By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Fox News tops source of voter misinformation

badgenome on 18 December 2010
Tigerlure said:

•   40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
•   31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
•   54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
•   86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
•   53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush

If you watch Fox News even today, these are facts that are just flat out ignored by right-wing media.

Not really. The fact that TARP and the bailouts started under Bush, at least, is mentioned on Fox News about as frequently as you might imagine given that Obama has been the president for about two years now. By continuing the policies as president (in addition to supporting them as senator), Obama owns them, and as the sitting president, he is the face of these policies. It's not all that surprising to me that Bush's involvement would go down the memory hole for a lot of people.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 18 December 2010
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:

Updated with Fox's response to the article. Kind of lame if you ask me, if they feel like something is wrong, they should attack the methodology like you guys are doing (or trying to do) here, not the University it was taken at.


Yeah... I mean, I'm sure he didn't know that "Best Party Schools" fact off hand, meaning it took time to come up with.

 

The methodology is so easy to attack, why they went with a silly cheap shot is beyond me.

And just so I understand, you're criticizing the Survey on the way the questions were asked?

More so on what the questions were.

It wasn't asking "Who was the most misinformed".

It was asking "Who has the most conservative base."

Since there were no Democratic leaning or nuetral leaning questions.

Getting something wrong often has less with the way the news is presented.... and more to do with who it is presented too... like when I asked you "Did they find WMDs in iraq" and showed a link that showed they found WMDs, and your response was "They didn't find WMDs because they were old WMDs."

There was no way I could of more truthfully reported that.

I have to disagree. Questions like "did the stimulus create jobs" and "will healthcare add to the deficit" etc. are not right-wing or left-wing questions. These are questions that have been debated on every political news station. You can't slant these questions as right or left. There are nonpartisan answers to these questions.

Take the stimulus job creation for example. The majority of economists agree it saved jobs, and not just a few. We're talking probably millions of jobs. I think the CBO even did an estimate on this.

Healthcare also, the CBO said it would not add to the deficit. In fact, they said it would REDUCE the deficit. I'd bet my posting rights if the CBO had said this healthcare bill will add to the deficit, Fox News would have had a field day with that.

•   40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush
•   31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
•   54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
•   86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
•   53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush

If you watch Fox News even today, these are facts that are just flat out ignored by right-wing media.

You can attack the University all you want (something I'm not personally blaming you for), but it doesn't change the results of this study.

What?

You don't think MSNBC was happy with the congressional budget office on that report? (which by the way, pretty much all those deficit reductions have already disapeared.  It still should reduce the defice, but by a paltry amount and only if they change nothing else.)

These ARE Republican and Democratic issues... in that Democrats are happy the results are what they are.

Like how Republicans are happy that areas with lower gun restirctions have less crime... etc.

There are tons of facts republicans like, that Democratic news orginizations ignore too... none of which were included in the survey.

It doesn't add to the deficit, and it does a lot of good things. If they got rid of the mandate, I'm sure the American Public would be in love with it. As long as it doesn't add to the deficit, I'm fine with it, unlike some other bills (Bush Tax Cuts)

Well I would hope they are happy. They took steps that Republicans demonized time and time again, and made false statements about. This survey is just an example of how Fox News twists their facts and finds a way to blame everything on President Obama (TARP, bailouts)

The gun thing is a good point, but this survey isn't about small topics. This survey is about issues that affect Americans right now, I think we can deal with the gun issues down the road.

You're more than welcome to make your own survey if you want. I'm sure there are facts MSNBC ignores, but I'm positive that shows like Rachel Maddow back up their opinion with facts, something I haven't seen Fox News hosts do much of. Most of their "facts" they point out is usually discredited soon anyway.

Everyone would be in love with the law without the mandate.  Including Republicans.

Though they rarely talk about it, Republicans LOVE the health exchanges. 

The issue is of course, if you got rid of the personal mandate, you'd have to get rid of the prexisting conditions clause, because nobody would get health insurance until they had a disease.


Your right, I could make my own survey.  I'd rather not though, because surveys about "Media truthfulness" don't work.  In general... because it would take a LOT of work.

Even if I made a perfectly balanced survey about both Republican and Democratic issues, you'd have to

A) look at time when both republicans and democrats were in office.

You may be more or less willing to lie when your guys are on top.

B) Estalish that the demographics between each News station were the same. 

Make sure that education levels, race, political affiliation, all were up and down the line.  (Good luck with that)

Afterall if we are judging truthfulness we need to prove "If everything was the same about me was the same except which news channel I watched, how informed would I be."

C) Make sure basic knoweldge level is the same.

Just like the demographics above this is a huge factor. 

 

As for your differentation between MSNBC and Fox News... i'd say they don't really exist.   Look at how they rushed to Julian Assange's defense over the rape allegations.



HappySqurriel on 18 December 2010
Kasz216 said:

Also I don't see the arguement of "They're more popular, therefore worse.

 

They're more popular only because while CNN is in the middle, they still lean a fair bit left.


I wouldn't say CNN is in the middle, they are just far more subtile about their bias ...

While MSNBC will defend the Democrats when a negative story comes up (producing an obvious example of bias) CNN will either not cover the story or will bury it in their broadcast; and when MSNBC will outwardly attack the Republicans, CNN will lead with that story. Many of CNN's guest pannels are made up of an extreme progressive, moderate Democrat, Democrat leaning independant, and a Republican leaning independant (or possibly a moderate Republican) to represent "Balance"



Killy_Vorkosigan on 18 December 2010

TV or newspaper are owned by companies who have interests and ties with politics. Let's get rid of them, and check multiple source of citizen-based, independant information through internet. Let TV news and newspaper die, cause they misinform us.

Also, they are just a mere relay for internet based information (what the wikileaks story shown basically).



fastyxx on 18 December 2010
Killy_Vorkosigan said:

TV or newspaper are owned by companies who have interests and ties with politics. Let's get rid of them, and check multiple source of citizen-based, independant information through internet. Let TV news and newspaper die, cause they misinform us.

Also, they are just a mere relay for internet based information (what the wikileaks story shown basically).


Except the corporations own the access to the internet.  The internet won't be free-sourced much longer in this country.



Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?

Around the Network
GameOver22 on 18 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:

I can't say the results of the study surprise me much because voters are generally uniformed about political issues, but the level of misinformation is concerning. There is a difference between not knowing an answer and believing a wrong answer to be true.


The very first thing you learn when you take a research class is that people HATE saying "I don't know."

You could make up a question that his completly fictional like


"Did Alexander the Great say his favorite color was Red or Blue" and a great number of people will say either Red or Blue, even though such an event never occured.

Are you assuming that there is no "correct" answer in these questions asked?  And to your wired article, it says that they could be remnants of the gulf war, so that isn't good proof at all of WMDs found.

"But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained."

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to you?

The finding of WMD's isn't proof of WMD's?  They found chemical weapons of mass destruction that according to the deals with the UN were supposed to be destroyed.  This is fairly similar to "Did the Stimulus save jobs."   Someone who thinks "It saved those jobs, but prevented new jobs from being created" very well may say no. 

Just as you are indicating you would say no, after directly reading something that says they found weapons of mass destruction.  Did they find weapons of mass destruction "no because they were old weapons of mass destruction."  I mean... what?

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to me?  No, but they could of found a Nuclear program and that wouldn't of justified it, at best a Clinton age "Bomb the shit out of them until they let us do what they want" campaign would of sufficed.

 

Also, you miss my point.  Which is that if people don't know the answer to something, they are most likely going to guess.  (Furthermore said guess will play into their own biases.  People who like Red better will say that's his favorite color.)


Your link got me more intersted in this topic, so I did a little research. I personally don't think the question, "Were there WMDs in Iraq?", is a fair question without specifying what constitutes a WMD. By the dictionary definition, the wikileaks articles shows that WMDs were found, but by international or governmental standards, I'm not sure if these finding would constitue WMDs because it is unclear if the weapons had the ability to cause significant damage or mass casualties. In order to be a WMD, at least under some definitions, its not enough for something to be a chemical weapon. Weapons also needs to have the capability to cause significant damage. This relates to the quantity of the weapon, dispersal, as well as the ability to utilize the weapon.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html



GameOver22 on 18 December 2010
fastyxx said:
Kasz216 said:

Going over the study... a lot of the questions asked... aren't really "true or false" things.

Like "Did the stimulus legislation gain or lose jobs".

Furthermore, pretty much ALL of the questions are democratically biased... as in few are questions Liberals would get wrong vs Conservatives.

I also find in intersting that 44% of the country isn't sure Obama was born in the US according to their report as well.  That's much higher then I remember that number being, which brings up sampling issues.

 

Seems like a report specifically tailored to get the results it got.  Otherwise you'd put in a bunch of stuff Liberals are more likely to get wrong like "Did Sarah Palin say she could see Russia from her house."

This response and that of the Fox PR guy commenting is exactly what the study shows.  

FOX guy "Undergrads party there.  Therefore every professional study done there, no matter where those researchers/professors actually did THEIR studying, is inherently false and pointless."  No actual look at the information.  No judgement in any way that could have any merit or value.  But the FOX viewer (who of course would NEVER see this study in the first place because it obviously doesn't fit the narrative FOX presents) would accept that immediately and unquestioningly.  It's LIBERAL BIAS in the media!  It's the LAMESTREAM media!  It's the LIBERAL BIAS in higher education!  

 

No. It's factual information.  There's no debate about any of those questions.  None.  

 

And the WMD technicality is stupid.  We all know that those remnants are NOT what we were supposedly looking for.  

 

FOX "news" is the greatest propaganda machine ever created in this country, at least since WWII.  And most of the personalities on the network are indeed entertainers and opinion-based hosts, but they are presented as being fair and balanced and news.  And they are presenting blatantly false facts to support their opinions.  Other networks, like MSNBC also present opinion, but they don't have "news" labelled everywhere and someone like Rachel Maddow presents researchable facts to back her views.  The hosts may not always present every applicable fact if it doesn't match their storyline/opinion, but they aren't blatantly making crap up the way Hannity or Beck are on a nightly basis.


The main point is not whether the questions are factual. The point is that you could ask similar questions and make the opposite conclusion that Democrats are misinformed and link this misinformation to more liberal media outlets. A general truth is that people search out news sources that coincide with their already existing views, and they are more likely to accept stories at face value if they coincide with their predispositions. Republicans are more likely to accept stories that emphasize Republican values while Democrats are likely to do the same with stories that emphaize Democratic values.

Point being, another study could be made that shows Democrats are misninformed by asking questions that focused on issues where Republcans are more likely to be correct. If there is one truth about political knowledge, it is that neither party is really more informed than the other (Republicans actually are slightly more informed, but this is related to education rather than party affiliation).



Kasz216 on 18 December 2010
GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:

I can't say the results of the study surprise me much because voters are generally uniformed about political issues, but the level of misinformation is concerning. There is a difference between not knowing an answer and believing a wrong answer to be true.


The very first thing you learn when you take a research class is that people HATE saying "I don't know."

You could make up a question that his completly fictional like


"Did Alexander the Great say his favorite color was Red or Blue" and a great number of people will say either Red or Blue, even though such an event never occured.

Are you assuming that there is no "correct" answer in these questions asked?  And to your wired article, it says that they could be remnants of the gulf war, so that isn't good proof at all of WMDs found.

"But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained."

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to you?

The finding of WMD's isn't proof of WMD's?  They found chemical weapons of mass destruction that according to the deals with the UN were supposed to be destroyed.  This is fairly similar to "Did the Stimulus save jobs."   Someone who thinks "It saved those jobs, but prevented new jobs from being created" very well may say no. 

Just as you are indicating you would say no, after directly reading something that says they found weapons of mass destruction.  Did they find weapons of mass destruction "no because they were old weapons of mass destruction."  I mean... what?

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to me?  No, but they could of found a Nuclear program and that wouldn't of justified it, at best a Clinton age "Bomb the shit out of them until they let us do what they want" campaign would of sufficed.

 

Also, you miss my point.  Which is that if people don't know the answer to something, they are most likely going to guess.  (Furthermore said guess will play into their own biases.  People who like Red better will say that's his favorite color.)


Your link got me more intersted in this topic, so I did a little research. I personally don't think the question, "Were there WMDs in Iraq?", is a fair question without specifying what constitutes a WMD. By the dictionary definition, the wikileaks articles shows that WMDs were found, but by international or governmental standards, I'm not sure if these finding would constitue WMDs because it is unclear if the weapons had the ability to cause significant damage or mass casualties. In order to be a WMD, at least under some definitions, its not enough for something to be a chemical weapon. Weapons also needs to have the capability to cause significant damage. This relates to the quantity of the weapon, dispersal, as well as the ability to utilize the weapon.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

They are classified as WMDs internationally....

Your link seems to confirm that they were WMDs.... not Deny it.



GameOver22 on 18 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:

I can't say the results of the study surprise me much because voters are generally uniformed about political issues, but the level of misinformation is concerning. There is a difference between not knowing an answer and believing a wrong answer to be true.


The very first thing you learn when you take a research class is that people HATE saying "I don't know."

You could make up a question that his completly fictional like


"Did Alexander the Great say his favorite color was Red or Blue" and a great number of people will say either Red or Blue, even though such an event never occured.

Are you assuming that there is no "correct" answer in these questions asked?  And to your wired article, it says that they could be remnants of the gulf war, so that isn't good proof at all of WMDs found.

"But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained."

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to you?

The finding of WMD's isn't proof of WMD's?  They found chemical weapons of mass destruction that according to the deals with the UN were supposed to be destroyed.  This is fairly similar to "Did the Stimulus save jobs."   Someone who thinks "It saved those jobs, but prevented new jobs from being created" very well may say no. 

Just as you are indicating you would say no, after directly reading something that says they found weapons of mass destruction.  Did they find weapons of mass destruction "no because they were old weapons of mass destruction."  I mean... what?

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to me?  No, but they could of found a Nuclear program and that wouldn't of justified it, at best a Clinton age "Bomb the shit out of them until they let us do what they want" campaign would of sufficed.

 

Also, you miss my point.  Which is that if people don't know the answer to something, they are most likely going to guess.  (Furthermore said guess will play into their own biases.  People who like Red better will say that's his favorite color.)


Your link got me more intersted in this topic, so I did a little research. I personally don't think the question, "Were there WMDs in Iraq?", is a fair question without specifying what constitutes a WMD. By the dictionary definition, the wikileaks articles shows that WMDs were found, but by international or governmental standards, I'm not sure if these finding would constitue WMDs because it is unclear if the weapons had the ability to cause significant damage or mass casualties. In order to be a WMD, at least under some definitions, its not enough for something to be a chemical weapon. Weapons also needs to have the capability to cause significant damage. This relates to the quantity of the weapon, dispersal, as well as the ability to utilize the weapon.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

They are classified as WMDs internationally....

Your link seems to confirm that they were WMDs.... not Deny it.

These are the two defintions I was looking at. Under these defintions, I don't see how the wikileaks article show that these weapons had the ability to cause significant damage, mass casualties, etc.

1. U.S. Department of Defense, Proliferation Threat and Response 2001, "Message of the Secretary of Defense," refers to weapons of mass destruction as those with "...capabilities to inflict mass casualties and destruction: nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons or the means to deliver them."

2. The definition in the U.S. Code, Title 50, "War and National Defense," includes radiological weapons. It defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity."



Kasz216 on 18 December 2010
GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:

I can't say the results of the study surprise me much because voters are generally uniformed about political issues, but the level of misinformation is concerning. There is a difference between not knowing an answer and believing a wrong answer to be true.


The very first thing you learn when you take a research class is that people HATE saying "I don't know."

You could make up a question that his completly fictional like


"Did Alexander the Great say his favorite color was Red or Blue" and a great number of people will say either Red or Blue, even though such an event never occured.

Are you assuming that there is no "correct" answer in these questions asked?  And to your wired article, it says that they could be remnants of the gulf war, so that isn't good proof at all of WMDs found.

"But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained."

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to you?

The finding of WMD's isn't proof of WMD's?  They found chemical weapons of mass destruction that according to the deals with the UN were supposed to be destroyed.  This is fairly similar to "Did the Stimulus save jobs."   Someone who thinks "It saved those jobs, but prevented new jobs from being created" very well may say no. 

Just as you are indicating you would say no, after directly reading something that says they found weapons of mass destruction.  Did they find weapons of mass destruction "no because they were old weapons of mass destruction."  I mean... what?

Does that justify the invasion of Iraq to me?  No, but they could of found a Nuclear program and that wouldn't of justified it, at best a Clinton age "Bomb the shit out of them until they let us do what they want" campaign would of sufficed.

 

Also, you miss my point.  Which is that if people don't know the answer to something, they are most likely going to guess.  (Furthermore said guess will play into their own biases.  People who like Red better will say that's his favorite color.)


Your link got me more intersted in this topic, so I did a little research. I personally don't think the question, "Were there WMDs in Iraq?", is a fair question without specifying what constitutes a WMD. By the dictionary definition, the wikileaks articles shows that WMDs were found, but by international or governmental standards, I'm not sure if these finding would constitue WMDs because it is unclear if the weapons had the ability to cause significant damage or mass casualties. In order to be a WMD, at least under some definitions, its not enough for something to be a chemical weapon. Weapons also needs to have the capability to cause significant damage. This relates to the quantity of the weapon, dispersal, as well as the ability to utilize the weapon.

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

They are classified as WMDs internationally....

Your link seems to confirm that they were WMDs.... not Deny it.

These are the two defintions I was looking at. Under these defintions, I don't see how the wikileaks article show that these weapons had the ability to cause significant damage, mass casualties, etc.

1. U.S. Department of Defense, Proliferation Threat and Response 2001, "Message of the Secretary of Defense," refers to weapons of mass destruction as those with "...capabilities to inflict mass casualties and destruction: nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons or the means to deliver them."

2. The definition in the U.S. Code, Title 50, "War and National Defense," includes radiological weapons. It defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity."

They were chemical weapons with the abiltity to cause serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.

That's specifically what they found.