I just read a post suggesting a tv news channel for all English speaking countries. Personally, I would like to see it.
Fox News, the thinking is done for you
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
True.
I notice the same thing with SunTV. But I can differentiate between Op/Ed and news.
What I feel is lacking in the overall analysis of Fox is, its detractors can't differentiate between Fox News as a NEWS source v. Fox News as an Op/Ed source.
That made me lol, for real.
I have blocked FOX News out of my TV programming. If I want to watch some news that I feel is less biased than what the US Media puts out (I think they are told what to say.) I tune in the BBC or Al Jazeera or if I can find it the CBC. What the US media is telling us today is limited to what the script the censors are presented each day. How many of you know just how many have died in the rash of wild fires in the southwest? Or how big the areas are the wild fires have destroyed not to mention how many small communities were burned out? These fire burning on Federal ownerships are advancing with almost no organized efforts by any other than the locals who are trying to save their entire way of life. Like what was done on The Gulf Cost during the oil leak the feds are hiring from Unemployment Offices in distressed areas and bringing those claimants out to fight the wild fires. They kill two birds with one stone. The Unemployment numbers drop in the distressed areas and the communities in the vicinity prosper with the sale of Sundries and merchandise. Sounds like our government in action again.
:canada:Jist fer fun check out THE REAL NEWS network on yer computer.
It's a bit left leaning, but mostly tries to tell the truth. You cons will probably not like it.
Good Canadian content in it as well.
It's a bit left leaning, but mostly tries to tell the truth. You cons will probably not like it.
Good Canadian content in it as well.
Then maybe you need to practice your reading skills, I pretty much paraphrased this paragraph earlier in my response to Old Medic:
I see. So misinformed is defined as deviating from the liberal narrative. That's pretty much what I thought.
I addressed that. If I tried to use those questions in my Stats and Metrics class, I not only would have got an F, my prof would have made me the laughingstock of the class. Most of those questions don't have a right answer. These "studies" are rating how "informed" people are, based on their opinions. Come on Tonnington, you're a scientist, you're not gonna let them pull the wool over your eyes like that, are you?
Edit: As a further illustration of my point, I came across this yesterday after our discussion. I figured if anyone had the dirt on Fox, it would be mediamatters.
Wrong. They're no better. "Fox news viewers are more likely to believe the rumours about the NYC mosque". What? lol. No mention of which rumours, or even if the rumours turned out to be true. Just believing the rumours = misinformed.
That's the quality of science behind the "fox news viewers are consistantly more misinformed" claims.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201106220022#5
Last edited:
No, believing things which aren't true.
Do you seriously believe that most climate scientists do not agree that climate change is ocurring? That's not a liberal narrative. The report also mentioned Democrats were more likely to believe other things incorrectly, such as troop numbers in Afghanistan not increasing under Obama, and that Democratic legislators did not mostly vote for TARP.
Yes they do, it's a matter of fact who voted for a piece of legislation, it's a matter of fact how many troops have been stationed in a war zone, it's a matter of fact that not only do most climate scientists agree that climate change is ocurring, but most also agree that the main cause is human pollution. If someone believes the opposite of demonstrably true statements, then that is the same as saying they are misinformed. If your stats professor has a problem with those facts and findings, then I'd be suspect about the education you received.
What about believing that my personal income tax rate went up last year, is that a demonstably true statement? Sorry, but one bad apple DOES spoil the whole bunch when it comes to statistics.
This may be shocking, but if you actually follow the link from media matters, the researcher lists the four rumors they evaluated their findings upon.
Obama wanted to raise income taxes, but the Republicans struck a deal with him, and income taxes were not raised on anyone. So yes, anyone who believes their rate went up is misinformed. In fact most rates went down, with a two percent cut in payroll taxes on employees, and the income tax cuts in the stimulus bill.
Seriously, what course work have you completed in statistics?
Why would it be shocking? Thanks for the contribution. It also furthers my point about the bad questions.
1 and 2 are true.
3 is easily misunderstood, the ground breaking was supposed to be on September 11, 2011. ergo, bad question.
4 They have their own footnote on that one.
Uh huh. Unfortunately, that wasn't the question. So I get a promotion, I'm in a higher tax bracket, my rate went up. Bad question.
How hard would it have been to ask, say, "Did Obama raise national income tax rates?". Then your response would be valid. But they didn't, so it's not.
BA in Practical Psychology with a minor in Sociology, MA in Psychology, BEd. Lots of stats work there.
Nope, here he is condemning the attacks.
Yes, that one was a poorly framed question. That wasn't the only question on taxes though, more people believed that there were no tax cuts than the number who responded in the affirmative to higher tax rates.
No doubt, but that wasn't my question.
He? One guy is building this thing? Methinks thou hast proven my point.
lol sorry that's the best you're gonna get for now, it's been too long. If I stumble across my transcript I'll give you more detail.
No, that was Rumour #1, which you said was true. It is not true, a rumor. He has condemned terrorism on multiple occasions...
True, question one was about the one guy, my apologies. Still, I can provide you with evidence that he also supports terrorism, or better yet just check it out, particularly at atlasshrugs.com. It doesn't really matter if it turns out that he actually supports terrorism or not, the fact that there's room for argument is enough to make it a bad question.
Again, MSNBC is on the opposite pole. Look at Keith Obelman's meltdown...
"Scott Brown is a racist and he wants to deny women who are raped medical treatment."
Talk about misinformation and falsehoods.
I think all print media is essentially failing.
Yes, I never claimed Fox was the only place one would find misinformation, in fact I didn't intend for this thread to go in this direction. I was more interested in the steady erosion and breakdown of independent news media. Again, don't take that as a claim that Fox is the sole guilty party...they just do it better than the rest in my opinion.