[quote]A new study shows that viewers who get their news from Fox News are the most misinformed in the country.[quote]World Public Opinion, a project man..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Watching Fox News is detrimental to your intellect

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2619
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

A new study shows that viewers who get their news from Fox News are the most misinformed in the country.
Quote:

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.


http://www.businessinsider.com/extended-exposure-to-fox-news-may-be-de
trimental-to-your-intelligence-2010-12#ixzz18aRyxPAt
Quote:

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.

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.

Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed. That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just ain't so:

•91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs (Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.)

•72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit (Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.)

•72 percent believe the economy is getting worse (Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.)

•60 percent believe climate change is not occurring (Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).)

•49 percent believe income taxes have gone up (86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009.)

•63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts

•56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout (53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush.)

•38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP (40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush.)

•63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP 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.

http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_make
s_you_stupid
/

The study is at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara
/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb
=

I know, this surprises none of us who use our brains, just thought it was interesting. Isn't it amazing what they've been brainwashed into believing? And how effectively?

Fox's response:
Quote:

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.’”

For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the “Best Northeastern Colleges.” It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of “Best Party Schools.”

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

Also not surprising: When you have no comeback, find something else to discredit the source, even if it's not true.

Now. Who's willing to take bets that our righties here believe all those things, too, and will defend them to the death? Anyone?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence


What people watch does not determine their "intellect". Knowledge and intellect are NOT the same.

You just gotta love the irony here, of the spin being put on by telling us that " another study " proves something which it doesn't.

What you WATCH determines how intelligent you are ?
Or is it how INFORMED you are ?

Too gorram funny.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, try: Watching Fox News makes you less informed.

Or how about "Watching Fox News makes you less able to use your intellect because of misinformation"?

Or "Watching Fox News is detrimental to your intellect because of misinformation"?

You have nothing to say about the facts presented, only snarks having nothing to do with those facts, obviously.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


It's not a snark, Niki. It's germane to the story.

These morons are trying to tell us that watching FOX makes one less intelligent.

It doesn't. They can't even get the findings of this slanted, biased study right.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Claiming study is biased and slanted means nothing; that's an opinion. Previous studies were also cited.

Once again, the facts speak for themselves. Refuting them with opinions does nothing to change that. Personal slants mean nothing either. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:48 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




To be fair, Auraptor has a point.

Most Fox viewers could be just as ignorant before they ever start watching Fox, and would almost have to be.

They could even be wilfully ignorant of facts...that doesn't make them stupid per say, it makes them participants in the creation of their own reality. In that way, they can be seen as visionaries, or pioneers. I know too many people who watch this crap, and know better, and yet that doesn't deter them a bit....I think some respect is due

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's not a snark, Niki. It's germane to the story.

These morons are trying to tell us that watching FOX makes one less intelligent.

It doesn't. They can't even get the findings of this slanted, biased study right.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "




I think they're trying to say that those who are less intelligent to start with gravitate towards FauxNews.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 12:32 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


To be fair, Auraptor has a point.

Most Fox viewers could be just as ignorant before they ever start watching Fox, and would almost have to be.

They could even be wilfully ignorant of facts...that doesn't make them stupid per say, it makes them participants in the creation of their own reality. In that way, they can be seen as visionaries, or pioneers. I know too many people who watch this crap, and know better, and yet that doesn't deter them a bit....I think some respect is due



I have my own issues w/ FOX, so this isn't a "yay FOX" position on my part. It's simply that the ones trying to promote this 'study' have it wrong.

Less informed or misinformed ? Fine. But less intelligent ?


That's so stupid, it's funny.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

I think they're trying to say that those who are less intelligent to start with gravitate towards FauxNews.



That FOX outdraws it's next 3 competitors in viewers combined can't be overlooked.

The bigger the audience, the less intelligent they may be as a whole.

There are more stupid people than smart people.

There are more poor people than rich people.





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:11 PM

WHOZIT


MSNBC is pure left-wing propaganda from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. Their ratings suck and all their hosts are insane.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:44 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's not a snark, Niki. It's germane to the story.

These morons are trying to tell us that watching FOX makes one less intelligent.

It doesn't. They can't even get the findings of this slanted, biased study right.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "




I think they're trying to say that those who are less intelligent to start with gravitate towards FauxNews.

This Space For Rent!





You homosexuals are hilarious.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

That FOX outdraws it's next 3 competitors in viewers combined can't be overlooked.

The bigger the audience, the less intelligent they may be as a whole.

There are more stupid people than smart people.




Thanks for providing evidence that the study is indeed correct.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I freely grant that their audience may be made up more of people who are self-deluded in the first place...given their ideology appeals to people who are pretty ignorant of the facts, I would guess. Iassume that from listening to interviews with people at Tea Party rallies, who often didn't even know what they were protesting or how they came to believe what they believe (and who so often parrot Fox talking points).

I don't accept that their audience is mostly made up of people who are "less intelligent" tho'; I agree there's a difference between "stupid" and "uninformed". That was a valid point.

Nonetheless, it does speak to the fact that Fox's propaganda contributes strongly to misinformation, as we've known for a long time, so in my mind CONTRIBUTES to being more misinformed.

I also repeat
Quote:

That FOX outdraws it's next 3 competitors in viewers combined can't be overlooked.
is a reflection of the fact that ideological righties are more inclined to watch Fox exclusively and accept what they hear there, whereas the rest of us watch multiple sources and some watch Fox TOO; ergo one can only compare the audiences by adding up the total of those who watch all other cable news channels, or those who watch other cable channels AND Fox News, to Fox News alone. In other words:

Audience who watch

Fox News

versus audience who watch

All other cable news channels
AND Fox News

and

Audience who only watch Fox News.

I believe that makes up the difference in viewersip...I guess I HAVE to; the idea that Fox has a bigger audience is to me a very sad statement on the intelligence of cable TV viewers! Because I DO think a lot of "more mentally lazy" people watch Fox...it's easier to swallow what's provided by one--very biased--station.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

There are more stupid people than smart people.




Thanks for providing evidence that the study is indeed correct.



More people voted for Obama in the last election too....

See how the game can be played?




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:17 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

There are more stupid people than smart people.




Thanks for providing evidence that the study is indeed correct.



More people voted for Obama in the last election too....

See how the game can be played?




And once again, you just provided more evidence of your stupidity. In "the last election" (your words), NOBODY voted for Obama, because he wasn't running for anything.

Did you get hit in the head? Have you been in a coma?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:19 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


kwickie

You have a severe mental issue. I'd get that looked at, when you have the chance.

The fact that you get bent out of shape and feel the need to be a dick head when I omitted one word " PRESIDENTIAL " when referring to Obama's election, when it is easily understood by anyone w/ an IQ above room temperature, that it clearly was implied and needed no further modifier, tells me that you're very bitter, very petty and very, VERY fixated on being a troll.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Rappy, your post was filled with so many errors, I just pointed out the first and easiest one.


I think it's really cute how often you chide others for being "childish" and for indulging in name-calling, and how often you do the exact same things you call them childish for doing. That's really very mature of you, cock breath. ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:54 AM

RIGHTEOUS9




Absolutely true Rap,

and many of those people who voted for Obama voted for republicans this time around. Both votes were governed by emotions and not knowledge of the issues that any of the candidates stood for or against.

People are generally ignorant of what is going on, a state that Fox can't soully take the blame for, but they can certainly capitalize on.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:42 AM

MALACHITE


So, I just reviewed the study report itself -- not what other organizations reported about the study. Here is the link http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara
/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb
=

I think the first thing to be considered is why the study was initiated in the first place and what it was looking for. From the study: "Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks.

(Image Credit)

Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources."

So... the main point of the study was to look at how misinformed the public was since rules placing restrictions on election advertising were struck down. Evidently, people are pretty misinformed. This is the main take home point. (Though I didn't see anything that talks about how misinformed the public was before the election advertising rules were placed, so we can't even compare before and after and say the public is even more uninformed now since the changes. Doh! Now I'm starting to wonder what the whole point of the study is, since it can't actually compare people's level of informed-ness before and after since it only did one survey on the "after" side of things).

A side note of the study seemed to find that there was a correlation between people who were more misinformed having watched Foxnews. But it doesn't give us any numbers. How much more misinformed were the foxnews watchers than the other news programs' watchers? Here is the relevant quote:

"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP."


I would like to see some actual numbers. It isn't comparing people who watched Fox vs people who watched MSNBC, specifically. Like, for example, it would be interesting if they noted that daily consumers of MSNBC averaged getting 80% correct on the survey and Foxnews consumers only got 40% correct or something. As of right now, we don't really have that kind of comparison -- only that Foxnews watchers seem more misinformed (but how much more misinformed are they?)than those who don't watch it . Those numbers might not exist, though, since that wasn't the point of the study. Does anyone have any more information on this?

Anyways, those are some of the things that crept into my mind reading this... I don't watch Foxnews, so I haven't personally experienced how informed or uninformed their broadcasts are...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, Criste, the arguments and personal snarks are so stupid...”More people voted for Bush in the last Presidential election” is just as valid...and look how THAT turned out. That and what followed are ridiculously silly arguments between two people who dislike each other, nothing more.

Honestly, Mike (and Sig, but not here), there's no hope for Raptor, Whozit or Kane, but simply mimicking them does nothing but take you down to their level and make what you say no more worth paying attention to. There are FAR more effectove ways of showing their ignorance and bias than calling them names. Doing so just makes you both look just as "playground" as them.

The VALID statement is offered by Righteous:
Quote:

Both votes were governed by emotions and not knowledge of the issues that any of the candidates stood for or against.
That is true in almost ALL elections.
Quote:

People are generally ignorant of what is going on, a state that Fox can't soully[sic] take the blame for, but they can certainly capitalize on.
Valid point, but if people are ignorant and believe the station they watch is “fair and balanced” and provides good information as an easier way to become informed than digging out the facts themselves, Fox CAN be blamed for offering flawed information, out-and-out lies, and pushing their politican agenda.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Excellent, Mal (good to see you!), thank you. You gave cogent arguments against the survey, which I freely grant. And yes, they should have provided specific numbers. I believe they would have proven quite interesting.

Personally, I would love to see such a study done in the way you suggested, and on a MUCH broader scope. I think it would be very illuminating and I wish someone would take it up. I don't think it would change anything, as Fox viewers are concretely wedded to their unshakeable faith in the station, but it would be valuable nonetheless.

And yes, MSNBC is biased, I've never denied that. All news organizations are, in one way or another. But you should take the time to watch Fox News' commentators (ESPECIALLY Beck); I think you'd find it an education in brainwashing. What I have seen has been expert programming designed specifically to misinform, not just by omission or bias, but by out-and-out fraud, lies and ideological propaganda.

Thanx for showing how actual debate is accomplished.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:19 AM

MALACHITE


Hey Niki,
On my first link, I just saw that there is a section with the whole study as a pdf. I haven't had time to review it, but it might have specific numbers. I wasn't able to copy and paste it, but at the bottom of page 2, it seemed to say that news sources in general (not just fox news) seemed to do a good job of misinforming the public, but I wasn't able to get a look at the actual section it was referring to. It might be worth looking in to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:52 AM

MALACHITE


I'll just type in the quote I was referring to in the actual study, since I can't seem to copy and paste it...

"Consumers of all sources of media evidenced substantial misinformation, suggesting that false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment, just as voters say they perceive it to be. In most cases, increasing exposure to news sources decreased misinformation, however, for some news sources on some issues, higher levels of exposure increased misinformation..." (bottom of page 2 -- topic 4)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:05 PM

MALACHITE


Okay, one more thing. I looked at some of the numbers in the study. While it appears that a lot of people are misinformed (and it varies how much depending on the issue), if I'm interpreting the data right, it looks like the more a person was exposed to Fox News, the more misinformed they became! (though it might not have been statistically significant). Someone should look at the data on pages 23 and 24 or so to see if this is a valid observation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rappy, your post was filled with so many errors, I just pointed out the first and easiest one.



My post was full of zero errors. All you have is childish pestering , because your input into pretty much anything is nothing but childish sniping.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:27 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, I looked at the organizations doing the survey, to see if there might be an obvious bias. Those doing the survey are:

WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) is an international collaborative project, managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. It is funded in part by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM).

The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), at the University of Maryland’s School for Public Policy

As to number of people surveyed and how:
Quote:

The poll was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010 with a sample-size of 848 respondents. The margin of error for the full sample was 3.4%. The margin of error for the poll’s 616 self-reported voters is plus or minus 3.9%. 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. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.htm
In most cases increasing exposure to news sources decreased misinformation; however, for some news sources on some issues, higher levels of exposure increased misinformation.
All respondents were asked the same questions about a range of news sources—for each source, whether they got news from it almost every day, about two to three times a week, about once a week, rarely or never. The news sources asked about were:

newspapers and news magazines (in print and online)
network TV news broadcasts
public broadcasting (NPR or PBS)
Fox News
MSNBC
CNN

Regarding your wondering how Fox stacked up about misinformation with other of those sources:
Quote:

Looking at the frequency of misinformation among the consumers of various news sources, one striking feature is that substantial levels of misinformation were present in the daily consumers of all news sources. Even the daily consumers of news sources with the lowest levels of misinformation still included substantial numbers with misinformation. For each topic, the news source with the lowest level of misinformation among its daily consumers was as follows:

most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created only a few jobs or caused job losses: MSNBC, 65% misinformed

among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law, more think it will increase the deficit: Public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), 38%


the bank bailout legislation (TARP) was passed and signed into law under Pres. Obama: MSNBC, 38%

the US economy is getting worse: Public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), 34%


the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts: MSNBC, 34%

the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred under President Obama only: MSNBC, 32%


since January 2009 the respondent’s federal income taxes have actually gone up: MSNBC, 27%

it is unclear whether Obama was born in the US—or, Obama was not born in the US: Public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), 24%


when TARP came up for a vote, Democrats were opposed or divided: Fox News, 21%

when TARP came up for a vote, most Republicans opposed it: CNN, 28%


it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending foreign money to back Republicans: Fox News, 23%

most scientists think climate change is not occurring or views are divided evenly: MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR or PBS), both 20%

Looks like MSNBC and public broadcasting scored better on almost every level for LOWEST misinformation.

I’m not sure how you would translate “points” into percentages or individuals, but
Quote:

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

Also:
Quote:

Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
So the networks weren’t perfect, either, obviously.

We can’t reproduce the tables, etc., here because the study is a .pdf ( http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_
rpt.pdf
),, but I copied some of the numbers. But I took the time to reproduce the charts for the first two questions. On the questions “Is it your impression that...”

1. Economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation:

Saved or created several million jobs (correct answer): 8%
Saved or created few jobs: 68%
Caused job losses: 20%

Okay, for those who answered that one, here’s the breakdown:


Second question:

(CBO concluded that for the third quarter of 2010, ARRA had “increased the number of full time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 to 5.2 million compared to what those amounts would have been otherwise.” In March 2010 the panel was asked more broadly about the effect of the ARRA on growth. Seventy-five percent said it was a net positive.)

2. Economists who have studied it estimate the effective of healthcare reform law on deficit:

More think it will not increase the deficit (correct answer): 13%
Views are evenly divided: 29
More think it will increase the deficit: 53%

(CBO calculated that the net effect through 2019 would be to reduce the deficit by $124 billion. Beyond 2019, the CBO estimated that the Affordable Care Act would reduce the deficit by roughly 0.5% of GDP)

Here’s the chart:



Those are just two samples. I scrolled through them, and Fox came out ahead for those who watched it every day on all but one or two, by quite a large margin—in some cases an amazing margin.

That’s as much time as I’m willing to put into it---it answers a couple of your questions, anyway.

Oh, dammit...my Photobucket seems to be having problems, I can't get them to show up and it kept glitching on me when I tried to load them. Well, the charts are at the end of the .pdf, you'll just have to go look there. Nonetheless, it shows that people who watch Fox daily were far more misinformed than those who got their news from other sources.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:06 PM

MALACHITE


I'm glad to see you looked at the study itself. I think we are interpreting the study similarily (I posted 3 times in a row with different thoughts or quotes, though it might have looked like a triple post). The study does not make Fox News look good. It looks like those who watch it the most are actually the most misinformed. On some topics, the numbers don't look too far apart between most news agencies, but on others, Fox News looks pretty bad.

Is there anyone who would interpret the study differently?

Flaws of the study might be in the design in that people have to remember how often they watched a news source and peoples' memories aren't always very good (but, this should have affected everyone equally). Another flaw might be that the questions posed were of topics more interesting to Democrats than Republicans so naturally they would get more of them right (but many of the issues seem to be hot button topics for everyone). Another flaw might be that some nasty Demorats might have claimed to actually be Republicans who watch Fox News and deliberately answered the questions wrong in order to make Fox News look bad (Starting to really reach, here...). Lastly, the organization itself might have deliberately falsified data to make Fox News look bad (always a fallback position to discredit something for the really paranoid among us).

Any other thoughts on how to argue with the study results?

One thing I was struck by was how misinformed the public was on some issues and how on any issue, there was always at least a substantial minority (including myself on some of the questions) that was misinformed. It really makes you wonder what the best way is to be truly informed. I mean, who wants to go around being misinformed on some 30% of issues? How do you know which issues you are misinformed on? Anyways, thanks for posting this interesting find.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
How do you know which issues you are misinformed on?


Aye, there's the rub - how to determine the truth when EVERYONE, is lying to you ?

That is something, I think... which cannot be taught, a journey each individual must take on their own, with the sure knowledge that it'll change not only their worldview, but who they even are.

And for a fact, most people don't have the courage, so in a sense, they'd RATHER be told comforting lies, than confront the ugly truth.
Quote:

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it.
-Patrick Henry


But then, we've always known that, haven't we ?
Quote:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.--Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.


-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:53 PM

MALACHITE


Let me answer my own question, since I've been thinking about it. My concern was that I was being misinformed by a news agency and I wouldn't know what information was good and what wasn't. This study doesn't actually address this, though. It didn't go through and fact check all of the news agencies and decide which ones were telling the truth the most often. All it did was quiz people on what they heard. So, even if the news agency told the truth 100% of the time, the person listening to it might have gotten only 80% of the questions correct. It would have been nice if the study could have said, "On average, when a listener hears a 100% accurate story, they will get 80% of the questions right." Then, they could better see if peoples' wrong answers were really due to the news agency supplying the wrong facts, or the individual's own personal flaws (maybe they were distracted, maybe they have an auditory processing disorder, maybe they aren't that bright, maybe they get nervous when taking quizzes, maybe they just aren't good students, etc.)

I guess my take home point is to always recheck the facts and make sure that what I think I remember is actually what was said, and that what was said was actually the truth. But who has time for that?

(ETA: Thanks for your response, Frem -- we were posting at the same time)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 7:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, Photobucket seems to have gotten its shit together, so I was able to put the charts in. As you can see, there's quite a discrepancy between Fox News and all the others.

I was working on that while you were posting, Mala, which is why I missed your posts. I kept going back and trying to upload the charts, so didn't actually post it until after you had.

As to your potential flaws:
Quote:

people have to remember how often they watched a news source
I don’t buy that they don’t remember, because I think those who watch a particular news source “every day” remember that they do...largely because I think those who watch a source every day DO do it every day, so know what source they watch. I also think so because some who watch one particular source (especially Fox) don’t watch any OTHER source. Takes time to watch more than one source, and I think few bother to. I only paid real attention to the “every day” column, myself.
Quote:

questions posed were of topics more interesting to Democrats than Republicans
I don’t buy that. I think most people who watch news at all have feelings one way or the other on the important issues—if that weren’t so, there wouldn’t be so many people so vociferous about the issues posed. They covered an awful lot of the issues which were/are very heated today.
Quote:

some nasty Demorats might have claimed to actually be Republicans
I think you ARE really reaching there; I can’t imagine Democrats deliberately claiming to be Republicans, because most people THINK they understand the issues, and it’s just too much effort to go to in order to swing one survey.
Quote:

the organization itself might have deliberately falsified data to make Fox News look bad
But you see, they don’t HAVE to; there are numerous different surveys showing the same thing, and you’d think some of them would show Fox in a better light...aside from the fact that if Fox could point to any survey showing their audience to be better informed, they’d be lauding it to the skies. So where is it?

Another thing to take into consideration is that the wrong answers are things Fox HAMMERS HOME to people, they don’t just “report” it. They dwell on such subjects by repeating their misinformation because it furthers their agenda. Not to say other stations don’t too, but Fox is pretty serious about their propaganda, more so than other stations, and they deliberately focus on misinformation, where others might get it wrong by accident or touch on the subjects less.

I think no matter which argument you put up, it doesn’t justify the almost universal misinformation shown by those who watch Fox every day, and in some cases the HUGE discrepancies. For one thing, note how many of the questions made Obama or the Democrats look bad when the misinformation was provided by Fox. I don’t think that can be argued, especially given other studies have shown the same, and that I’ve been aware of several instances where Fox has DELIBERATELY lied or perpetuated fraud (such as the utilization of video from a previous gathering to make it look like the current gathering was bigger). They’re pretty blatant about what they do, probably knowing their audience is most likely to accept what they provide without questioning it. More and more, they don’t have to bother presenting things accurately, because even if they’re called on it, they’re safe knowing their audience will dismiss the cries of fraud.

Which issues were you misinformed on, just out of curiosity? I knew the correct answer to all of them, they were no-brainers to me, so I’m curious. Given I’m one of the ones who watches MSNBC every day (and divide watching the others to every couple of days each), I’d be interested in knowing how it broke down to those HERE.

I think the best way to avoid misinformation is to watch numerous sources, as well as reading newspapers (which I think might get it more accurate more of the time) and the internet. Being HERE, for me, has given me more detailed information and more accurate information on many subjects, and has also corrected misinformation I’ve gotten even from MSNBC. It’s made me more aware of where MSNBC “lies” by omission or highlights something without providing fuller information, leading to misperception. I find that useful. I spend more time looking up information, to see whether it backs up the opinions I express here, than I do actually posting, and that’s taught me a LOT!

Bear in mind we can virtually NEVER get fully accurate information, given the government doesn’t always put OUT accurate information. Makes me wonder how much we’re misinformed no matter WHAT source(s) we choose. We can never trust completely any source, and some of those were extrapolations of the future, too, so some may not believe their forecasts and believe the opposite will actually be true in time.

Frem, absolutely. That’s what I call “mentally lazy”, and as well, people WOULD rather hear things that justify what they already believe, which is again my complaint about Fox. How often has one heard ANYTHING on Fox that is positive about Obama or the Dems and/or negative about the right? I hear things on MSNBC and especially Jon Stewart and Colbert which is negative about Obama or the Dems; not as much, certainly, but it’s there. Any source which offers nothing but positives about one side and negatives about the other (misinformation or otherwise) has no right to call itself “fair and balance”...and for Fox to do so is hysterical to me.

The only thing I find wrong with the study is it didn’t incorporate some questions which would make the RIGHT look bad if those responding were informed wrongly. I’d like to have had some of those added in.

All in all, I think the fact that Fox perpetuates misinformation has been proven. As I said, there are other studies which show the same results, and if there were studies showing otherwise, Fox would have been the first to point to them. Like I said, they don’t CARE if they’re viewed as misinforming people; the people they want to manipulate will believe them nonetheless...look at those here, who parrot consistently the things Fox says, and resist ANY effort to educate them on the facts.

I also want to point out that in 14 of 15 questions, MSNBC and/or NPR ranked the LOWEST in misinformation; in that one question (about the Chamber...which would have made the right look worse), the highest number of correct answers were given by the Fox audience. Ergo, the correct impression that the right (which is the Chamber, by far) was correct was put out by Fox. The difference was whether it was PROVEN that the Chamber used foreign money or not; it might well be perception that caused people to believe it was PROVEN, and/or belief that it hasn’t yet been PROVEN, but nonetheless will be shown to be the case in the end. That’s splitting hairs, but the others, to me, were more clearly delineated.

The fact that so many believe Obama wasn’t born in the US is disturbing...I’d like to have seen the numbers on how many believed he is Muslim, which would probably disturb me even more...sigh.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:04 PM

MALACHITE


Just so we are clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you when I described possible flaws in the study --I shot the flaws down in my parenthetical statements after each one. When people do a study, they often try to come up with what might be possible weaknesses of the study to see if the results aren't as valid. That's all I was doing as a thought exercise -- obviously I couldn't come up with good ones. I was wondering if other people could come up with other flaws that seemed like they might carry more weight. Overall, as I said, I think we are in agreement about the interpretation of the study results. Btw, my main news sources are npr and whatever headline grabs my attention on yahoo. I'm impressed at how some users on fireflyfans.net seem to be able to keep up on every key news event.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 24, 2010 11:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


As to that last, I agree.

As to the rest, no, I kind of understood you were thinking and offering potentials, not dissing the study per se. If it sounded otherwise, was probably my defensiveness stemming from so many people so desperately clinging to the idea of Fox as "fair and balanced", which mystifies me given what's been proven. It wasn't intended to be directed a you, fer shore, and I got quite clearly that you thought there was value in the conclusions they came up with.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 7, 2024 07:38 - 7428 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 7, 2024 07:23 - 4615 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 7, 2024 06:37 - 924 posts
Can social media censor content? Google does it. So does FB and Twitter
Thu, November 7, 2024 06:07 - 115 posts
Trump wins 2024. Republicans control Senate.
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:51 - 15 posts
Bolton is out, finally!
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:35 - 28 posts
What I would do if I were President
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:03 - 29 posts
Countdown Clock, Trump Going to Jail
Thu, November 7, 2024 02:21 - 1481 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 6, 2024 23:42 - 4681 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 23:09 - 645 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:08 - 36 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:59 - 43 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL