CaptainPanic Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 I had to laugh when I read this. I just wanted to share it with you all. Fox News Viewers Know Less [about the news] Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: A Study 5
Phi for All Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 It makes me want to cry. They have such a huge following. I watched an interview with Hannity where he used www.homelandsecurityus.com as a source supporting his contention that Sheik Gilani and his followers were on a terrorist watchlist (they had, in fact, been removed from such a list two years prior to the interview). The actual US Homeland Security website is www.dhs.gov. FOX viewers accepted a private .com site as official government evidence condemning people as terrorists because FOX "journalists" said so, an obviously deliberate deception. It's no wonder FOX News viewers know so little about reality.
doG Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 With journalists like Dan Rather I'm sure the same could be said of CBS. Statistically you could probably show that main stream media viewers in general know less than those that aren't
timo Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Statistically you could probably show that main stream media viewers in general know less than those that aren't The study actually seems to contain other TV news, too. Fox is outstanding in the sense of making the last place in both questions about Libya and Syria. Edited November 23, 2011 by timo
Ophiolite Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 I think it's sad that this gives foxes a bad name. (I suspect a chicken conspiracy.)
Appolinaria Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 I guess living under a rock does me well after all! I still believe in knowing your enemy, though.
Phi for All Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 With journalists like Dan Rather I'm sure the same could be said of CBS. Statistically you could probably show that main stream media viewers in general know less than those that aren't It's difficult to trust any "journalist" who's interests conflict with that of either their employer or their sponsors. Yet another reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to own the media. In fairness, at least CBS and News Corp are media exclusive mega-corporations, unlike General Electric that manufactures products globally and also owns major media outlets. 1
imatfaal Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 I travel a lot and the biggest shock is still moving from public funded/controlled but reasonably independent news (aka bbc and itn) to news channels that are commercial enterprises. It is difficult to understand how people can put up with the naked partisan nature of news-gathering/reporting institutions who are owned by a corporate entity, I do not claim that the BBC and ITN are perfect, in fact far from it, but the fact is that the news tends to be the news rather than the comment; and for that I am grateful. I want comment, I love to hear what erudite and well informed commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have to say about the current furore; but prior to that informed opinion, I would like to hear the facts in a boring and as-objective-as-possible manner. With News organisations split along party lines and subject to the pressures of magnates/shareholders we tend to receive the news that is most palatable to the median viewer and opinions that reinforce prejudices - and frankly that is crap. 3
Appolinaria Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 It's difficult to trust any "journalist" who's interests conflict with that of either their employer or their sponsors. Yet another reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to own the media. In fairness, at least CBS and News Corp are media exclusive mega-corporations, unlike General Electric that manufactures products globally and also owns major media outlets. Reminds me of this; http://www.thedailys...?xrs=share_copy
mississippichem Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 I travel a lot and the biggest shock is still moving from public funded/controlled but reasonably independent news (aka bbc and itn) to news channels that are commercial enterprises. It is difficult to understand how people can put up with the naked partisan nature of news-gathering/reporting institutions who are owned by a corporate entity, I do not claim that the BBC and ITN are perfect, in fact far from it, but the fact is that the news tends to be the news rather than the comment; and for that I am grateful. I want comment, I love to hear what erudite and well informed commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have to say about the current furore; but prior to that informed opinion, I would like to hear the facts in a boring and as-objective-as-possible manner. With News organisations split along party lines and subject to the pressures of magnates/shareholders we tend to receive the news that is most palatable to the median viewer and opinions that reinforce prejudices - and frankly that is crap. If you ever TRY to watch Fox News...the damn news never comes on. It's just commentary talking head show after commentary talking head show. Sure CNN and NBC have their annoying commentary shows as well, but at least they actually have real news still. I prefer to watch CSPAN our listen to BBC. They're both boring but that's the way it should be.
imatfaal Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) If you ever TRY to watch Fox News...the damn news never comes on. It's just commentary talking head show after commentary talking head show. Sure CNN and NBC have their annoying commentary shows as well, but at least they actually have real news still. I prefer to watch CSPAN our listen to BBC. They're both boring but that's the way it should be. Exactly, couldn't agree more - no one ever mandated that news should be exciting, interesting, or engaging for teen-viewers; it's news, it's quite possibly boring and factual - deal with it. I have tried to watch Fox many times - but partner normally turns TV off before we get complaints from hotel management about the foul language I am shouting edited cos I had apostrophes wrong in two places Edited November 23, 2011 by imatfaal
Phi for All Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 If you ever TRY to watch Fox News...the damn news never comes on. It's just commentary talking head show after commentary talking head show. Perhaps this is why FOX News viewers tend to know less about the news. They want the talking heads to chew for them and spit out an opinion so they don't have to form one of their own. I mean, golly, being informed is HARD work!
DrRocket Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Sure CNN and NBC have their annoying commentary shows as well, but at least they actually have real news still. I have yet to see a news story, in print or on TV, about which I had direct knowledge and which was approximately accurate or even recognizable when reported in the media. Not sure why. One anchor made an A in an algebra class that I taught, so the mental ability is adequate in that case. But another anchor drank nearly my entire bottle of whiskey at a party for a departing third reporter who lived across the street. A print reporter screwed up a story after I had pointed out previous errors and he informed me that he was an expert in the subject of the story -- and used a picture of me in the process of hosing things up. None of these guys were Fox reporters, but Fox is no better. On the other hand Fox and the Wall Street Journal are both part of Rupert Murdoch's empire, and the WSJ seems to be as good as anyone for accuracy and depth.
iNow Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 With journalists like Dan Rather I'm sure the same could be said of CBS. You're about six years behind the times, man. Dan Rather left CBS in 2006, so it may be time to update your means of asserting equivalence with a more current example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather . On the other hand Fox and the Wall Street Journal are both part of Rupert Murdoch's empire, and the WSJ seems to be as good as anyone for accuracy and depth. Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that you think nobody is very accurate or deep? I ask because WSJ is far too frequently neither of those two things.
DrRocket Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that you think nobody is very accurate or deep? I ask because WSJ is far too frequently neither of those two things. Read the frst entence of my earlier post. Edited November 24, 2011 by DrRocket
iNow Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Read the frst entence of my earlier post. Ah. You ought to look at NPR and PBS NewsHour once in a while, then. Cheers. . I have yet to see a news story, in print or on TV, about which I had direct knowledge and which was approximately accurate or even recognizable when reported in the media. 1
CaptainPanic Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 I do not claim that the BBC and ITN are perfect, in fact far from it, but the fact is that the news tends to be the news rather than the comment; and for that I am grateful. I want comment, I love to hear what erudite and well informed commentators from both sides of the political spectrum have to say about the current furore; but prior to that informed opinion, I would like to hear the facts in a boring and as-objective-as-possible manner. I think that the Dutch situation is quite similar to the UK, with the BBC. In the Netherlands, we have had (and still have) what wikipedia translates as "pillarization" (verzuiling), which is a form of political segregation. Leftist-socialist groups have their leftist-socialist newspapers and radio/tv channels... and religious groups had their religious (Catholic or Protestant) newspapers and radio/tv channels. There is a liberal, or even capitalist paper and channel too. And all those are supported by political parties. So, in a way, we have a similar situation as in the US, but then with more groups (not just the democrats and republicans). But in addition, since more than 50 years, we've had a relatively objective and independent organization for news and big events: The programmes from the NOS derive from the Dutch Media Act 2008, which stipluates the NOS make regular and frequent programming of a public service nature. The Media Decree specifies the type of programming, which includes daily news reports, parliamentary coverage, sports coverage and national holidays.(source: wikipedia) So, while we have plenty of organizations, both private and publicly funded, who give a lot of opinions, we have at least 1 organization that has a task to inform the public. Obviously, they receive comments about not being objective - especially when something bad is reported about a particular political party, they will be accused of choosing sides... but in my opinion, they are doing a reasonably good job. As good as can be expected with limited means and funds in a strongly opinionated world. Btw, this should not be confused by a "State-owned news agency". It is state-funded, but not state-owned. They have no obligations to the government or any political group, except that they must (by law) inform the public.
doG Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 You're about six years behind the times, man. Dan Rather left CBS in 2006, so it may be time to update your means of asserting equivalence with a more current example. No, I was simply pointing out that Fox is not the only media outlet that ends up with bad journalists. You seem to be trying to suggest the opposite.
iNow Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 No, I was simply pointing out that Fox is not the only media outlet that ends up with bad journalists. You seem to be trying to suggest the opposite. Not at all. You have just confirmed you were asserting some sort of equivalence, so there appears to be no contention in that part of my comment given what you've just stipulated above. Beyond that, my point was to share with you that your example was outdated, which is itself also true.
Phi for All Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 So, while we have plenty of organizations, both private and publicly funded, who give a lot of opinions, we have at least 1 organization that has a task to inform the public. Obviously, they receive comments about not being objective - especially when something bad is reported about a particular political party, they will be accused of choosing sides... but in my opinion, they are doing a reasonably good job. As good as can be expected with limited means and funds in a strongly opinionated world. Btw, this should not be confused by a "State-owned news agency". It is state-funded, but not state-owned. They have no obligations to the government or any political group, except that they must (by law) inform the public. In the US, our National Public Radio is supposed to be like that. I find them more informative than any televised news, they have sponsorship from private business but no real obligation to them and no commercials are allowed. Since Republicans are against anything the federal government sponsors that could be part of the economic market, they tend to view NPR coverage as slanted towards liberals. Since the Democrats support social programs like NPR, it furthers the Republican notion of bias. They may not be completely objective but I find them more so than any other news broadcast. It actually surprises me that more people don't appreciate a news program that tries to report the news as neutrally as possible. I'll bet a poll would show most people want just the facts so they could make their own decisions (seems like a likely default position, right?). To me, it's very important to have differing perspectives, and I especially like hearing what the BBC has to say about US news. I've heard stories there that aren't even covered by US sources.
CaptainPanic Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 I'll bet a poll would show most people want just the facts so they could make their own decisions (seems like a likely default position, right?). Almost... Of the people who are interested in the news, the majority probably just want the facts. But I'm afraid that the majority of people simply aren't interested in the news. The majority of the people prefer Your Next Top Talent Show, or the 8 o' clock sitcom. That's in the US, but in Europe as well. I am afraid that for many people, the news is just a way to fill some time where they'd otherwise be bored. In the underground (also called the metro) people read rubbish newspapers. Why? Not because they care about the news, but because the alternative is to be bored. This means that there are a lot of readers who aren't very critical... as long as it's available and for free.
Ophiolite Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) To me, it's very important to have differing perspectives, and I especially like hearing what the BBC has to say about US news. I've heard stories there that aren't even covered by US sources. Then you would likely appreciate the coverage of US news in the Economist. Many decades ago I gave up Time and Newsweek for as sources on the US when I realised The Economist did it so much better. Edited November 25, 2011 by Ophiolite 1
imatfaal Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 The you would likely appreciate the coverage of US news in the Economist. Many decades ago I gave up Time and Newsweek for as sources on the US when I realised The Economist did it so much better. Agree - the Economist now do a editors highlights podcast which is not bad at all for free
CaptainPanic Posted May 24, 2012 Author Posted May 24, 2012 Update (this thread is 6 months old, but there is a new development worth mentioning) The study I linked to in the opening post has been repeated on a larger scale. Whereas the earlier study (of late 2011) only took a sample from the people of New Jersey, the latest study collected data from all the USA. The conclusion has not changed: Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers. and MSNBC viewers and Fox News viewers both fared worse in answering international questions than people who watched no news. 1
ydoaPs Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Update (this thread is 6 months old, but there is a new development worth mentioning) The study I linked to in the opening post has been repeated on a larger scale. Whereas the earlier study (of late 2011) only took a sample from the people of New Jersey, the latest study collected data from all the USA. The conclusion has not changed: and And it is interesting to note how well those that watch The Daily Show did.
Recommended Posts