Study Shows Fox News Viewers Less Informed on Major Stories

Dickieboy said:

I never could get into fox and friends as it seems to me is pretty much a 'morning entertainment' show much like 'the today show'.

Click to expand...

You think? They go out and talk to people cooking hot dogs on the street for crying out loud. Anybody that takes fox and friends as serious news is a bigger idiot than those that watch MSNBC. They are not meant to be serious, anyone with a working brain cell knows that.

i'd guess that anyone who watches nothing but "news" produced by the confirmation bias networks would be poorly informed, conservative or liberal. not to mention talk radio.

dontworrybehappy said:

They go out and talk to people cooking hot dogs on the street for crying out loud.

Click to expand...

EASY NOW...I like hot dogs but really how hard is it to cook one?:lamo

lpast said:

I used to watch foxnews exclusively....I originally watched CNN going back to pre first gulf war. I switched to Foxnews about 10 yrs ago...and I watched it progressively become more intensely partisan until its at the ridiculous point it is at now...Fox and Friends is utterly ridiculous. In all fairness MSNBC has also become more partisan...especially their evening shows...which I dont watch on any network.
I gave up fox and friends because I got tired of watching a carnival every morning and switched to morning joe...which is FAR more fairer and truthful in its reporting and discussions....they allow both sides to actually speak

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I used to enjoy MSNBC as a "liberal" news outlet. Aware that confirmation bias plays a role.

Over the past couple of years they've transformed into "FOX for Democrats", only marginally better than FOX itself.

I actually get most of my news HERE now, as most of what I'm interested in shows up here FIRST. And the most blatant BS is quickly debunked.

Not so for folks who get all their information from one set of sources.

TheDemSocialist said:

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Fairleigh Dickinson PublicMind Poll Shows Fox News Viewers Less Informed on Major News Stories[FONT=arial, sans-serif] Yep FOX News is the best damn new source out there! [/FONT]:lamo
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Really comes at no [/FONT]surprise[FONT=arial, sans-serif] to me...[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Thoughts?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Comments?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Response? [/FONT]

Click to expand...

It's a good thing this study was done by a private university. Had this been a public university, there would be outcry about spending government money to study and conclude on the obvious.

Jerry said:

I was under the impression that biased threads were unwelcome in this forum.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Presenting an obviously biased study is pure partisan hackery. At least that's what we would hear from the Libbos, if someone bashed Chris Matthews and his leg travelling thrill.

Click to expand...

When unable to debate the facts, promote censorship.

apdst said:

They're presenting the same information, with a different spin. That's basically the only difference.

Anyone that watches FNC is just as informed as someone that watches CNN, or MSNBC.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of spin. It's a matter of bald face lying. For example:

9/12 newspaper ad controversy

On September 18, 2009, Fox News Channel took out full-page ads in The Washington Post, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal with a prominent caption reading, "How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?" with pictures of a Tea Party movement protest on the United States Capitol lawn. A still picture in the ad was in fact taken from a CNN broadcast covering the event. The veracity of this ad was called into question on the air by then-CNN commentator Rick Sanchez, along with others pointing to various coverage of the event.[89][90][91] CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CBS Radio News provided various forms of live coverage of the rally in Washington throughout the day on Saturday, including the lead story on CBS Evening News.[89][91][92][93]

Fox News' vice president of marketing, Michael Tammero, responded, "it's fair to say that from the tea party movement . . . to ACORN . . . to the march on 9/12, the networks either ignored the story, marginalized it or misrepresented the significance of it altogether."[94]

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

And as you can see, when caught red-handed lying (and stupidly lying, at that), Fox just makes up some more lying B.S. to try and cover the original lie. They simply have no shame (or they must be sociopaths).

A biased thread complaining about bias, hmmm...

Wow, another poorly worded survey conducted by a "political science" professor from an unknown university. That's starting to become a cliche.

If you word a survey poorly enough, you can achieve whatever result you desire. I would say that the revolutions in Syria and Egypt were unsuccessful. The overthrow of Mubarak occurred in February, but was followed by military rule, riots and killing for many months before the military junta stepped down. The poll was conducted from October 17 through October 23, when riots were still occurring, and the military was still in charge. Doesn't sound very successful to me. I read the article from The Slatest, which covered the poll. It was the most biased bit of nonsense I've read since I last tuned in to MSNBC.

scott3dl said:

Wow, another poorly worded survey conducted by a "political science" professor from an unknown university. That's starting to become a cliche.

If you word a survey poorly enough, you can achieve whatever result you desire. I would say that the revolutions in Syria and Egypt were unsuccessful. The overthrow of Mubarak occurred in February, but was followed by military rule, riots and killing for many months before the military junta stepped down. The poll was conducted from October 17 through October 23, when riots were still occurring, and the military was still in charge. Doesn't sound very successful to me. I read the article from The Slatest, which covered the poll. It was the most biased bit of nonsense I've read since I last tuned in to MSNBC.

Click to expand...

:lamo . . . . Actually, posts such as yours that rely solely on logical fallacies and are rife with factual errors are becoming cliche, at least from the right side of the political spectrum.

1. Your "unknown university" claim, as it infers you would trust a "known university" is both an appeal to authority fallacy, as well as an ad hominem (demeaning the university not because of the quality of its poll, but because of its "unknown" status). Your "political science professor" remark is an ad hominem as well (inferring the professor is biased not because of the content of his work, but because of his title/specialty). Three grade school errors in logic, and that's just your first sentence :shock:

2. The survey was conducted by an outside, apparently professional, polling agency. This is your first factual error; a total of four errors so far and again, we have yet to progress beyond your fist sentence. From page 3 of the OP's link:

PublicMind interviews are conducted by Opinion America of Cedar Knolls, NJ, with professionally trained interviewers using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system. Random selection is achieved by computerized random-digit dialing. This technique gives every person with a land-line phone number (including those with unlisted numbers) an equal chance of being selected. Landline households are supplemented with a separate, randomly selected sample of cell-phone-only-households, interviewed in the same time frame. The total combined sample is mathematically weighted to match known demographics of age, race and gender.

Click to expand...

3. The wording of the survey is clear; as is your attempt to distort (your first lie of omission, by omitting the words in bold in your post to make your point):

K2. To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the regime there?

K3. How about the opposition groups in Syria? Have they been successful in bringing down the regime there?

Click to expand...

In summary, five glaring errors and a bunch of partisan rhetoric; a very poor effort indeed.

I watch and read several news sites a day from different countries I like to see what all sides are saying! Apart fron Hannity which I watch to feel better about myself!

It's very perplexing to note that this required a study.

I'm curious, is there any amount of evidence that would actually show that Fox is trash? Is there anything that Fox could do (obviously other than changing its overall narrative), that would cause its viewers to abandon it?

Paschendale said:

I'm curious, is there any amount of evidence that would actually show that Fox is trash? Is there anything that Fox could do (obviously other than changing its overall narrative), that would cause its viewers to abandon it?

Click to expand...

Meh, they have one objective: rake liberals and their agenda through the muck. Until the partisan rhetoric in this country cools down or conservatism declines, they'll always have a large audience for that.

apdst said:

Presenting an obviously biased study is pure partisan hackery. At least that's what we would hear from the Libbos, if someone bashed Chris Matthews and his leg travelling thrill.

Click to expand...

prove it's biased.

whysoserious said:

Meh, they have one objective: rake liberals and their agenda through the muck. Until the partisan rhetoric in this country cools down or conservatism declines, they'll always have a large audience for that.

Click to expand...

It could be argued that Fox is significantly responsible for the heated level of partisan rhetoric. Look at all the verbal bomb throwers they host, have hosted, or regularly feature -- Beck, Coulter, Hannity, Ingraham -- plus those that they give a platform to, such as Breitbart, Levin, Goldberg, Limbaugh, etc.

Fox is central HQ for right wing talk media and all the intolerance, inaccurate facts, and downright lies that it propagates.

I would agree, Karl. However, I would point to all 24-hour news cycles and biased talk radio as well. If you have to report the news for 24 hours every day, how could you possibly be objective? There is not enough news in the world for that.

I personally can't see any problem with being objective. With not being repetitive, well, sure.

The problem introduced by Fox to the 24 hour cable news format -- a problem they copied from right wing talk radio IMHO -- is the slime factor... and their seeming serial inability to resist making stuff up (another feature of right wing talk radio).

I don't care about the bias. Well, I do care, but it is somewhat inconsequential... while bias may make you less informed, it is unlikely to make you misinformed. The outright falsehoods and the slime, that's the problem... which is probably why their viewer base is the most uninformed.

whysoserious said:

I would agree, Karl. However, I would point to all 24-hour news cycles and biased talk radio as well. If you have to report the news for 24 hours every day, how could you possibly be objective? There is not enough news in the world for that.

Click to expand...

Karl said:

I personally can't see any problem with being objective. With not being repetitive, well, sure.

The problem introduced by Fox to the 24 hour cable news format -- a problem they copied from right wing talk radio IMHO -- is the slime factor... and their seeming serial inability to resist making stuff up (another feature of right wing talk radio).

I don't care about the bias. Well, I do care, but it is somewhat inconsequential... while bias may make you less informed, it is unlikely to make you misinformed. The outright falsehoods and the slime, that's the problem... which is probably why their viewer base is the most uninformed.

Click to expand...

You two are way off base...it's all about the good looking women...note:

Not just the attitudes of each network’s audience are different; their demographics are distinct as well. Fox News viewers are older, male, upper- or upper-middle class and Republican, and describe themselves as conservative.

"Most viewers" are just watching not listening hence 'misinformed'. I mean really...Ed Shultz...REALLY?

From Poll, a Snapshot of Fox News Viewers - NYTimes.com

whysoserious said:

I would agree, Karl. However, I would point to all 24-hour news cycles and biased talk radio as well. If you have to report the news for 24 hours every day, how could you possibly be objective? There is not enough news in the world for that.

Click to expand...

Does MSNBC even do news anymore? I thought they were stictly opinion shows now. After 5 it seems like one opinion show after another.