|
What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality. A few years ago, I was on a radio show with a well-known political reporter who lamented the loss of a pristine past in which the whole country could agree on what the facts were, even if they disagreed on how to interpret and act upon them. All that was gone now. The country had become so fractured we couldn’t even agree on what reality was. What she meant was that the day in which the front page of The New York Times was given scriptural authority everywhere was gone, shattered by the rise of Fox News.
Conservative Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer
With the cat out of the bag that Fox "News" has created an alternative reality, this post is an exploration of the nature of that reality and an examination of where Glenn Beck fits into (or not) that alternative reality. This will begin with a reprint of a story from News Corpse, The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay, "Study Confirms that Fox News Makes You Stupid;" it continues with a video clip of Christopher Hayes, managing editor of the Washing Bureau of The Nation Magazine, discussing this study and then explore the other, more extreme, alternative reality that has been created by Glenn Beck over the last 23 months.
Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid
Yet another study has been released that proves that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.
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 that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll 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. [Emphasis added]
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% believe that the stimulus legislation lost jobs.
- 72% believe that the health reform law will increase the deficit.
- 72% believe that the economy is getting worse.
- 60% believe that climate change is not occurring.
- 49% believe that income taxes have gone up.
- 63% believe that the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.
- 56% believe that Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout.
- 38% believe that most Republicans opposed TARP.
- 63% believe that Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear).
The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming their viewers and they are doing it for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. They benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
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 they can brag about it.
The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.
This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain that they do not get away with it. [Emphasis added]
[Addendum:] The folks at OurFuture had previously addressed some of the issues above and provided documentation that effectively debunks the myths.
[Update:] Michael Clemente, Fox News senior vice president of news editorial, dismissed the study’s findings in a statement to the New York Times:
“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.”
Clemente obviously prefers the snarky retort to the substantive rebuttal, and clearly has no affinity for the truth. When the Times fact-checked his response they discovered that the Princeton Review actually ranks the University of Maryland among the “Best Northeastern Colleges,” and it only made it to 19th on the list of “Best Party Schools.” So even in their response Fox affirmed the conclusions in the study by continuing to misinform. At least they’re consistent.
What exactly is Fox "News" up to?
This Review takes issue with the notion that being misinformed by a propaganda channel like Fox "News" lowers their viewer's IQ, i.e., "makes you stupid." When someone has a conversation with someone, who has been misinformed by Fox, their incorrect facts only only makes it seem as if they are stupid, ignorant or both. The following clip is a video report and discussion on the findings by the Program on International Policy Attitudes aired last night on Countdown with Keith Olberman. Sitting in for Olberman is Christopher Hayes:
Where Glenn Beck fits into this alternative reality
Fox "News" is creating a conservative, alternative perspective upon reality that involves managerial, top down, control of how information is to be imparted and of misinformation that reinforces the conservative views and biases of its viewers.. It is from here that Glenn Beck steps in to convey a unique, extremist perspective which combines the false information imparted by others at Fox with the creations of his own imagination along with some of the misinformation generated by and taken from right wing crank, Alex Jones and the right wing extremists at World Net Daily. Beck's perspective, based in part upon libertarian ideals, neo-conservative foreign policy agendas, paranoid conspiracy theories and a willingness to become a leader of his own movement, both reinforces the misinformation coming from the rest of the network and builds another alternative reality that is not conservative at all but is, in a word, reactionary. Beck's understanding of our world harks back to a time in America's rural past when all was well and good because the government did not step in to solve the problems created by the various corporate (private) interests vigorously working to maximize their profits.
News media is supposed to be a channel, a source of information about the world and the facts about various world events. These media can offer direct facts such as when they broadcast an event live that viewers witness. People know the truth about the facts/events because they have seen it with their own eyes whether they have the knowledge base to understand it or not. News media also offers indirect facts and events through accurate accounts, true stories about facts and events that occur. However, when information is conveyed by reporters with their own biases, how are citizens, who want to be well-informed, to know if the information they are getting is true, spun or just false? Consider the following truth mandala, a model of truth as it relates to individuals' perspectives on an observable fact (center).
Truth mandala
Understanding comes from having information and assimilating it. There is information and "information." "Information," i.e., misinformation, creates misunderstandings. We all have an understanding that derives from information we gather from various sources, and we assimilate that information in a way that accords with our biases and values. We prefer sources of information that matches our biases, and that is why Fox and MSNBC are doing better than CNN. The latter has recently become the most fair and balanced source of news, but that does not serve to re-enforce people's established beliefs.
The above truth taxonomy (classification) is elaborated upon in the post "What is the truth about Glenn Beck?" What is relevant to this essay are the media perspectives and the concentric circles that surround the mandala. While position on the outer edge of the mandala represents spin on the facts or events being described, the concentric circles around the truth represent outright deviations from the facts. The circles are the lies, false claims, misrepresentation of facts of various degrees from the circles near the truth (fibs, white lies) to the dark circle far from the truth (whoppers). It is clear from the U. of Maryland study that Fox operates not just on the red and orange (right wing) spin of fact's description (truth), but also completely off the truth mandala on one or another of the surrounding circles that depict misinformation. Beck, as displayed above, conveys information from the orange (reactionary) point of view but more important he has created an alternative reality that deviates even further from the truth about our world. Beck's fictions, false claims, whoppers, horrific lies and "completely insane" assertions have been carefully documented using independent research, the liberal media watchdogs Media Matters for America, the Fox News watchdogs News Hounds and the award winning PolitiFact.
The marriage of Fox's conservative slant and willingness to misinform about the other side (their opposition, the Democrats) with the larger than life and stranger than fiction Glenn Beck, has created something new and dangerous in the American experience. It is a symbiotic relationship between Fox and Beck. Fox misinforms their viewers enough to watch Beck who reinforces their misunderstanding in a positive feedback loop of increasing misunderstanding. Krauthammer was spot on; the United States has become fractured. What he didn't convey to his NewsCorp audience is that it is, in large part, because of the false, alternative realities that have been created by Fox. Fox "News" and Glenn Beck together are responsible for the United States being more divided than we have been since just before the Civil War. It's hard to imagine how this epistemic division of reality is going to turn out well. This is a struggle for accurate information, for truth, for justice and for the American Way forward (progress toward increasing freedom). It is a struggle that every reader, who is interested enough in this subject to have gotten to this point in this essay, needs to get involved with. There are several things that can be done:
The above truth taxonomy (classification) is elaborated upon in the post "What is the truth about Glenn Beck?" What is relevant to this essay are the media perspectives and the concentric circles that surround the mandala. While position on the outer edge of the mandala represents spin on the facts or events being described, the concentric circles around the truth represent outright deviations from the facts. The circles are the lies, false claims, misrepresentation of facts of various degrees from the circles near the truth (fibs, white lies) to the dark circle far from the truth (whoppers). It is clear from the U. of Maryland study that Fox operates not just on the red and orange (right wing) spin of fact's description (truth), but also completely off the truth mandala on one or another of the surrounding circles that depict misinformation. Beck, as displayed above, conveys information from the orange (reactionary) point of view but more important he has created an alternative reality that deviates even further from the truth about our world. Beck's fictions, false claims, whoppers, horrific lies and "completely insane" assertions have been carefully documented using independent research, the liberal media watchdogs Media Matters for America, the Fox News watchdogs News Hounds and the award winning PolitiFact.
Beck's very own alternative reality
Glenn Beck is creating a reactionary, alternative perspective upon reality operates in a style that has been described as paranoid, very similar to the approach taken by anti-communist and John Birch Society founder Robert Welsh. Like Welsh, Beck feverishly works to paint the sitting President as radical, socialist and Marxist (not to mention as an agent of Lucifer). He gets away with this nonsense because he feeds off an audience that is already misinformed by the rest of the network characters, including the directed "journalists" there. His viewers, conservative or reactionary, are not well informed and lack the open-mindedness needed to hear Beck's many deceptions. Furthermore -- as evidenced by the responses to the facts about Beck's lies on his website -- they dig their heels in even deeper into the bull crap that Beck piles around them. Beck is an entertainment genius, and as such has become intensely persuasive even as he lies through his teeth about facts that are easily checked. Recently self-educated with texts written by extremists (foremost the deceitful Cleon Skousen), Beck is a masterful performer, a showman and a (yellow) propagandist.
Crazy like a Fox
Unless someone watching Beck already has an accurate understanding of what Beck describes, listeners can believe the nonsense Beck conveys about his "Tree of Revolution," his conspiracy theory, Crime Inc, which his not even an accused crime, the imminent revolution by radicals or any number of "crazy" ideas that Beck passes off as "special information." This "information" is "special" because it is of his own creation. Beck creates his own extremist reality that feeds off the misinformed viewers of FoxPAC propaganda. The "crazier" that Beck's ideas are, the more free publicity he gets. This leads to more notice, more people listening, more people getting sucked into his persuasive, but deceitful, propaganda and voila: more of a following. It's a win-win situation for Glenn Beck's financial status. Beck is not so crazy after all.
Be part of the solution
- Sign the petition to have Beck fired for lying
- Help out with the ongoing, successful boycott of Beck's Fox show by advertisers
- Help get Fox turned off in local businesses
- Spread the word about Beck. Use this massive Internet communication machine and share this information. Share this URL, www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com, with people you know before one of minions gets to your friends, family members and neighbors before you do. (See link at top)
- Add The Glenn Beck Review to your blogroll if you're a blogger
- Call NewsCorp in NY City, and tell them to stop the lies: 212-852-7000
- For your own benefit, turn off Fox: bad news for America
Before more people start accepting Beck's false reality, get involvedPost a commentAll non-spam comments approvedFree speech is practiced here------------------------------------------------------Please get involved for 10 minutesShare this URL with your friendshttp://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.comThank you
22 comments:
you have your right wing media ,and your left wing media...both are inept ,and their viewers ignorant as the day is long...This is exactly what the CFR has set out to do....they formed the E.U. under the same strategy, now they have formed the SPP,or the North American Union...what Bush started,Obama continues/...All the while they have you retards pointing fingers at each other from your side of the fence,and not knowing the truth if it hit you upside the head.
Anonymous, you lack my respect off the bat due to your unwillingness to write in your name.
It just so happens that I have just finished reading Chomsky's Media Control, so I have a sense of how mainstream statist interests, such as the Counsel of Foreign Relations, controls or shapes the corporate media from left to right.
That said, there is no media political operation functioning the way that Fox has become one, i.e., as sheer propaganda. You paint a false equivalency of networks when you assert that the viewers of Fox and MSNBC are both "ignorant as the day is long." This research puts your claim to sham and shame, but you made it anyway.
Tell me how, if you come back here, the North American Union is anything more than a conspiracy theory of cranks like Alex Jones. I think, considering who is raising Cain about this SSP, A. Jones and other far right extremists, you'd better watch who you're calling "you retards." One might accuse you of projecting the mentality of your own extremist views onto others, unfairly in this case. Because someone doesn't buy a conspiracy theory that you do doesn't make them "retards," it makes them rationally skeptical.
Victor,
The fact that you start by stating you have little respect for those who exercise an option you make possible shows you are dishonest. Unless there’s a federal law, state law, or FCC Regulation that says bloggers have to make anonymous a comments section option that forced you to open it up. Oh, but there isn’t, is there? In fact, it’s completely up to the blogger isn’t it?
You took out the anonymous feature and now it’s back. What's wrong with remaining anonymous if you, the host, make it a possible category in your blog?
What was it? Couldn’t get anyone to comment on your blog? Maybe you should try being a little more respectful to those who write comments on your blog. Do you think then maybe you might have a chance at convincing some people that you have a valid opinion to consider?
But instead you castigate and reprimand. This act of arrogance directed at those who would read your blog makes you seem like an angry little man who has no resolve or self esteem. Yet you continue to censure those who exercise this option. What gives? I’ve noticed the comments have been a little thin lately.
I personally think you’ve added it back because no one wants to make themselves vulnerable to your crazy rants.
If don’t you respect anonymity it means you must not respect jury verdicts, union votes, or election results, police informants, corporate whistle blowers, people who want to pay cash, and people who don't want to give their telephone number to Radio Shack as the members of these institutions are also anonymous.
Toughen up or get out of the blog business!
Your objection to anonymous is pointless much like your blog. Anonymity has no impact on the veracity of the point.
How typical of you Victor. Conflicted little man, conflicted little man...
I'm sure you'll show me how ignorant and mis/uninformed I am in your response. Please take your best shot so we call all see your intellectual brilliance in all its splendor and magnificence.
The Anonymous commenter above wrote nary a word about the subject of this blog post, so I am compelled to point out the definition of a troll: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response"
Now that we understand your purpose here, anonymous troll, I'll point out a few flaws in your so called thinking. First, you accuse me of being dishonest, but you make no attempt to show a lack of honesty in not respected people, like yourself, who don't have the courage to post comments in their own name. Just because I allowed it (note past tense) doesn't mean I respect it. If I'm to be accused of anything, it is being judgmental.
FYI, the fewer comments I have to read, the less work I have to maintain the blog. I know I have readers because I track my statistics.
I think that I have gotten tougher on Beck in recent weeks, and I sure as hell don't plan on getting out of the blog hobby. (This is not a business.)
If you think the blog is "pointless," then 1) you show your colors as a shill for Beck because 2) if has a point, namely that Beck is a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan. I have proven these three claims over and over. I just have to get tougher about asserting this.
The rest of your comments is mere noise, trash talk of an unrepentant troll. I'm not going to offer you your desired, emotional response.
i looked over the report. the numbers cited don't add up and the sample group seems a bit small 0.0000002+/- of the population. and the questions are a bit to vague. do you know where i can see the actual questionairre?
Yes James, you can find the PDF file listed at
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
well i've looked over the report and the questionairre. but i still don't see the correlation. there is a issue with the reporting of the percentages. it makes the report impossible to interpret because the y report numerical percentages to whole parts instead of percentages. just makes me think they aren't quite as careful as they ought to be. they also don't tell us how many of the respondents watched more than one of the networks. they don't seem to have a rdepresentative split of people who watched fox news vs people who watched other networks. it just doesn't seem like this report is statistically representative of the population its supposed to be showing a bias of...
James, this isn't the first time that the misinformed status of Fox viewers has been in the news, but the previous example was a staunch conservative telling his constituents to watch other sources of news besides Fox.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/coburn-to-town-hall-dont-believe-everything-you-hear-on-fox-news.php
Fox is building distrust in millions of Americans, and that is a recipe for disaster. Bottom line James: Fox lies. It is not an objective source of news; it is a propaganda channel. Glenn Beck's show there completely undermines their credibility as a source of accurate information. I hope that this study, flawed in your view, is replicated by other institutions.
It's not bias that matters to me, incidentally, it's the misinformation. They don't just spin facts on Fox; sometimes they make them up. Beck is the most guilty of this.
thanks for the opinion but this survey doesn't stand up to scrutiny and using a survey that doesn't represent the facts to argue that the facts are false doesn't make a case against the false facts
James, I guess you're standing tall for the corrupting influence of FoxPAC. "The opinion" was from a stanch conservative who recognized that his constituents are misinformed.
I believe that it's likely that your view that the survey doesn't "stand up to scrutiny" derives more from your epistemic perspective, your false perspective that comes from the vast misinformation that is Fox "News."
Come back here on Dec. 30th and read the analysis from Westlake on Fox. This is not just me; there are others pulling the mask off from that propaganda outfit. There are making the country dangerously divided, and Beck is one of the major reasons why.
My question to you is why does your biased assimilation blind you to this? I don't think you're interested in facts; you seem more interested in protecting the corrosive force that is Fox propaganda. If I'm wrong, explain.
Sorry tgbr, i didnt say i stood for anything. nor did i say that i had any perspective on anythin g other than the survey doesnt report the stats correctly, doesn't represent a large enough sample of the population, doesn't show a equal distribution of people who watch fox accordin g to the ratings they get, and it doesn't include some key info. so i what i did say was theat it doesnt' measure up to scutiny ikf you consider these facts. that's all
There is a reason that people, who watch Fox, are misinformed about the issues of our day. Couple the survey results, as inadequate as you claim they are, with the statement by Sen. Colburn and the frequent press releases from the media watchdogs, Media Matters for America, who point out false claims by Fox staff and guest commentators --including Rush Limbaugh on occasion! -- and you can get a big picture that Fox is creating an alternative reality based in part upon fictions and (this doesn't take a genius or a poll to figure out) Beck is painting an alternative reality that is way more "extreme" (his word) and out of alignment with the facts of reality. Those are the points of this post.
Fox is a political propaganda channel, not a news outlet. Tonight I'll be posting the series on Fox by media consultant Paul Westlake. I hope you'll read them if you come back for another view at this.
the reason i've locked onto the idea that the survey is bad is because the survey paints an misrepresented picture of results. no matter what you claim about fox, beck, rush, or the price of tea in china. the report is flawed. you seem to be a little upset that someone disagrees with you. idon't think i need to come back here to read about much of anything you post if you cannot see this for yourself. the ereport doesnt tell the story correc5tly. and that report you rpointed to by the conservative hardly condemns the whiole community of fox viewers. remember what barbara wawa told the audience - i don't thinkk you're giving the report a fair look if you can't see that it's flawed - whether or not you agree with it's findings. you keep repeating the same old styuff each time you reply. save it and let the comment stand. i don't care much what you think anyways. i care whether the report is flawed first before i read what it says, afetr i know how its flawed i'll look at what it says, but only to see if there is any other correlation to anything else pubished. i only came back here to see what there was to know about this report. i found a whole video dedicated to refuting the report altogether here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ&feature=player_embedded
and another to criticize that one here.
http://wn.com/Re_Fox_News_Viewers_Are_Misinformed_Study,_The_Critique_part_1
i'm not convinnced of anything...
James said:
"well i've looked over the report and the questionairre. but i still don't see the correlation. there is a issue with the reporting of the percentages. it makes the report impossible to interpret because the y report numerical percentages to whole parts instead of percentages."
Having just looked at the full report myself, I totally disagree. While it is somewhat lazy to only list percentages as a function of the whole set when asking a particular question of just one subset, some simple math is all it takes to convert the whole to the partial, which appears to be the thing you think makes interpretation impossible. I think polling, in general, is problematic for a number of reasons, but as methodologies go, this is consistent with just about every other type of polling data I've ever seen. I think the biggest problem with this poll is the relatively small sample size. I would be interested in seeing a similar study done on a much grander scale. That said, this isn't Rasmussen. It's a perfectly average poll.
PS - Thanks for the plugs, Victor! ;-)
if you don't require the survey to be fair no matter how its flawed then you cannot arrive at a conclusion. using a report that has too small a sample isn't fair. it's like looking at a bad sdpot ona potatoe and declaring it to be bad all through and through. it may be true there is a bad spot, but you cant claim the whole potatoe is bad. you're dcoing what orielly got slammed for by beyhardt and goldberg when he claimed muslims killed us on 9/11...
i dont believe for a minute that all muslims are responsible for those attacks any more than i believe all fox news viewers are misinformed by a segment which measures up to 300 people this report surveyed... dont think you should do the same. as far as the methodology, just because it's like other surveys doesn't make it valid either. if its perfectly average that doesnt make it any better at predicting the average veiwer's intelligence. and if that's the case the declaration that the report correctly reflects the demographic it claims to represetn isn't gospel. surveys can be flawed, this one looks flawed. so i am not going to give it anyt more credence than it deserves...
and as far as the impoossible to interpret, if i have to spend time checking each distribution point on the report i amgoing to send it back and tell them to get it right... like kissenger said, is the best you can do?
you cant have a double standard...
Three points: 1) Krauthammer's speech
2) Colburn's recommendation to his misinformed constituents and 3) the many posts each week from Media Matters showing that one claim or another from Fox and guests are false claims. Maybe you need to spend a lot of time reading a site dedicated to Fox as a whole rather than this one post. Spend some time with News Hounds and ask them if they think this survey is misleading.
http://www.newshounds.us/
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/12/18/fox_news_helped_legitimize_politifacts_lie_of_the_year.php
Fox is to news as professional wrestling is to sports. With exceptions there like Shep Smith, they are engaged in deceitful ideological propaganda. It doesn't take a survey to confirm this, and I'm certain that more surveys that are better designed with a larger sample size will be done in the year to come. If more information proves the conclusions of this post flawed, I will update it with that information.
great - as long as your honest... and remember pro wrestlers get hurt, killed, train for years, and generate revenue like any other sportsman. i would have compared golfers or bowlers to football players if i were trying to make an example out of something that's not equivalent, not compare one segment against a whole group. i don't care if i am in the room with a pro wrestler or football player - they are3 both dangerous like a wild bear... put me in a room with tiger woods or chief wapensky and i don't think i am threatened at all. you want a fake sport - those idiots that polish the ice in front of the hot rock in the olympics - now there's a fake sport.
and i do read other sites. what i don't do is jump to conclusions or take everything at face value...
so far i've not read anything in that report or at this site that makes me believe anything other than an enormous amount of bias.
I do fact check. And I usually find there is spin on the facts in question, like the spin on this report. I check politifact.org all the time. they spinout on reporting as much as the accuse people of spinning out.
Thanks, but no thanks. There's nothing here I really find useful.
James, what would you know about bias? You don't find anything here useful because of your own biased assimilation. Fictional realities presented as real "news" aren't "useful" if you prefer fiction to reality, propaganda to news or faith to facts.
You seem to believe what you want to believe, and you're not going to let facts get in your way. If News Hounds is not suitable (more facts you don't want to believe about Fox), then at least explore why you don't let facts disturb or interrupt your enormously biased perspective on reality. Read this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/149262/are_we_too_dumb_for_democracy_the_logic_behind_self-delusion?page=entire
When I read your comments, especially after Paul's comment, I see the words of classic "backfire. "
Well, I created a long comment that blogger promptly swallowed whole and lost to the ether. I love Google SO MUCH! They really are just becoming like everyone else out there - totally and irretrievably incompetent.
James, I can't reconstruct what I wrote (which was BRILLIANT! by the way) but you're kinda all over the place. Your spot on the potato analogy is flawed - we don't sample one spot, but many. And you make the mistake of suggesting this report says ALL Fox viewers are misinformed, when all it's saying is Fox viewers are MORE LIKELY to be misinformed. There IS a difference. Also, no need to go back to any "distribution points," as all the data is contained within the full report. Simple math you can do in your head should suffice.
And the wrestling point seemed like you were just being contrarian. Pro wrestling is NOT a sport because the outcome is fixed. Doesn't matter that they punish their bodies - that happens in lots of non-sports-related jobs - what matters is the rules. Pro wrestling is abut creating story lines. Baseball is about winning the damn game. Baseball is a sport, pro wrestling is not. Golf may not be very athletic, but it qualifies as a sport, as does NASCAR.
As for your points about spinning, I'd like to see an example of politifact spinning as you suggest. If you're trying to walk a centrist line, you need to back that up. Otherwise, it kinda just starts to sound like sour grapes.
Whatever gentlemen, whatever. You fail to realize that you have failed at your attempt to provide any reason for me to believe the report is accurate. PE, you made the statement that the report claims it is more likely to be misinformed, by but right at the top of this blog it says "STUDY CONFIRMS THAT FOX NEWS MAKES YOU STUPID" that's not what you just replied. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. And as for your simple math, you're right. But the report must reflect the math correctly as it is being sent out to a variety of people. I am not going to take the time to read a flawed report with any level of seriousness. Publish it correctly or don't publish it0 at all.
As far as bias, all I have said is that the report is flawed and that it doesn't report the findings correctly. I have shown no bias other than to discriminate against that flawed information.
My analogy of the potatoe isn't flawed either, you just don't get the idea that too small a segment is too small a segment and you stated as much in one of your previous posts.
And wrestling criticism was about the fact that it makes money and so does football, and baseball, all the others. You guys just can't take the fgact that someone disagrees with you. You've ganged up on me trying to beat me into somekinda submissin. Try as you might, the report is flawed, it condemnes the whole of the viewers as is statged above despite how you want to frame it here in the limits of this discussion and you two aren't very effecdftive at making yuou points stick very well.
Thank you gentlemen, I don't think I'll be back this time for sure... This blog is like the prowrestling you talk ab out in the blogging worlkd... it's fixed!
James, first, the headline you quote is the original headline of the story I copied into this post. Then, I pointed out, "This Review takes issue with the notion that being misinformed by a propaganda channel like Fox "News" lowers their viewer's IQ, i.e., makes you stupid.'"
I have also backed up the claim that the "alternative reality" that Krauthammer conveyed is one that varies with the facts by pointing at what Senator Coburn told his constituents because Fox had misinformed them and by the long line of false claims made on Fox as conveyed by media watchdogs. You won't visit News Hounds to find their list of false claims made on Fox, so I doubt you'll go to Media Matters to find their lists of false claims made by various personalities on Fox.
Have a conversation with a follower of Glenn Beck, and you'll hear someone making totally absurd claims as Beck himself does. Absurd assertions made as facts, or "the truth" as he cynically calls his nonsense. Glenn Beck's functioning on Fox is solid proof that Fox management has not the least concern about the facts. Anyone who believes Beck is badly misinformed.
I'll be more that happy to fix errors made, but I'm not convinced that your big issue with this survey, sampling size, is sufficient to render its results null and void. If further, more extensive polling shows that Fox watchers are just as informed as those of CNN or MSNBC, then I'll write an update to this story.
Post a Comment