Are Fox News viewers LESS informed?

[Hew]

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

No, you're obtuse because you keep ignoring my response(s) to your parrot-like squawking about needing to have the survey parsed.

...I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results...

Whew, we can all take a rest now. I was getting tired of watching you chase your tail.

[Henry V]

No, you're obtuse because you keep ignoring my response(s) to your parrot-like squawking about needing to have the survey parsed.

Yes, this thread clearly shows I am the one here ignoring responses. You say "its biased". I ask and ask again "show me how?" and all you can some up with is "its the messenger and funders". Sorry it took me so long to realize that I should not expect a direct answer from you about why this study is biased beyond blaming the messenger and funders.

[Hew]

Sorry it took me so long to realize that I should not expect a direct answer from you about why this study is biased beyond blaming the messenger and funders.

You've already changed your mind and are agreeing w/ me so I'm curious why you want me to keep arguing the same point ad naseum. If you're craving extra validation then I aim to please: yes, YES, a thousand times yes....you're right and I totally agree with you; the study probably has flaws. Glad to have you aboard.

...I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results...

On a serious note, I appreciate your openmindedness and willingness to admit when you were wrong. That takes a big person. Kudos to you.

[Paul Johnson]

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.

With regard to media bias, this study concluded that "The fact that viewers of some media outlets had far lower levels of misperceptions than did others (even when controlling for political attitudes) suggests that not all were making the maximal effort to counter the potential for misperception." This study is clearly not concluding that there is media bias. Given that there was a false nerve gas incident and that a few nerve gas artillery shells were found, it is quite possible that some people would think that WMD's were found. Furthermore, media such as NPR and PBS that were against the war from the start, would be more likely to dwell on the fact that the incident was a false alarm and that only a few old shells were found. Therefore, the people that used PBS or NPR as there primary source of information are more likely to be more informed about finding WMD's. Likewise, one can find valid reasons why the public might think that there was a link to al Queda or their perception that the "world" supported or opposed the war.

Is there bias in the media? The answer is clearly yes. Furthermore, the bias is on both sides. Media that were against the war would dwell on those facts that supported their belief that going to war was wrong. Media that supported the government’s decision to go to war may downplay those same facts.

The primary criticism that I have with the study is that it tries to lay the decisions to go to war on the president. In fact, the majority of Democrats and Republicans in the legislature supported that decision. Their support was based on information provided by a hamstrung CIA, which had been downsized and prevented from talking to the FBI by a previous administration.

If you remember, even the liberal candidate in the previous presidential election supported the war. The real misinformation campaign began when that candidate "changed" his mind about supporting the war in order to garner the anti-war vote. This is when the campaign to lay the blame on our current president and accuse him of lying to the public began.

The thing that I find deplorable is that a political party attempts to garner the anti-war vote because approximately one half the population of this country is anti-war. Roosevelt was elected on an anti-war campaign and if we had not been attack at Pearl Harbor, we would have watched Hitler conquer all of Europe and kill most of the Jews.

Was the decision to go to war in Iraq a good decision? Only time will tell.

Just for the fun of it, I did a statistical analysis of a soldier’s likelihood of dying in Iraq vs. dying because of drunk driving in the U.S. The real shocker was that a soldier is twice as likely to die in the U.S because of drunk driving as he or she was to die in Iraq as a result of combat. It’s a shame the anti-war folks do not direct their energy against drunk driving.

[Henry V]

You've already changed your mind and are agreeing w/ me so I'm curious why you want me to keep arguing the same point ad naseum. If you're craving extra validation then I aim to please: yes, YES, a thousand times yes....you're right and I totally agree with you; the study probably has flaws. Glad to have you aboard.

Potential flaws are potential flaws. You said the study was "biased". There is a difference.

Hew, next time just say something like "Even though I have not looked at the study the results do not agree with my point of view so the study must be biased by liberal researchers and funders and manipulation of the statistics. Don't keep asking me to provide any evidence that the study is biased I just know that it is."

On a serious note, I appreciate your openmindedness and willingness to admit when you were wrong. That takes a big person. Kudos to you.

Thanks. I appreciate your ability to avoid direct answers to basic questions. As I said, I still agree with the study's conclusions.

[M Remington]

I think Fox viewers are less informed by choice. It is my impression that they view Fox as the only source of news. Consequently, CNN and MSNBC are rarely watched so both sides of the argument are not examined. But, the same could be said of watchers of MSNBC. I would say the most objective news coverage tends to be CNN.

[subroc]

...I would say the most objective news coverage tends to be CNN.

And you would base that on what?

Are you sure you could be impartial when assessing objectivity when it comes to news coverage when you appear to be so left of center?

Are you sure you know where the center really is?

Could your personal objective lens actually be bias?

I on the other hand believe all news organizations other than Fox are left wing. That analysis is based on numerous studies that prove that most newsrooms are peopled by the left.

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

Fox is in the center.

The hard or far right isn’t represented at all.

Most on the left loathe the right. The news the left prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, left wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that Fox just doesn’t hate the right and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the left hates Fox.

[M Remington]

I would think the fact that I teach college-level government classes might give me a little credibility in this discussion. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that the MRC is a conservative organization.

I don't think there is any doubt that the press tends to be liberal. But, to say that Fox is in the center is totally incorrect. Fox tends to lean to the right, MSNBC to the left, and CNN to the center-left. Center-left is certainly more objective than right or left.

Finally, if Fox isn't biased, why is the preferred choice of so many right wingers?

[Patrick Johndrow]

If a person uses only ONE source for news they are less informed than someone who use two or more sources.

I flip between CNN, FOX, ABC, etc.....all major new sources now days tend to lean one way or the other...to say other wise is dishonest.

[subroc]

I would think the fact that I teach college-level government classes might give me a little credibility in this discussion. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that the MRC is a conservative organization.

I don't think there is any doubt that the press tends to be liberal. But, to say that Fox is in the center is totally incorrect. Fox tends to lean to the right, MSNBC to the left, and CNN to the center-left. Center-left is certainly more objective than right or left.

Finally, if Fox isn't biased, why is the preferred choice of so many right wingers?

As I said above:

Most on the left loathe the right. The news the left prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, left wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that Fox just doesn’t hate the right and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the left hates Fox.

If anything being an academic actually calls your objectivity into question.

http://www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf