Are Fox News viewers LESS informed?

[subroc]

Are you a Fox News veiwer?

Yup.

I get my news from Fox News, NPR, links from the Drudge Report to stories of interest, links from Real Clear Politics dot com, a couple blogs, and standard radio feeds during the day. Many of these links are to MSM websites. I routinely listen to talk radio when I can although recently I have been listening to sports radio (WEEI) more.

Occasionally, I will give the MSM (NBC (MSNBC), CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post a chance and am always disappointed with their socialist or left wing slant.

Does your newsgathering differ appreciably from mine?

[Joe S.]

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.

Wow...if only Secretary Rumsfeld agreed with you. Found this after a 15 second search. I'm sure there are dozens more:

In June 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi "may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. "Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me." Rumsfeld added that, "someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda."

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

Yellowcake is and of itself not a WMD. It is partially refined uranium ore. It represents a singular step in the very long, complex and expensive process of converting urainium ore into the HEU needed for weapons. No knowledgeable agency or individual will support the claim that yellowcake "is weapons of mass destruction."

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

Clearly.

Facts Are What They Are Regards,

Joe S.

[Losthwy]

Yup.
Does your newsgathering differ appreciably from mine?

Many different sources print, radio, Internet, and TV in that order. I will listen to conservative views, esp. the likes of Joe Scarbough and David Gergen. I even listen to Rush the other day just to hear what he was talking about, though in no way, shape, form or fashion do I consider him a source of information, at best he is an entertainer. Savage, Hannity, and Rush, etc. are entertainers who spout extreme right-wing rhetoric to entertain their listeners. Even Bill O'Reilly said what he does is an act... I turned Rush off after I heard him say, "the Obama recession".

[Paul Johnson]

Are you a Fox News veiwer?

Clearly, Losthwy does not read newspapers. If he did, he would note that his statements do not agree with widely read newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He gets all his information from blogs on the internet where anybody can say anything they want without any proof.

[Steve]

(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.

1. There is no simple verification to this issue. If I doubt the motives of the proponents of global warming, then I will doubt their computer models and analysis of data.

Pollution is not discrete. In other words "what is clean" is not black and white. It is a matter of scientific analysis and should be decided by rational analysis instead of emotional response.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser

3. Viewing nature as "mother earth" clouds ones judgement. I would not trust an absolute creationist to carbon date a dinosaur and I do not trust an irrational environmentalist to objectively analyze any data.

4. Earlier this year it was announced that the debate was over and that global warming was real. There never was a debate. Just another tactic to avoid debate

I do not trust government to do what is in the best interest in the country. That has been proven over the years.

[cotts135]

I watch Fox News. They provide a good counterbalance to the propaganda spread by the driveby media, like ABC and the Baltimore sun. NPR and PMSNBC would make Joseph Goebbels proud with the stuff they spread.

When you say counterbalance you infer that you watch those other stations that you quote. I was wondering if you did,or is Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and others on the right just saying that MSNBC, NPR, and ABC is part of the driveby media and is spreading propaganda.

[subroc]

When you say counterbalance you infer that you watch those other stations that you quote. I was wondering if you did,or is Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and others on the right just saying that MSNBC, NPR, and ABC is part of the driveby media and is spreading propaganda.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

from their own words…

The interesting thing about the WaPo article is if they, a liberal newspaper, finds themselves bias, what would an independent review find?

[brian breuer]

1. There is no simple verification to this issue. If I doubt the motives of the proponents of global warming, then I will doubt their computer models and analysis of data.

Pollution is not discrete. In other words "what is clean" is not black and white. It is a matter of scientific analysis and should be decided by rational analysis instead of emotional response.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser

3. Viewing nature as "mother earth" clouds ones judgement. I would not trust an absolute creationist to carbon date a dinosaur and I do not trust an irrational environmentalist to objectively analyze any data.

4. Earlier this year it was announced that the debate was over and that global warming was real. There never was a debate. Just another tactic to avoid debate

I do not trust government to do what is in the best interest in the country. That has been proven over the years.

You kind of changed on number one. Before it was the concern over the solution. That's fine. I agree pollution is not discrete nor will ever be able to eliminate it. However, shouldn't we be taking steps to be as clean as we can. I understand it is a balancing act between clean and cost. But, I don't think anyone can disagree with we are sticking a straw into a finite source of oil. It will eventually run out. Other clean and renewable sources should be developed while we still have flexibility and the financial means to do so.

#2. What would you need to accept global warming as likely enough to introduce legislation to counteract it? I don't think it can ever be proved beyond a doubt due to the nature of the problem. What would be enough in your mind?

#3 I agree with being skeptical but not close minded. Depends on the degree I guess.

#4. I hadn't heard that before. Although I have two young kids and my news watching isn't what it used to be.

If you don't trust the government who would you like to see handle environmental issues? How about federal land management? Should the government own land?

There are just certain functions that I feel the government is the best and only option. The environment being one of them.

I'm just trying to have some wild places left for my kids. I don't want to piss them off too bad with the mess we left. They'll be picking my nursing home.

Brian

[Steve]

You kind of changed on number one. Before it was the concern over the solution.

Not really. I believe many of the proponents of global warming are doing so to increase government control of our economy. I simply don't trust what they say.

#2. What would you need to accept global warming as likely enough to introduce legislation to counteract it? I don't think it can ever be proved beyond a doubt due to the nature of the problem. What would be enough in your mind?

Hard to say, but it would have to involve the ability to explain the natural variation in the climate.

If you don't trust the government who would you like to see handle environmental issues? How about federal land management? Should the government own land?

There is not an easy solution. I think environmental issues should be handled at the state level and the feds should not own property outside of military bases, courts, and the like. The only purpose I see the feds having is handling disputes between the states. A one size fits all solution doesn't work.

I can give you a concrete example of the feds trying to fix something and causing bigger problems. A company I used to work for in St. Louis was forced to install a system to capture all emissions from process vessels and burn them. It turned out that the oxidizer produced more pollution in the form of nitrogen oxides than it was destroying from the vessels. At least 25 million was spent on the project not to mention hundreds of thousands in yearly gas costs. We all see it in the costs of the product.

[Henry V]

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.

Let's see. I am obtuse because, in direct response to you, I post:

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"?

I did not realize that asking a simple straightforward question and following up directly when no direct answer is given is "obtuse". Thanks for enlightening me. Talk about LOL.

Guess what Hew? All your questions above are answered at the website and study links that started this thread (not sure how some of those items indicate bias though- you know, help me understand how the margin of error indicates bias). To help you out earlier, I even posted several of the specific questions and asked what specific parts of the study (e.g. sample size, questions, etc) you found to be biased, yet, you continued to just avoid giving a direct answer to "where is the bias in this study?" Your answers have blamed the messenger, blamed the funders, and now you are trying to divert attention to me to read the study and report the methods, data, and results for you. How many times have you posted that the study is biased??? and yet it is now clear that you did not even look at even the summary of the study to make this claim. I suppose you want me to believe that the research is biased but you are not. Go ahead and stick to your suite of pat answers for any study results that do not fit your point of view, especially those that are simple polls of public opinion. As you said you don't need to know the facts and can just "hang on your belief that a liberal polling organization funded by very liberal special interests produced a study that was skewed". Fair and balanced indeed. I suppose all the studies at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org are biased. Thanks for letting me know.

Paul, thank you for the answers, I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results but the research questions, methods, and results are still pretty straightforward whether it "was impossible to make a distinction between lack of knowledge and being misinformed". These researches seemed to have followed a standard scientific method. I totally get the peer review process and high level research but not all research is "experimental" in practice with much research being observational given the inability to control many variables and get at discrete functional relationships. Sociological and "human dimension" type research often relies on surveys and proven scientific and statistical methods to associate responses. Here is a link to one published version of the study http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/note...nar%2011.2.pdf. I assume there is some peer review for this but I could be wrong.

Also, do a search on google scholar for "media bias". All kinds of great books and journal articles there like these:.http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...jec.122.3.1187
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...55305775097542
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499414
Lots of interesting stuff out there if we all had the time to look into it. Things are almost always more complicated than we initially beleive.