a computer keyboard are somehow more credible?

[vodyanoj]

In reality, it's more that idiots tend to watch Fox News. But the point still stands.

EDIT: Oh well. The point has been made before me, as well. I should have known...

[12!21fightchoke]

LOL, what complete bullshit.

[Mitch]

This is a true story: I was watching fox news and I accidentally switched to telemundo while I was looking at my phone. Shit made just as little sense as fox was making and I didn't even notice I had changed it until like two minutes later.

[birdman]

I don't even know why I come into these forums...but I'll throw my two cents in.

The problem with both sides is that they tend to believe that the other side is "evil". Conservatives think that Liberals are "socialist hell-bent on complete government control" Liberals think that Conservatives are "evil nationalists that would love nothing more than to throw all minorities into an active volcano"

Neither could be further from the truth...sure there are crazies out there on both sides, but they represent that overwhelming minority of the actual mindset of most Americans. They are just the loudest and get the most attention.

I think that we would all be doing ourselves a big favor if we looked at networks like Fox and MSNBC as simply catering to a certain belief structure rather than SUPER EVIL AND TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!

There are plenty of outlets that cater to Liberal ideals...Liberals are doing themselves a huge disservice by spending all of their energy trying to discredit the ONE NETWORK that caters to the other side.

I don't know if any of that made sense, so I will sum it up.

Fox is not evil, at least not any more or less evil than any other major corporation.
People have different opinions
You aren't as smart as you think you are
Crazies are the minority
Focus less on what Fox News is saying and focus more on getting your message out. If your message is that Fox News is evil, then you have a very thin message and will likely be ignored.


Thanks!

[crackedthesky]

I don't even know why I come into these forums...but I'll throw my two cents in.

The problem with both sides is that they tend to believe that the other side is "evil". Conservatives think that Liberals are "socialist hell-bent on complete government control" Liberals think that Conservatives are "evil nationalists that would love nothing more than to throw all minorities into an active volcano"

Neither could be further from the truth...sure there are crazies out there on both sides, but they represent that overwhelming minority of the actual mindset of most Americans. They are just the loudest and get the most attention.

I think that we would all be doing ourselves a big favor if we looked at networks like Fox and MSNBC as simply catering to a certain belief structure rather than SUPER EVIL AND TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!

There are plenty of outlets that cater to Liberal ideals...Liberals are doing themselves a huge disservice by spending all of their energy trying to discredit the ONE NETWORK that caters to the other side.

I don't know if any of that made sense, so I will sum it up.

Fox is not evil, at least not any more or less evil than any other major corporation.
People have different opinions
You aren't as smart as you think you are
Crazies are the minority
Focus less on what Fox News is saying and focus more on getting your message out. If your message is that Fox News is evil, then you have a very thin message and will likely be ignored.


Thanks!

While there are some good messages in what you said, a lot of it is just as hyperbolic as the news sources you're talking about. For example, you really think the number one message liberals are putting out is "get rid of Fox News?" Yeah right. Jon Stewart has higher ratings than almost every program on Fox News. Liberals have much bigger fish to fry.

Here's the difference that a lot of liberals are worried about. Let's take the two networks' extremes: Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck.

Keith Olbermann, in so many words: He spins around in his chair, waving his arms around and using the biggest words he can find to call people stupid.
Glenn Beck, in so many words: He tells people they're going to die and need to start killing people in order to "get our country back to it's Christian roots."

There's a pretty damn big difference. You have people on Fox News saying "I want Nancy Pelosi floating face-down in the river," "We should assassinate Obama - Osama... well, both, if we could," (followed by laughter from everyone on the news floor.) You have people on msnbc like Ed Shultz completely freaking out on nightly tv about how mad he is, and then you have people on Fox News who are actually doctoring their videos to make it look like someone is saying something they've never said. That is the difference. People have different opinions, sure. Nobody has different facts. When you're editing your videos to fabricate a lie to report on, that's not a different opinion. It's called a lie, or slander, and it isn't protected by the Constitution. In many states, it's even illegal.

Just a few days ago, David Shuster did an interview. Shuster is an award-winning journalist who was fired from msnbc last Spring. Before that, he worked for CNN, and he also worked for Fox News. What he said in that interview is basically the truth about both networks: "msnbc isn't as liberal as Fox News is conservative."

Besides that, your claim that Fox News is the "one" network that leans Conservative is false. And anyway, you can't just lump everyone in a network together as though they're all mindless zombies repeating whatever their boss thinks. You have people at Fox News like Shep Smith and, to a lesser degree, Brit Hume who aren't afraid to ask questions nobody else on Fox would dream of asking. Some woman on Fox, I don't even know her name, was making some Republican representative shit his pants because she caught him in a lie about their "Pledge to America" and wouldn't let him project said lie onto someone else. Conversely, you have people at msnbc who do the same. During the 2008 election cycle, I watched Contessa Brewer cut an Obama spokesperson from talking because he repeatedly dodged her question. You have Dylan Ratigan on, and he doesn't play sides at all, he just calls bullshit wherever and whenever he sees it, regardless of who it's coming from. Then there's Joe Scarborough, who actually served in Congress as a Republican, and continues to hold very conservative views, which he regularly expresses on his show, on msnbc.

[birdman]

While there are some good messages in what you said, a lot of it is just as hyperbolic as the news sources you're talking about. For example, you really think the number one message liberals are putting out is "get rid of Fox News?" Yeah right. Jon Stewart has higher ratings than almost every program on Fox News. Liberals have much bigger fish to fry.

Here's the difference that a lot of liberals are worried about. Let's take the two networks' extremes: Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck.

Keith Olbermann, in so many words: He spins around in his chair, waving his arms around and using the biggest words he can find to call people stupid.
Glenn Beck, in so many words: He tells people they're going to die and need to start killing people in order to "get our country back to it's Christian roots."

There's a pretty damn big difference. You have people on Fox News saying "I want Nancy Pelosi floating face-down in the river," "We should assassinate Obama - Osama... well, both, if we could," (followed by laughter from everyone on the news floor.) You have people on msnbc like Ed Shultz completely freaking out on nightly tv about how mad he is, and then you have people on Fox News who are actually doctoring their videos to make it look like someone is saying something they've never said. That is the difference. People have different opinions, sure. Nobody has different facts. When you're editing your videos to fabricate a lie to report on, that's not a different opinion. It's called a lie, or slander, and it isn't protected by the Constitution. In many states, it's even illegal.

Just a few days ago, David Shuster did an interview. Shuster is an award-winning journalist who was fired from msnbc last Spring. Before that, he worked for CNN, and he also worked for Fox News. What he said in that interview is basically the truth about both networks: "msnbc isn't as liberal as Fox News is conservative."

Besides that, your claim that Fox News is the "one" network that leans Conservative is false. And anyway, you can't just lump everyone in a network together as though they're all mindless zombies repeating whatever their boss thinks. You have people at Fox News like Shep Smith and, to a lesser degree, Brit Hume who aren't afraid to ask questions nobody else on Fox would dream of asking. Some woman on Fox, I don't even know her name, was making some Republican representative shit his pants because she caught him in a lie about their "Pledge to America" and wouldn't let him project said lie onto someone else. Conversely, you have people at msnbc who do the same. During the 2008 election cycle, I watched Contessa Brewer cut an Obama spokesperson from talking because he repeatedly dodged her question. You have Dylan Ratigan on, and he doesn't play sides at all, he just calls bullshit wherever and whenever he sees it, regardless of who it's coming from. Then there's Joe Scarborough, who actually served in Congress as a Republican, and continues to hold very conservative views, which he regularly expresses on his show, on msnbc.

- My point about John Stewart being a comedian was to signify that he is, in fact, a comedian...not a journalist. His show is for entertainment purposes.

- Name another television news network that leans conservative. I honestly can't think of one.

- What Fox News anchor suggested that the president should be assassinated.

- To suggest that Fox is the only network that edits their features to obtain a certain reaction from the audience is simply insane, here is just one example...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy.

- You are obviously very intelligent and educate yourself on your ideals...so I wouldn't say I was speaking to you. I obviously don't believe that everyone at MSNBC is a crazy liberal and everyone at Fox is a nut job conservative. But that is sort of the purpose of the study this forum references is it not? That people that watch Fox News are dumb, and Fox News is a generally conservative slanting network, therefore conservatives are dumb?

Thanks for the reasonable response.

[Scrandon]

- You are obviously very intelligent and educate yourself on your ideals...so I wouldn't say I was speaking to you. I obviously don't believe that everyone at MSNBC is a crazy liberal and everyone at Fox is a nut job conservative. But that is sort of the purpose of the study this forum references is it not? That people that watch Fox News are dumb, and Fox News is a generally conservative slanting network, therefore conservatives are dumb?
The point that should be taken away from the study is that the average Fox News viewer is simply uninformed on a variety of important issues. We can reasonably infer that Fox News is not doing a good job reporting clear truths. Nobody necessarily has to be "dumb". The stupid hyperbolic title and rhetoric used by the author only clouds his message and gives the very people who he wanted to reach with the message a reason to dismiss the study, which I think is what you're getting at. So yea, people should learn to have adult conversations with each other, and this shit is very counterproductive.

[birdman]

The point that should be taken away from the study is that the average Fox News viewer is simply uninformed on a variety of important issues. We can reasonably infer that Fox News is not doing a good job reporting clear truths. Nobody necessarily has to be "dumb". The stupid hyperbolic title and rhetoric used by the author only clouds his message and gives the very people who he wanted to reach with the message a reason to dismiss the study, which I think is what you're getting at. So yea, people should learn to have adult conversations with each other, and this shit is very counterproductive.

I agree 100%. I think the goal of the provocateurs of the study was to dismiss Fox News. In actuality, I bet there are issues that Fox News viewers are more informed about that viewers of MSNBC. Namely, Fox News viewers are less informed about stories that speak favorably of liberal politics, while viewers of MSNBC are less informed about stories that speak favorably to conservative politics.

My point being, if George W. Bush saved a dozen gay rights activist from a burning building, it would probably be treated as a non-story by MSNBC because it makes Bush look good. On the same token, if Obama campaigned to cut more taxes for the rich, and bomb Iran, Fox News would probably be equally as dismissive.

With the polarization of this country, there is nothing that Obama can do that will make a Fox News viewer commend him. Conversely, Sarah Palin will never win the hearts and minds of the MSNBC audience.

It's a damn shame, good ideas and good intentions are always clouded by stubbornness and hatred.

[crackedthesky]

- My point about John Stewart being a comedian was to signify that he is, in fact, a comedian...not a journalist. His show is for entertainment purposes.

- Name another television news network that leans conservative. I honestly can't think of one.

- What Fox News anchor suggested that the president should be assassinated.

- To suggest that Fox is the only network that edits their features to obtain a certain reaction from the audience is simply insane, here is just one example...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy.

- You are obviously very intelligent and educate yourself on your ideals...so I wouldn't say I was speaking to you. I obviously don't believe that everyone at MSNBC is a crazy liberal and everyone at Fox is a nut job conservative. But that is sort of the purpose of the study this forum references is it not? That people that watch Fox News are dumb, and Fox News is a generally conservative slanting network, therefore conservatives are dumb?

Thanks for the reasonable response.

I didn't even notice you mention Jon Stewart, lol. I was making a point. As far as cable news go... nobody watches it. Fox News's highest-rated program, The O'Reilly Factor, peaked at some 3.1 million viewers. Jon Stewart's average viewership is some 2.8 million. That said, msnbc.com gets some 30 million unique hits per month, making it the most-viewed news website (fox's website doesn't even break the top 3.) Considering msnbc.com has an average of ten times as many viewers as Fox News channel has ever received in any given month, basically, what I'm saying is just what I said. Liberals have bigger fish to fry than Fox News. Nobody watches cable news; most people get their news online, and most people get it from msnbc's website.

I wasn't narrowing my scope simply to to television, so naming another one is somewhat tricky. Off the top of my head, there is RightNetwork, a proudly tea party-slanted network launched by Kelsey Grammer.

It wasn't an anchor, but Fox News contributor Liz Trotta said, in regard to something Hillary Clinton said, "some are taking it as a sign that we should knock off Osama." the anchor then corrected her by saing "Obama," to which Trotta replied "Well, both, if we could," before erupting into laughter, which the Fox news anchor at the time chuckled to and said "Tell us how youreally feel!"

The Killian documents was in no way an example of a News station editing video to make a fabrication seem true. What happened was the story was reported before it had been thoroughly checked out, and in case you hadn't noticed, the man lost his job for doing it. I'm talking about people at Fox News (predominantly Sean Hannity) literally splicing videos to make it seem like Obama is saying things he didn't say, such as editing a video to make Obama say that 9/11 wasn't a very big deal, for example. Another example is that they'll take Obama's speeches, and edit out all cheering and applause to make it seem like nobody agrees with Obama, or editing video of other events into their own to make crowd sizes appear larger than they were. Yet Hannity didn't lose his job any of the many, many times he's been caught doing this, did he?

As for it not being aimed at me... I didn't take it that way. I just found that while some of what you said was commendable, much of it seemed somewhat slanted or hyperbolic. In any case, you're reading the results and the intention of this study incorrectly. You're taking the title of this thread as though it was what was actually concluded, which isn't the case. What happened was that several polls were conducted, and the results showed that the majority of Fox News viewers were misinformed on several key issues, whereas msnbc and CNN viewers scored much lower in the percentage of viewers who were misinformed. The people conducting the study didn't only survey Fox News viewers, they just found that most of the people who happen to watch Fox News also tend to believe in many things that aren't true, as is listed on the front page.

[crackedthesky]

I agree 100%. I think the goal of the provocateurs of the study was to dismiss Fox News. In actuality, I bet there are issues that Fox News viewers are more informed about that viewers of MSNBC. Namely, Fox News viewers are less informed about stories that speak favorably of liberal politics, while viewers of MSNBC are less informed about stories that speak favorably to conservative politics.

My point being, if George W. Bush saved a dozen gay rights activist from a burning building, it would probably be treated as a non-story by MSNBC because it makes Bush look good. On the same token, if Obama campaigned to cut more taxes for the rich, and bomb Iran, Fox News would probably be equally as dismissive.

With the polarization of this country, there is nothing that Obama can do that will make a Fox News viewer commend him. Conversely, Sarah Palin will never win the hearts and minds of the MSNBC audience.

It's a damn shame, good ideas and good intentions are always clouded by stubbornness and hatred.


Ah, the bolded is where you're reading the study wrong. It isn't about which issues people are informed on, it's about how they are informed. For example, people who watch Fox and people who watch msnbc are all aware that the TARP legislation passed. The difference is that most Fox viewers believe that Republicans opposed TARP, when in reality, nearly all Congressional Republicans were in favor of it. Another example is that nearly half of all Fox viewers believe their taxes have gone up under Obama, where in reality, everyone's taxes have gone down, and were doing so even before the recent renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Most CNN and most msnbc viewers correctly identified this, but like I said, nearly half of all Fox viewers got it wrong. The argument isn't about what issues are being covered, it's about whether they're being covered correctly.

[Matt Chylak]

I agree 100%. I think the goal of the provocateurs of the study was to dismiss Fox News. In actuality, I bet there are issues that Fox News viewers are more informed about that viewers of MSNBC. Namely, Fox News viewers are less informed about stories that speak favorably of liberal politics, while viewers of MSNBC are less informed about stories that speak favorably to conservative politics.

My point being, if George W. Bush saved a dozen gay rights activist from a burning building, it would probably be treated as a non-story by MSNBC because it makes Bush look good. On the same token, if Obama campaigned to cut more taxes for the rich, and bomb Iran, Fox News would probably be equally as dismissive.

With the polarization of this country, there is nothing that Obama can do that will make a Fox News viewer commend him. Conversely, Sarah Palin will never win the hearts and minds of the MSNBC audience.

It's a damn shame, good ideas and good intentions are always clouded by stubbornness and hatred.

take the bolded out and this is a good post

[Matt Chylak]

Ah, the bolded is where you're reading the study wrong. It isn't about which issues people are informed on, it's about how they are informed. For example, people who watch Fox and people who watch msnbc are all aware that the TARP legislation passed. The difference is that most Fox viewers believe that Republicans opposed TARP, when in reality, nearly all Congressional Republicans were in favor of it. Another example is that nearly half of all Fox viewers believe their taxes have gone up under Obama, where in reality, everyone's taxes have gone down, and were doing so even before the recent renewal of the Bush tax cuts. Most CNN and most msnbc viewers correctly identified this, but like I said, nearly half of all Fox viewers got it wrong. The argument isn't about what issues are being covered, it's about whether they're being covered correctly.

while it's true that larger issues like TARP and taxes are covered better on more liberal networks, you have to agree that smaller events are magnified or marginalized on many programs across the political spectrum based upon the leanings of the issue at hand.

[crackedthesky]

while it's true that larger issues like TARP and taxes are covered better on more liberal networks, you have to agree that smaller events are magnified or marginalized on many programs across the political spectrum based upon the leanings of the issue at hand.

I'm not saying I don't agree. That's absolutely true. But it's a misreading of the issue and the study at hand. The study wasn't about who covers what issues, it was about how they cover each issue, finding that people who watch Fox News tend to be overwhelmingly misinformed compared to people who watch the same issues from other sources.

[Matt Chylak]

I'm not saying I don't agree. That's absolutely true. But it's a misreading of the issue and the study at hand. The study wasn't about who covers what issues, it was about how they cover each issue, finding that people who watch Fox News tend to be overwhelmingly misinformed compared to people who watch the same issues from other sources.

oh definitely. I read the study, I know what it's about. just wanted to clarify that point a little bit.

[vodyanoj]

viewers of MSNBC are less informed about stories that speak favorably to conservative politics.

Such as?