Are Fox News viewers LESS informed?

[Henry V]

For starters, it's not a University of Maryland study. It's a study by World Public Opinion.Org. They're affiliated with the Univ. of Maryland's PIPA program. They're funded by the previous who's who list of liberal organizations I provided.

The PI is with UofM. Can you point to any specific biases in the study?

No, it wasn't a newspaper article. It was an editorial column. You do know the difference don't you? I'm sure you do. Perhaps that's why you took out the first and last paragraphs of the column which were heavy with overt editorializing. I'm sure you'd get a good chuckle out of me using a Rush Limbaugh editorial as evidence supporting one of my opinions. Just as I got a good laugh at you trying to fob off an editorial as legit news that supported the veracity of a study prepared by a very liberal public opinion organization.

You are correct. It was a columnist. I did a quick qoogle search and this was a specific article that listed specific results from the study. I really did not want to waste time looking through the study if there was a good summary of some of the results. Again, rather than point the finger at the messenger or the funder to divert attention from the results, do you have any specifics on why the study is biased?

[Henry V]

The problem that I see with this is that FOX News has done very little reporting on a "Saddam-Osama" connection while NPR and PBS have spent a considerable of time reporting that there was no "Saddam-Osama" connection (most likely in an attempt to discredit President Bush). If NPR and PBS spent the same amount of time discussing this subject as FOX News, would the results be different. Furthermore, does a person's lack of knowledge about one subject mean that person lacks knowledge about other subjects?

From this, I conclude that the problem you see in this specific example is not that the study is biased but that the conclusions reached based on the associations in the data are wrong or do not tell the whole story. I can agree that this is possible but looking at their data and results I could conclude as they did that in general, on those topics surveyed, the folks that listed Fox news as their primary news source were more ill, under, or misinformed regarding the truth than those whose primary news source was not fox news. The specific reasons why would need more analysis and study. From what I recall some of this analysis was done in the study.

Regarding your last question, this survey can't answer this question. In general, I believe that there is a direct but probably only modest relationship between the depth and breadth of news knowledge among individuals the population. That being said, there is also a difference between a lack of knowledge and being misinformed either generally or on specific topics.

[brian breuer]

Why don't people on the right believe studies on global warming.

4 main reasons I have

1.Every solution involves more government control

2.No one has ever been to explain the natural variation in Climate that has resulted in numerous ice ages over the years

3.The religious fervor that environmentalists have

4.The attempt to squash debate leads me to believe the data will not hold up under scrutiny.

In summary, I do not trust the left.

(numbers added by me for reference)

#1 - This isn't a reason to doubt a theory. Either the data holds up or it doesn't. The solution shouldn't enter into it. Environmental regulation has to be done by the government. There are certain items that simply can't be done by the private sector. I deal extensively with the safe drinking water act and the clean water act. Look at the pollution of the 70's and 80's (and before). Our nation's streams, rivers and wetlands are in much better shape today than before because of the Government policies.

#2 - This is the key to the debate.
#3 - Religious ferver. They believe they are fighting for their children's future and way of life. The stakes are extremely high if we make the wrong choice. Once again, the data is there or it isn't.
#4 - I haven't seen attempts to squash debate.

I do not trust industry / the market to safe guard our environment. In general it isn't profitable and that is their purpose.

[Pete]

AAHHH that study was funded by the rockefeller foundation

So would you expect anything other than that conclusion. If not there's more cool aid in the fridge.

You socialist gentleman give me the giggles.

[Hew]

Again, rather than point the finger at the messenger or the funder to divert attention from the results, do you have any specifics on why the study is biased?

While my background in statistics is nowhere near others' here, I have a sociology degree, and a goodly amount of that curriculum revolved around designing and/or interpreting questionaires, polls, public opinion surveys, etc. I am fairly familiar with a lot of the biases, intentional or unintentional, that are built into surveys. I have a particularly jaundiced eye towards surveys funded/conducted by idealogues from either side of the political spectrum. That said, I don't need to know the exact questions, the order they were asked, how they were asked, the statistical model that was used to analyze the results, etc. to know with near certitude that the WPO/Pipa surveys are probably bullsh!t. Just as I would tell you that a survey paid for by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and conducted by some conservative house organ survey firm is probably bullsh!t, too. Capice?

[Henry V]

While my background in statistics is nowhere near others' here, I have a sociology degree, and a goodly amount of that curriculum revolved around designing and/or interpreting questionaires, polls, public opinion surveys, etc. I am fairly familiar with a lot of the biases, intentional or unintentional, that are built into surveys. I have a particularly jaundiced eye towards surveys funded/conducted by idealogues from either side of the political spectrum. That said, I don't need to know the exact questions, the order they were asked, how they were asked, the statistical model that was used to analyze the results, etc. to know with near certitude that the WPO/Pipa surveys are probably bullsh!t. Just as I would tell you that a survey paid for by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and conducted by some conservative house organ survey firm is probably bullsh!t, too. Capice?

No. You said the survey was biased. You blame the messenger and the funders but have never provided anything specific about why it is biased. The link is there with the full publication and survey. I posted the three questions and the results of the answers. Where is the specific bias that you claim makes this study meaningless or, for that matter, that you know that the studies from this group of researchers are "probably bullsh!t"?

[Paul Johnson]

From this, I conclude that the problem you see in this specific example is not that the study is biased but that the conclusions reached based on the associations in the data are wrong or do not tell the whole story.

The reason the study is biased is because they used statistics in an attempt to validate a generalization rather then stating that one group of people knew less about a particular subject then another group.

Regarding your last question, this survey can't answer this question. In general, I believe that there is a direct but probably only modest relationship between the depth and breadth of news knowledge among individuals the population. That being said, there is also a difference between a lack of knowledge and being misinformed either generally or on specific topics.

The questions proposed by the study were worded such that it was impossible to make a distinction between lack of knowledge and being misinformed.

The problem with many of the studies is that they set out to prove a point rather than find an answer. When I submit a study for publication in a scientific journal, it is sent out by the editors for peer review. Only after multiple experts in my field of study (my peers) determine that it does not have any flaws will the editors agree to publish it. On the other hand, the news media and the internet do not have a peer review process.

[Hew]

LOL. Obtuse much? You provide me with the following info and I'll get right on your request:

- Survey sample size
- Survey demographics (including age, sex, political affiliation, race, etc.)
- Exact questions
- How were responses formatted (yes/no, multiple choice, open ended)
- How questioned (phone, in person, email, etc.)
- Order that questions were asked
- Time of day questioned were asked
- Day of week they were asked
- Dates of sampling
- Sample timeframe (how many days to conduct sample)
- Dates of sampling (taken over 3 days, over one month)
- Statistical model of analysis
- Margin of error

All of those items go into conducting a survey, and ANY of those items can skew it (intentionally or not). While you're working on the list I've requested I'll hang on to my belief that a liberal polling organization funded by very liberal special interests produced a study that was skewed (intentionally or not) to come up with results consistent with the liberal notions that were in their liberal skulls.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

[subroc]

Well, the questions are framed with what the left believes. Anything that deviates from those suppositions, by their way of thinking, is un-informed or miss-informed.

From Henry V

- "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"

Other than the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was invited to the country and after the fall of the Iraqi government he terrorized the place??? There are dozens of reasons beyond that, but that is a great place to start.

- "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"

The yellowcake that was removed is weapons of mass destruction regardless of how the left tries to dismiss it.

- "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war?"

How people around the world feel about the United States is irrelevant to me.

It appears those that conducted the poll illustrated THEIR bias to the rest of us.

[Losthwy]

Other than the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was invited to the country and after the fall of the Iraqi government he terrorized the place??? There are dozens of reasons beyond that, but that is a great place to start.

The yellowcake that was removed is weapons of mass destruction regardless of how the left tries to dismiss it.

How people around the world feel about the United States is irrelevant to me.

It appears those that conducted the poll illustrated THEIR bias to the rest of us.

Are you a Fox News veiwer?