TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Evidence that FOX News is misinforming its viewers
Evidence that FOX News is misinforming its viewers
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures...on-h-10-16.html
| quote: |
News Break Evidence that FOX News is misinforming its viewers By Harold Meyerson Web Exclusive: 10.16.03 Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is? Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong. Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction. In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three. The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three. Now, this could just be pre-sorting by ideology: Conservatives watch O'Reilly, liberals look at Lehrer, and everyone finds his belief system confirmed. But the Knowledge Network nudniks took that into account, and found that even among people of like mind, where they got their news still shaped their sense of the real. Among respondents who said they would vote for George W. Bush in next year's presidential race, for instance, more than three-quarters of the Fox watchers thought we'd uncovered a working relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, while just half of those who watch PBS believed this to be the case. Misperceptions can also be the result of inattention, of course. If you nod off for just a nanosecond in the middle of Tom Brokaw intoning, "U.S. inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction today," you could think we'd just uncovered Hussein's nuclear arsenal. So the wily researchers also controlled for intensity of viewership, and concluded that, "in the case of those who primarily watched Fox News, greater attention to news modestly increases the likelihood of misperceptions." Particularly when that news includes hyping every false lead in Iraq as the certain prelude to uncovering a massive WMD cache. One question inevitably raised by these findings is whether Fox News is failing or succeeding. Over at CBS, the news that 71 percent of viewers hold one of these mistaken notions should be cause for concern, but whether such should be the case at Fox because 80 percent of their viewers are similarly mistaken is not at all clear. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and the other guys at Fox have long demonstrated a clearer commitment to changing public policy than to reporting it, and an even clearer commitment to reporting it in such a way as to change it. Take a wild flight of fancy with me and assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Bush's reelection. Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Bush is revered among the peoples of the world -- all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers -- is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard -- moving votes into Bush's column and keeping them there -- Fox has to be judged a stunning success. It's not so hot on conveying information as such, but mere empiricism must seem so terribly vulgar to such creatures of refinement as Murdoch and Ailes. Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of the Prospect. |
that is interesting, but i for one didnt need stats to tell me that Fox news is bullspit...
i dont even watch tv anymore, all my news/views comes from different online sources and forums...
http://www.sfbg.com/37/24/cover_press.html
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/osi-followup.html
Re: Evidence that FOX News is misinforming its viewers
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveSZ
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures...on-h-10-16.html
How sad that so many Americans would rather maintain a state of blissful ignorance than read the newspapers (foreign and domestic).
counterpoint: [http://www.mediaresearch.org//QUOTE] chock full of liberal bias reporting.
I cant think of any major media outlet that doesn't have an agenda for someone. Especially true for the Internet IMHO.
DAMMIT I hate this computer!
screw you guys, I'm goin home!
I dont need to read a newspaper article to know Fox is conservative biased. 
Tell me something i don't know....
I like to watch Fox News occasionly whne i am looking for a laugh, though.
Obviously this article was posted in the op-ed section for a reason:
This is not evidence that FOX News is misinforming its viewers!
All it simply shows is that there is a cooreleation between misinformed people and fox news, it does not offer a conclusion or explination why this is the case.
It can be just as likely that Fox News simply has the largest set of TV news viewers, or perhaps it simply appeals to all the young and stupid with its flashy graphics and its innovative ways of news production.
You can't say that watching Fox News makes your stupid because of this, just like you can't say if you are stupid you will watch Fox News. What you can say, is more stupid people watch Fox News than any other News source.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Obviously this article was posted in the op-ed section for a reason: This is not evidence that FOX News is misinforming its viewers! All it simply shows is that there is a cooreleation between misinformed people and fox news, it does not offer a conclusion or explination why this is the case. It can be just as likely that Fox News simply has the largest set of TV news viewers, or perhaps it simply appeals to all the young and stupid with its flashy graphics and its innovative ways of news production. You can't say that watching Fox News makes your stupid because of this, just like you can't say if you are stupid you will watch Fox News. What you can say, is more stupid people watch Fox News than any other News source. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus All it simply shows is that there is a cooreleation between misinformed people and fox news, it does not offer a conclusion or explination why this is the case. You can't say that watching Fox News makes your stupid because of this, just like you can't say if you are stupid you will watch Fox News. What you can say, is more stupid people watch Fox News than any other News source. |
Why even bother watching TV if you would like to avoid bias? It doesn't matter what station you turn to, there will be bias from one side or the other. Lazy people don't want to READ the news from multiple reliable sources!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew honestly, you can't say that foxnews is an unbiased source you just want to justify you fox news watching |
and gasp, PBS 
which sometimes gets the imperalistically-lefty BBC World
kinda funny how so many american people are so easily misled. i read in my geography class on thursday that 1/10 americans cant point out america, 1/7 cant point out europe, and 1/3 cant point out the pacific ocean on a map. probably bullshit, but funny nonetheless.
Here's one of Fox's patented fair and balanced online polls:
| quote: |
Which statement below best describes your view about the lack of security on trains, and subways? -I will not ride trains and subways after 9/11 -I am afraid when I ride them -I ride them and try not to think about the danger -I ride them and watch everyone around me -I never have occasion to ride trains and subways |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Well I'd love to watch foxnews for my biased news, but unfortunately I don't get the channel where I live No unfortunately it is just the stupified MSNBC, and the euro-trash CNN-International for me and gasp, PBS which sometimes gets the imperalistically-lefty BBC World This basically explains my television news sources: Don't worry, thats why I come here and take it all out on you guys |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by anuneventrade Why even bother watching TV if you would like to avoid bias? It doesn't matter what station you turn to, there will be bias from one side or the other. Lazy people don't want to READ the news from multiple reliable sources!! |
What are the consequences of a handful at the top being in control of all the media? The degradation of democracy.
Look at Russia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/i...pagewanted=1&th
| quote: |
Validmir Putin's challengers complain that the Kremlin has abused its control over media, local government and state business to turn Sunday's election into a charade. |
| quote: |
Sure to Win, Putin Takes No Chances With Election By STEVEN LEE MYERS Published: March 14, 2004 MOSCOW, March 13 � Even by Russian standards of democracy, it was a little much to refuse to let patients check into the hospital unless they could prove they had their absentee ballots for Sunday's presidential election. That is what the health committee in Khabarovsk in Russia's Far East ordered beginning March 1 to try to increase voter turnout, about the only drama in an election that President Vladimir V. Putin is all but certain to win. "Such examples discredit the power, and they are inadmissible," Mr. Putin's new deputy prime minister, Aleksandr D. Zhukov, declared in televised remarks on Wednesday. Mr. Zhukov rebuked the local authorities for what he called "administrative overkill," but the only thing unusual about the Khabarovsk case was that Mr. Putin's government acknowledged it. Mr. Putin's challengers, echoed by other political leaders and international monitors, complain that the Kremlin has abused its control over the news organizations, local government and state business to turn the election into a charade. State television has lavished coverage on Mr. Putin, even though he has forsworn campaigning. Local governments and state enterprises have also taken steps to bolster his support, while throwing up obstacles to his challengers. Irina M. Khakamada, a liberal candidate, said Friday that no university in Nizhny Novgorod would permit her to meet with students the day before because their rectors were Putin supporters � the latest in what she called a series of obstructions by officials in several cities. When Sergei Y. Glazyev, an economist and nationalist, campaigned in Yekaterinburg last month the police interrupted a rally, responding to what they said was a bomb threat. Two days later, the authorities in Nizhny Novgorod cut the electricity at another campaign event. Mr. Glazyev, Ms. Khakamada and the leaders of the Communist and Liberal Democratic parties called on supporters to be at polling places on Sunday night to guard against what they warned could be major fraud. Mr. Glazyev accused the Kremlin of planning to rig not only the results but the number of votes because Russian law requires a 50 percent turnout for the election to be valid. "Mr. Putin had a unique historical chance to hold the first free and fair election in Russia," Mr. Glazyev said Wednesday at a news conference in which he accused Mr. Putin of pressuring local officials to ensure a turnout of at least 70 percent. "Unfortunately, Mr. Putin failed to use that chance." The paradox is that, by all accounts, Mr. Putin would easily overcome his challengers in any fair vote, coasting to victory on his popularity and the political and economic stability he has nurtured after the feral years of Boris N. Yeltsin's presidency. But the political machinations surrounding the election campaign threaten to undermine, or at least tarnish, the legitimacy of a victory. "I think President Putin would have made himself a gift if he finally let the campaign follow its course, relieved it of the administrative pressure and firmly ordered his officials not to interfere with the campaign," Ms. Khakamada, his harshest critic, said Friday at a news conference. "And in that case, even though he would still win, we would at least have seen a fair election." The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, whose election monitors criticized the parliamentary elections in December as below European standards for fairness, has already criticized shortcomings in the presidential race. The report cited the state news media's denial of equal access to Mr. Putin's challengers and reported abuses by the local authorities in favor of Mr. Putin and against his opponents. Human rights organizations gathered in Moscow on Wednesday to denounce what they called a repetition of abuses seen in the parliamentary campaign and other elections. "The results of elections are not so much the will of the people, but the will of the administration at all levels, from the Kremlin to the municipalities," said Lyudmila M. Alekseyeva, chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group. Russian liberals are divided over how to respond to Mr. Putin's electoral juggernaut. A new group called Free Choice 2008, whose leaders include the chess champion Garry Kasparov, has called for a boycott, as has Grigory A. Yavlinksy, the leader of the Yabloko Party. He compared the coming elections to those in the Soviet era, when "there was one candidate." "You can find all kinds of terms for what is happening today, but it is not democracy," he said at the human rights gathering. "Maybe it's a tragedy. Maybe it's a necessary step. But it is not democracy." Ms. Khakamada, by contrast, has called on Russians to vote and to demonstrate that a plurality of Russians oppose Mr. Putin's consolidation of power. Mr. Glazyev, her ideological opposite, agreed, asserting that after the election on Sunday, Mr. Putin's power could be absolute. "It's our last chance," he said last weekend in Yaroslavl. His campaign has highlighted the Kremlin's political power and behind-the-scenes intrigue. Barely three months ago, Motherland, the newly created party bloc Mr. Glazyev helped lead, scored unexpectedly well in the parliamentary elections with the tacit support of the Kremlin and positive coverage on state television. It won 9 percent of the vote, drawing support from the Communist Party, and now holds 38 of the Parliament's 450 seats. When Mr. Glazyev declared his candidacy, he came under fierce attack on state television and within his own party. Members loyal to Mr. Putin, including the bloc's other leader, Dmitri O. Rogozin, ousted him as their leader in Parliament, under pressure, Mr. Glazyev said, from Mr. Putin's aides. As he campaigned in Yaroslavl, he said that Mr. Putin's support was not as deep as is routinely claimed. The Kremlin, Mr. Glazyev said, fears that voter discontent may coalesce around his candidacy, with its nationalist appeals and attacks on big businesses that he contends operate in collusion with Mr. Putin's government. "They want to have some kind of political theater instead of real democracy," he said. "In this theater, they want actors they can manipulate." Mr. Putin has eschewed overt campaigning, satisfied, it would seem, with the overwhelming attention paid by state media to his official actions. He turned down free airtime on television and refused to take part in debates. The result has been voter apathy, with an overwhelming majority of Russians telling pollsters that the outcome of Sunday's vote is a foregone conclusion. Many politicians warn that election officials will simply inflate the figures should turnout fall short of 50 percent. Indicating the Kremlin's concern, the most visible signs of the election campaign have been get-out-the-vote efforts. Officials in Moscow have offered concert tickets to voters, while those in Vladivostok offered a chance to win a vacation to China. Mr. Putin appeared on state television on Thursday with his own appeal. "I deem it necessary to stress that only the support of citizens will make it possible to chart the course of the country for years ahead, to make responsible steps to develop the economy and improve the quality of people's lives," he said. "Only your support will given the future president of Russia confidence." |
This is nothing new. Murdoch has a history of manipulation, and you can bet he had a hand in the recent changes in the US media foreign ownership laws.
This quote (from here) is an extract from a documentary on Murdoch that was aired here is Australia recently.
| quote: |
| in the 90's PBS' 'Frontline' did an excellent story called Frontline: �Who�s Afraid of Rupert Mudoch?� which explained how his first empire in Oz got Whitlam elected as PM of Oz, after undermining the previous gov�t in print. When this guy did not dance to the dirty digger's tune, an attack was mounted by Murdoch. From the transcript: He'd supported Whitlam. He'd helped to destroy the previous government, therefore Whitlam should now support him and whatever demands he made, however outrageous they might be�. Whitlam says that after the election, as a price for his support, Murdoch asked to be made Australia's ambassador to London, a charge Murdoch has always denied. Whether because Whitlam refused to grant him favors or because, as Murdoch says, he was ineffectual, in the 1975 election Murdoch turned his papers against Whitlam and supported the more conservative Malcolm Fraser. The journalists' copy was being altered. They were given specific instructions on what they could write and what they couldn't write. And where the instructions weren't specific, they learnt pretty bloody quickly because nothing appeared in the paper if it didn't follow the line. It was the most extraordinarily ruthless and one-sided political coverage I think any of us can remember and we devoutly hope we never see it again. � Murdoch's papers were burned in the streets. And then Murdoch's own journalists walked out. It was a rarity-- reporters striking not over money, but ethics. But again Murdoch had backed the winner and now he wanted a favor from Prime Minister Fraser: a change in the laws regarding the ownership of T.V. stations. Murdoch's plans to expand into foreign markets conflicted with laws requiring station owners to maintain their permanent residence in Australia. Fraser had the law changed.� ��he loves the idea that presidents and prime ministers pick up the phone and call him and say, you know, "Rupert, you'd be a big help to me if and so.� |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Well I'd love to watch foxnews for my biased news, but unfortunately I don't get the channel where I live |
| quote: |
| Don't worry, thats why I come here and take it all out on you guys |
My sympathies, Yoepus. I'm not sure where you are, but yeah, some cable systems in the US don't carry all the news channels, just CNN, or sometimes CNN/MSNBC. If you go get a mini-dish like DirecTV you can get it. (Plus 500+ other channels, should you have that kind of time to watch TV). But depending where you live, some apartment complexes are very strict about not having dishes.
In Israel, I thought that Fox had been picked up by some of the cable providers? There was that period about a year ago where the government got really pissed at CNN and wanted them off the systems. If not, it's on satellite over Europe.
I've actually been enjoying some interesting European news lately. I picked up a DVB satellite system that's geared more towards hobbyists, but I can get 7 channels of Euronews, which seems to have a great deal of good footage. Plus, France 2 and 3 seem to have late-night news feeds over the US, and I can try to re-learn my French.
Honestly, is anyone surprised? The inaccuracy of the news media, especially television news, seems to be a common theme here, so I'll say it again. STOP WATCHING THE STUPID TELEVISION! I say this every time: television news is worthless sensationalism based on the principles of the entertainment industry. Read the news, from several different sources if you want to know what's going on, don't just wait for someone to tell you what to think. If you don't want to be misinformed, you're going to have to glean the truth from various biased sources, because nothing is unbiased.
That said, I think everyone around here does that reasonably well, so you can just copy and paste my rant to the morons who try to post news in the Chillout room.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by daffodil Honestly, is anyone surprised? The inaccuracy of the news media, especially television news, seems to be a common theme here, so I'll say it again. STOP WATCHING THE STUPID TELEVISION! I say this every time: television news is worthless sensationalism based on the principles of the entertainment industry. Read the news, from several different sources if you want to know what's going on, don't just wait for someone to tell you what to think. If you don't want to be misinformed, you're going to have to glean the truth from various biased sources, because nothing is unbiased. That said, I think everyone around here does that reasonably well, so you can just copy and paste my rant to the morons who try to post news in the Chillout room. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by b1_ This is nothing new. Murdoch has a history of manipulation, and you can bet he had a hand in the recent changes in the US media foreign ownership laws. This quote (from here) is an extract from a documentary on Murdoch that was aired here is Australia recently. Whitlam was Labour (equivalent of US Democrat); Fraser was a Liberal (Republican). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew w000t, i thought everyone in america had all channels in the world... hehe.. even i got fox news |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.