Fox News Makes You Stupid

“Well…. That’s not a very nice word is it? How about misinformed?

From We report, you get it wrong

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.
<snip>
It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.
<snip>
Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.
<snip>

”

“They must have interviewed stratdewd 420 times.”

“Surely you have to be stupid in the first place though?”

“Ghoul, do you know the significance of the number, 4:20?”

“Apparently not, but enlighten me.

(BTW, what have you done to Thomasus Horribulis?)”

“Figures”

“This is beautiful. I demand we keep this thread at the top for weeks, so Stratdewd will have to WORK to ignore it.”

“bump (re-cast)”

“what an idiotic study. how can it say that npr listeners havs fewer misconceptions? there is no way to measure that unless you interviewed them about everything they know ....

i don't have to ignore #&%!$ phaeddy. why are ya'll afraid of fox? do you thik all those people watching are stupid? perhaps they are tired of only hearing one side to everything.

rediculous and really sad that a pulic school is doing studies like this and teaching kids this tripe.

let's do a study on how many big media mainstream jouirnalist vote democrat....

we're talking high 80% range.....


violin, you're really terry mccoulif, aren't you?”

“Gallup News Service

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative.”

“From the proving the point department:

The study focused only on three misconceptions strat, not "everything they know".”

“Yay!!!! Hey strat, do it again!”

“No kidding on the network stuff. The Drudge Report is a much better outlet.”

“More...


Choose from 100,000 posters!
Find your favorite posters in music, movies,fine art, sports, and photography categories. Check out these categories:
Movies

Fine Art

Music



[Close]


undefined
[Close]


undefined

Gimme Some Truth

I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

I'm sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
It's money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth”

“Nigal, one of my fav Lennon tunes. Man, that was great. Love the lyrics to that!”

“1) Strat is right about a very key point: The study measured ignorance of key facts about the Iraq situation, not about news events in general. It is fair to conclude on the basis of that study that Fox viewers bought into more key pro-war myths than did other viewers. It certainly is possible that people who choose other specific media outlets buy into different kinds of myths more than Fox viewers. That hypothesis has not been tested.

2) A nit picking point: The study measures ignorance, not stupidity.

3) I haven't seen the study, so I don't know how careful they were in describing the conclusions - but this kind of study is well worth doing and highly justified. If people are alleging that a major media outlet is systematically misinforming the public in a way that supports a war effort and alters policy and perhaps the course of elections, its worth exploring in careful systematic way. A study looks at evidence to see whether or not it supports a hypothesis. I think the careful testing of hypotheses is a welcome social contribution.

4) Personaly, I think Fox did work to sell the war and is still working to support the administration and the military goals of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Cheney types. Remember, Roger Ailes who runs Fox news is highly partisan person. He has a background in selling right wing ideas.. he was big part of putting together the Willie Horton ad.

5) Other media outlets buy into other kinds of myths... I think they are worth looking at systematically. Having studied psychology, I was horrified that all kinds of media outlets bought into the recovered memory techniques and facilitated comunication. It took years and loads of careful refutations before the media caught on.

6) An example of a "myth" that might be less prevalent among Fox viewers than among viewers of media preferred by liberals or moderates: Bill Clinton was only accused of having consensual sex and lying about it. I think liberals and the liberal media are much more likely to forget the allegations made by Willey(Katherine?).”

“NPR balances Paul Krugman with Grover Norquist.

Faux News balances Dick Cheney with Sean Penn.”

“Thers no such thing as fair and unbiased reporting, we all filter our worlds though our individual perceptions of it and interpolate it to mean what we want it to.”

“Thats true DOM, but as Kenneth Burke says, "there is perspective and then there's pamphleteering." Yes, there is no such thing as pure objectivity - but it doesn't mean that media outlets shouldn't work to be fair and balanced.”

“Maybe in an idealistic world but in this day they work only to make a profit. Integrity and so forth just dont matter that much anymore.”

“DOM: I think some news sources do much better than others.”

“If you're interested, here are the survey questions & answers:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Questionnaire.pdf”

“I believe that violin has made a very valid point:

That violin is absurdist and illogical.


Read Bias yet, Violin?




Some “Liberal” definitions:

Hate Speech- Any vocalization that disagrees with the “liberal viewpoint.”

Hate Monger- Anyone who uses “hate speech.”

Stupid Idiot- Anyone who uses “hate speech.”

Scum sucking slime-ball- Anyone who uses “hate speech.”

Conservative- Anyone who uses “hate speech.”


That about sums up the open-minded “liberal” viewpoint.”

“a”

“I believe that violin has made a very valid point:

That violin is absurdist and illogical.

Yeah, he's not exactly doing anything positive for the liberal philosophy. It's his kind of adolescent ranting that leads conservatives to claim that liberals think with emotion rather than reason.”

“reading Violins posts makes u stupid.

Thats why I just scroll to the bottom and post”

“Fox news has been reporting Iraq War related news directly from the Whitehouse.

That probably isn't the best source considering they've ignored intelligence gathered by the CIA and FBI to use information provided by that psycho Chalabi”

“I watch Fox, look where it got me!”

“lets consider what misconceptions americans have from watching CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, ABC, CNN, NYT, LAT, cspan....


dan rather was nicer to suddam hussein then he was to arnold the other night. the LA times was blatantly campaigning for grey davis and against arnold.

they start out with a thoery or concept and mold their presentation to make their point. instead of just reporting the news, they make the news and present it in a way to boulster their stances on spomething.


liberals want to rule people, not lead people...”

“Violin provided some interesting evidence... most of the counter-attacks here are just name calling.”

“not from peddy”

“not from mne peddy”

“not from me peddy”

“Funny how Arclite calls him absurdist and illogical and the "rebuts" his evidence with attitude and stereotype.”

“Strat: I'm not impartial, but I did note that you scored an essential point on this round (relevant, logical and to the point).... so definitely your response was, IMCO, many levels above name calling.

This time, I was reacting to the line-up of Mutt's, Tea's and Arclite's posts.”

“yeah, those guys are a-holes....


errh uhhm...


i mean, uhhhhh....



how bout them sooners?”

“LOL!

Actually, I've been rootin' for the Sooners for a while now. When I went to UT, I hated 'em - knew almost as many Oklahoma jokes as I did Aggie jokes. I still love 'em even though they kicked UT's butts yesterday. It's the only game I don't root for them in (man it was sad this time).

My grandmother's clan, which started out in north Texas and Oklahoma, has an informal reunion in Dallas when UT and OU play. Because my momma comes from he Texas branch of the clan, it took a lot for me to start appreciating them Sooner's.”

“Cambridge Longhorns rooting for the Sooners???? Is it the Fox News that has caused this unthinkable confusion??”

“They listen to Fox News at Cambridge? I guess I'm not so dumb after all.”

“FOX NEWS MAKES YOU AN AGGIE!


now THERE'S an insult...”

“Most news services at least attempt to remain objective. That can't be said for Fox in most cases.”

“Pedxing, please tell me that you've read Bias?

The things that I like about the validity of the book are: 1. Bernard Goldberg considers himself "liberal". He has never voted for a Republican for President. 2. He is a journalist insider, who worked in the business for his entire career. That is, until the news media drummed him out of the business for writing an op-ed piece, in the NYT, about the media slanting the news for it's leftist political agenda.

Goldberg also mentions Fox News. His book is filled with facts and figures to support his case, and (most importantly to me) he has no political agenda to preach about.

Ped, you call my comments name-calling. I agree with what deadxing said. The study, which violin posted, measures ignorance not stupidity. Calling those people stupid seems illogical to me.

Violin told me to read a book called. “What Liberal Media”. It appears to me that book is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by a leftist with a political agenda. A “liberal” who didn’t like the fact that the news industry got caught with its pants down. “Liberals” invented the terms “hate speech” and “hate crimes”. “Hate speech” and “hate crime” are, in reality, “thought crimes.” These are very subjective definitions. Do you consider what the left does to people who dare to use free speech to express a viewpoint different from their own political agenda? People like John Rocker, Rush Limbaugh, and Bernard Goldberg. The left not only calls them hateful names; they try their best to ruin their careers. The left is free to call people bigots, homophobes, idiots, racists… with total impunity. The media appears to give a helping hand in trying to ruin some people’s careers. Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton extort money from groups who do not follow their leftist agenda. They not only get a free ride from the media, but Sharpton is running for President. Seems absurdist to me.”

“I found the reviews of Goldberg's 'Bias' at Amazon to be interesting, including this one:


speed reader's delight, June 12, 2003

Reviewer: Tony Sanchez (see more about me) from Fredericksburg, va United States
This is a very clever book on developing speed reading. The author disguised it as a nonfiction account of the "liberal" news media, but as I discovered, if you only read the pages in which the author provides verifiable facts to support his reasoning, then you can finish the book before moving from the library book shelf. Imagine, two hundred pages in five minutes! I almost got finger blisters turning the pages so quickly.

I learned years ago in college that when reading a non-fiction book, other than, let's say, most memoirs, that if the book is without reference materials, a bibliography, or notes that allows the reader to verify the information, then the book is most likely a sham.

"Bias" has zero references that would allow the curious reader to independently authenticate the writer's claims. I also did not notice at least semi-complete transcripts to allow for the writer's alleged quotes to be understood in context. The author is strictly operating on a "trust me" basis. If that's good enough for you, then I have a 70's VW to sell you (only driven once, really would I lie!).

Regardless of your political orientation, the author should desire an intelligent audience. By stating his views as proven facts, the author violates the trust given by his audience to treat them with intellectual respect. Another book, "What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News" by Eric Alterman, actually considers the accusations of the Bias author and finds the claims lacking substance. Sure, Alterman is a liberal, but he gives a full forty pages of references (roughly a fifth of the Bias book's total pages) to back up his claims, and to allow the reader to look for her/himself. In sum, if you want to know who is "Biased" consider who is preferring to hide the information vs. who gives it to you to make up your own mind. I don't have to agree with all of Alterman's conclusions, but at least he gives me the opportunity to judge the facts on my own.”

“Still on about your "left wing conspiracy" theories I see arclite.”

“Talking about stupidity and Fox. I heard the Bill O'Reily interview on NPR. Comedy of the highest order. What an #&%!$ that guy really is.”

“I heard about that interview ynamiynami. What did little Terry say to get such a big man so upset? I hope the audio is available somewhere on the web.”

“He claimed it was a hatchet job by a left wing organization, reading defamatory pieces about him. To me it sounded like his plan was to walk out of the interview before it started.”

“I just listened to the O'Reilly interview.

He and asked a lot of questions for a guy being interviewed.

It was anything but hardball on Terry's part...."so what was Cathoic school like, etc..."
She was polite enough and he was only slightly to moderately rude.

At the end he cut loose and accused her of a "hatchet job" without letting her respond.

O'Reilly is clearly mentally ill.”

“Arc... I also agree with what Deadxing said - it was a brilliant analysis (btw: Deadxing is my halloween costume).

I looked through Bias and was quite unimpressed. It sounds like you are enamored of the story - not of factual evidence that he provides.

Lastly, read your post - the one I referred to as insults. It is 99.44% free of logic and evidence.”

“I also heard that O'Reilly interview and it was pathetic. The way he attacks and skewers people that come on to his show - and then he goes ballistic and runs away when he is asked to address criticisms of his work. What a flake, he can dish it out, but he can't handle it. He feels viciously attacked by Terry Gross, but compare what she asked him to what he said. It really was a pathetic display.”