Category: News and Views
A recent poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University showed that those who regularly watch fox news knew less about current events then any other group polled.
Heres the full study.
" Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study, which controlled for demographic factors like education and partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news.
Overall, 53% of all respondents knew that Egyptians successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak and 48% knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government.
Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson, explained in a statement, "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."
This isn't the first study that has found that Fox News viewers more misinformed in comparison to others. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics."
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html
What are everyones thoughts on this?
Good post.
There's a big difference between propaganda and information. Either Fox doesn't know the difference or they don't care.
The same is probably true of many of their viewers. They don't care whether the "news" they get is true or not, as long as it's dumbed down and entertaining.
Just my opinion.
Bob
I rarely watch news from any network. I get my news from cnsnews.com, wnd.com and the Mark Levin show.
I'm a conservative though which makes me a minority here.
Post three, I don't necisarily think that's true. I've seen more moderates on here than anything else. But just like all pollitical movements You've got your socialites... etc. And I'm quite with Bob on this one. I've found that most educated people called on to fox shows get nothing but screamed at while trying to present factual information. Not to mention, noone dares question Bill Oriely's credibility etc etc. Rant over. Fair and balanced my backside!
I haven't watched Fox news since 9-11. The way that they went through the events of all that happened was absolutely disgraceful, pathetic and totally lame where a news station should be concerned. For example, they seemed to focus more on the islamic factions that celebrated 9-11 than the actual efforts that fire fighters and police officers were putting forth to rescue people inside or around the buildings.
I mean sure, you guys can talk about that stuff, but why the fuck would you talk about it on-that- day? it's not like there isn't tomorrow or the day after to talk about it. I'm sure most people actually cared about the on-going rescue efforts more than the rejects that were going around and acting like fuckshits, throwing candy and dancing in the streets.
All that to say, I mostly watch either NBC or ABC news, with occasional glimpses of CNN which I'm not particularly fond of either.
Well, I had my say about Fox's newsless lineup in a previous post, so I won't pull their chain again--it's too easy.
I think the effectiveness of the big cable news channels (CNN, CNBC, FOX etc.) is that they have to present material 24 hours a day. When we got the news neatly wrapped in a thirty-minute cycle once a day, stories could be brought up for discussion, drafted, refined and then produced. Now it's get it in get it on, no time for reflection or refinement.
Bob
Rupert Murdock is extremely wealthy for a reason. Fox news is entertainment and a show first, tell people what it is they themselves want to hear, see and feel. Lace it with enough big words and you can pass yourself off as smart, too. After all, most people will admit some pretty amazing things, but nobody will admit to being dumb.
It's a lot easier to sound smart and look smart, than it is to actually be intelligent. Makes me think of the skinheads of my youth, who were so charmed as *so smart* by the ladies. Who, I imagine, at 40-something now if they are still the same, are entirely wooed by Fox.
If the people didn't want it, nobody would watch it, and the advertisers wouldn't buy advertising on their programs. They are very successful because they have linked God, markets and the ideology together like a city-state dictator only wishes he could, all because everyone wants it that way. I am humored to see them talk about the so-called mainstream media, when they are by far the most popular source out there. And this, at a time when people can get access to more accurate information than ever before. Especially us blind people: only a short time ago we had little to no access to a majority of printed materials. And yet, you'll find, even on this site, primarily occupied by blind people who used to not have that access, that media and it's persuasion has the greater sway.
It could be called Free Love 2.0 or something: not the same ideology at all, but a centralized movement of kiddos and people who are a bit too big for that anymore, lined up to join, feel involved, repost statuses on Facebook, feel like they're doing something.
Fox is popular because people don't want to understand what's happening, or do the numbers, they want to feel strongly about something. Remember this is a crowd who laughed at the very idea of Ross Pero going on television with graphs and charts. Nobody debated whether the content of the graphs was correct or not: they just didn't want to see graphs and charts. They'd rather watch a debate, listen to hollering and screaming, and pass the popcorn.
But Fox didn't do it to them: they have just told Fox what it is they wanted. Ironic how they've been extremely successful at selling middle-class America on the idea that the poor are the problem. Again, if you're 20 years old, you have some excuse. I thought as much then. If you're 40, you're getting a bit big for that particular pull-up. Old enough to know how to crunch the numbers and see it just isn't a fit. Immigrants are in fact a part of the economy, southern whites actually make up a majority of the entitlements consumers, etc. It was Eisenhower, not Kennedy, who put the man on the moon, by investing in math and science education and the space program in the 1950s. No modern conservative would do that. In fact, now we have some who echo the sentiments of the outcome-based-education crowd, claiming you should be able to believe what you want about science. You want engineers like that building your roads, or your bridges? Maybe I'm sick in the head, but I actually am curious to see how this turns out.
And yes, I'm aware the Asian countries have ramped up their support for public education programs, that China has now published more scientific papers than the United States for two years running, that Asian governments, like the Eisenhower administration, have funded the support for technologies like the gyroscope and accelerometers used in your smart hones you use to text one another about how terrible government funding is. If you're 20, I get it: I thought the new seat belt law and automobile insurance requirements was communist back then. That, of course, was before I was aware of the costs associated with these accidents, or the uninsured.
But I've seen plenty my age and older, latching onto that udder drinking what comes down the tubes from Fox. But the media is just a business: no more, no less.
When you stumbled into Taco Bell drunk at 3 in the morning, did you want a Crunch Wrap Supreme, or a tofu roll and sprouts?
They're just selling it the way people want it. That's been true of all the media outlets, only Fox knows it and has become amazingly popular because of it. And, in an era when people could do more much more easily to fact-check information. They don't want to understand, they want to believe.
Look on here a bit over a year ago about the topic about making one's blood boil. It referenced a certain page number on a certain bill, so as to look informed. But you go get the bill and turn to that very page, which we all can do with a PDF reader now, and that page says nothing even remotely similar to what is described. It's preposterous, and would make for a great comedy act, if only it weren't true.
But, you can't blame Fox, or a radio show host, for doing exactly what everyone knows they're set out to do: tell you what it is you want to hear / see / feel / believe. Personally if I want to watch a bunch of animalss screaming and squealing, I'll watch the Discovery Channel, or maybe a hog hunt on Youtube.
Mainstream media, yeah right, as if Fox News is broadcasting on some illegal CB radio channel over in Obscurityville USA.
Personally, I'm skeptical of all media sources; not just Fox. So many stories are either not true, grossly exaggerated, or have vitally important parts left out intentionally. this is the media, after all. Like a previous poster mentioned, it's about entertainment before it is truthful and reliable information.
I agree, and Fox News is much more about truthiness than it is about truth. News is just another show and bad news sells, so the emphasis on crime and tragedy. It's meant to draw you in and keep your attention. It is not an exact mirror image of reality as it truly is.
Okay I wasn't gonna post on this topic because I didn't think I had the energy. Well, I have strength enough for this:
Yes, it is true. Fox news seems to be full of propaganda. Who said the president isn't a citizen? Fox news. Who says that he had a false social security number. Fox news. Who said that the ldemocrats are all a bunch of pot smoking tree huggers? Fox news. I am sick of the babble.
*faints*
My take on this is that media, like any other commodity, runs on our viewership, readership, and/or listenership. Fox and all the other networks, have a target audience, a demographic group they cater to, and their stories will be slanted to appease the people who give them the ratings and advertising revenue.
I for one am an MSNBC junkie. Does it make me dumber by watching only this network? Who knows? I imagine however that it does give me a narrow view of things since most of their commentators lean to the left, so it may be good for us all to step over to another network from time to time to get a different spin on things and try to see things differently. As the saying goes, know thy enemy, lol!
I like fox news, and all of you guys are wrong.
define news for me?
how does glenn beck, sean hanity, and the majority of the folks on fox news match up to that definition? d'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'duh'h'h'h'h because it doesn't! most of fox isn't news it's news/talk a big difference, there's news inbetween and I've listened, it is pretty objective, it's the opinion news/talk stuff you are looking at, not news at all! It's opinion shows and most people do take opinion shows as real news which lets be honest here, doesn't work. glenn Beck's opinion is just that, his take on the news, Same goes for everyone else. so, If we labeled your best friends talk about the news and her opinion which is news/talk news are you just going to swallow and believe that? same here. so, I don't see the problem. I am a beck fan and I take him with a grain of salt. and I think fox is good, because it holds opinion shows, and the opinion shows actually have opinions. I don't take it as news, I just take it as opinions about what's gone on. so, it's fine, so is a lot of this other stuff.
Well Rachel We aren't wrong this isn't the first poll/study to show this outcome.
Define news?
news [nooz, nyooz]
noun ( usually used with a singular verb )
1.
a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months.
2.
the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
3.
such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight.
4.
a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material.
Source
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/news
So yes fox is considered news.
The problem with fox is that they outright lie, they distort facts and they refuse to admit when they get it wrong.
Take Megyn Kelly's "pepper spray is a food additive" comment for instance.
that is blatantly wrong, many people (including law enforcement agencies) have corrected her, has she acknowledged her screw up? nope.
They repeatedly use propaganda techniques such as:
1. Panic Mongering: Christmas is under attack, Muslims, terrorism....
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem: (Herman Cain accusers is a good starting point)
3. Projection/Flipping: Instead of arguing the points they accuse people of not knowing science or calling anti-racists racist
4. Rewriting History: Bill O's book about Lincoln comes to mind or Palin's butchering of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate.
5. Scapegoating: Blaming others for problems in society. "It's the fault of the poor for the economy they should shut up and get jobs"
7. Bullying: In the case of Van Jones Video The fox commentators referred to the children (yes children) in the video as A Bunch of Dorks" and "Little Bastards".
Also watch the interview between Bill O and Richard Dawkins. Bill repeatedly berates Dawkins, refuses to let him speak and even yells at him.
And the list goes on.
Fox News is wildly succesfful not because it's informative, but because it's entertainment. I want those who claim pepper spray is food to eat it on Fox News, because it would be a great show.
"I like Fox News, and all of you guys are wrong". that statement literally made me laugh out loud.
I'm liberal, and you're wrong if you're not. Different way of wording it, slightly different subject, but no less valid than your statement.
She's saying we're wrong cause we're not conservative. Now Rachael, you can say people like glen Beck just have there opinion. One problem, people like him shove it down our throats. Then you have these people who rant and rave about "the problems with the (so called) liberals." It's not news, it is junk food for the mind.