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

Kasz216 on 17 December 2010
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
Kasz216 said:
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

no suprise there


I also like how everbody is jumping into the thread with preconceived notions without even bothering to look at the study and realize what a farse it is.

This is actually the kind of stuff that makes it so news orginizations can mislead you in the first place.

That's why I try to never trust a report until I can see and study the underlying methods first.

dito

So you actually looked at the study and agreed with the methods?  How could you not see how incredibly biased it was.

Show me one question there, that you think a left leaning person is more likely to get wrong then a right leaning person... who watches no news at all.


i have a short term memory problem. do you really want me to read it again?

So you don't agree with a study until you read it's methods and then completely forget what those methods are?


yes and yes

im sure nobody remebers a i thread i made a while back(that got locked cause it was in the wrong forum) about kids and race.

it asked kids in the servey simple questions like: which kid is the bad kid asking kids to point to drawings of kid like characters of different colors with some of the kids verbally answering all races are equal, (and not really nowing the survey was about race) while more then 50%(ball park cause of my memory) of kids of all races taking the survey pointing to the darker colors.

and i told you the method


What?  You didn't mention the methods of this study once, except that you think you read them.


not the OP study. the one you just quoted. it was on CNN 

I... don't see the relevence.  At all.

I do know the CNN study your talking about though.

A better think to read and study are the studies in "Blink" by malcolm gladwell.

The interesting thing is that even mixred race people and black people will point to the "Black faces" as the ones with negative connotations.

Socialization is a pretty crazy thing.

It's an interesting effect, though meaningless just as long as you know it happens and keep it in mind... and that it happens to EVERYBODY, including you, no matter how cool you think you may be with non-white people... even if you yourself are not white.

Which is why it's important to teach your kids about racial and sexual biases early.

I know I once made a racist remark when I was like... i don't know, whatever age Kintergarden is.

After a long speech with my parents though, I was fine after.


the relevence was in the arc of the 2 studies; although diff in context i was showing that without nowing how the study was done you couldn't comment on the structure of the thread, but only the title.

if you don't know how the study is being done and the questions being asked in the thread all you can comment on is the title and have kazs216 question you about it when ur original post being biased to fox news(talking about my original post cause im not a fan), and not really speaking on the thread with more then 2 words.

you assumed i didn't read the studycause i the 2 words i posted, not nowing if i read the study or not.

and i agree with the rest of your post.

The study is provided... so there is no excuse to not know.  It's pretty obvious that anyone who read it, could eaisly spot out the flaws.



Around the Network
Mendicate Bias on 17 December 2010
Baalzamon said:
Mendicate Bias said:
mhsillen said:


he is not a professor your friend is misinformed 

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

"Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

That is from the University of Chicago Law School. 

I don't know if you have ever been to university but many professors are not full time or tenure track as they have obligations in their research or in politics that take up most of their time. Anything else you want me to disprove?

I personally don't know the difference, but the article I posted before says there is a difference in terms of academia...so technically saying he wasn't a professor isn't a lie, but one could say he was, and you really wouldn't be wrong either...what difference does it really make if he was a professor...it just makes me think that much less of him.

I'm going to go with the Universities direct statement on his status instead of a news outlet. The reason i even bothered stating that is because another user was stating fallacies about him that could be proven wrong. 

What do you have against professors? You do realize that the computer your sitting on, the medicine you take, the surgeries you have and your life of comfort is all because of people that were involved in academia and the sciences. This stupid view that uneducated people know more about a subject than a scientist in the same field is the reason why our country is falling so far behind in education and science.

I hate people that try to play off their opinions as facts even though they don't know the first thing about the subject, a good example being evolution or economics.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Baalzamon on 17 December 2010
Mendicate Bias said:
Baalzamon said:
Mendicate Bias said:
mhsillen said:


he is not a professor your friend is misinformed 

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

"Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."

That is from the University of Chicago Law School. 

I don't know if you have ever been to university but many professors are not full time or tenure track as they have obligations in their research or in politics that take up most of their time. Anything else you want me to disprove?

I personally don't know the difference, but the article I posted before says there is a difference in terms of academia...so technically saying he wasn't a professor isn't a lie, but one could say he was, and you really wouldn't be wrong either...what difference does it really make if he was a professor...it just makes me think that much less of him.

I'm going to go with the Universities direct statement on his status instead of a news outlet. The reason i even bothered stating that is because another user was stating fallacies about him that could be proven wrong. 

What do you have against professors? You do realize that the computer your sitting on, the medicine you take, the surgeries you have and your life of comfort is all because of people that were involved in academia and the sciences. This stupid view that uneducated people know more about a subject than a scientist in the same field is the reason why our country is falling so far behind in education and science.

I hate people that try to play off their opinions as facts even though they don't know the first thing about the subject, a good example being evolution or economics.

It isn't necessarily their research I dislike to any degree whatsoever.  After 1 1/2 years in college, I think what upsets me is that they (as everybody else in the world seems to) want to push their political agenda.  So it isn't so much professors themselves as wishing there would be a way they could teach without pushing politics.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Mendicate Bias on 17 December 2010
Baalzamon said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Baalzamon said:

I personally don't know the difference, but the article I posted before says there is a difference in terms of academia...so technically saying he wasn't a professor isn't a lie, but one could say he was, and you really wouldn't be wrong either...what difference does it really make if he was a professor...it just makes me think that much less of him.

I'm going to go with the Universities direct statement on his status instead of a news outlet. The reason i even bothered stating that is because another user was stating fallacies about him that could be proven wrong. 

What do you have against professors? You do realize that the computer your sitting on, the medicine you take, the surgeries you have and your life of comfort is all because of people that were involved in academia and the sciences. This stupid view that uneducated people know more about a subject than a scientist in the same field is the reason why our country is falling so far behind in education and science.

I hate people that try to play off their opinions as facts even though they don't know the first thing about the subject, a good example being evolution or economics.

It isn't necessarily their research I dislike to any degree whatsoever.  After 1 1/2 years in college, I think what upsets me is that they (as everybody else in the world seems to) want to push their political agenda.  So it isn't so much professors themselves as wishing there would be a way they could teach without pushing politics.

I get that it can be annoying but professors are people like you or me. No person is completely unbiased and no matter how hard they try their own opinions will always leak through.

What your supposed to do is absorb the raw information they give you and use it in your own way. If you disagree with a professor then do a study or experiment and prove him wrong. That is how science advances.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Kasz216 on 17 December 2010
Mendicate Bias said:
Baalzamon said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Baalzamon said:

I personally don't know the difference, but the article I posted before says there is a difference in terms of academia...so technically saying he wasn't a professor isn't a lie, but one could say he was, and you really wouldn't be wrong either...what difference does it really make if he was a professor...it just makes me think that much less of him.

I'm going to go with the Universities direct statement on his status instead of a news outlet. The reason i even bothered stating that is because another user was stating fallacies about him that could be proven wrong. 

What do you have against professors? You do realize that the computer your sitting on, the medicine you take, the surgeries you have and your life of comfort is all because of people that were involved in academia and the sciences. This stupid view that uneducated people know more about a subject than a scientist in the same field is the reason why our country is falling so far behind in education and science.

I hate people that try to play off their opinions as facts even though they don't know the first thing about the subject, a good example being evolution or economics.

It isn't necessarily their research I dislike to any degree whatsoever.  After 1 1/2 years in college, I think what upsets me is that they (as everybody else in the world seems to) want to push their political agenda.  So it isn't so much professors themselves as wishing there would be a way they could teach without pushing politics.

I get that it can be annoying but professors are people like you or me. No person is completely unbiased and no matter how hard they try their own opinions will always leak through.

What your supposed to do is absorb the raw information they give you and use it in your own way. If you disagree with a professor then do a study or experiment and prove him wrong. That is how science advances.

And that that scientist claims  a dozen reasons why your study is wrong (even though it isn't) and ignores progress until he dies or retires.

People have an idealized view of science... but the truth is, very rarely is a new truth aloud to live until the old guard "Dies out".

In political sociences... oh boy, it's worse. 



Around the Network
Mendicate Bias on 18 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Mendicate Bias said:

I get that it can be annoying but professors are people like you or me. No person is completely unbiased and no matter how hard they try their own opinions will always leak through.

What your supposed to do is absorb the raw information they give you and use it in your own way. If you disagree with a professor then do a study or experiment and prove him wrong. That is how science advances.

And that that scientist claims  a dozen reasons why your study is wrong (even though it isn't) and ignores progress until he dies or retires.

People have an idealized view of science... but the truth is, very rarely is a new truth aloud to live until the old guard "Dies out".

In political sociences... oh boy, it's worse. 

If you can prove your position with a reproducible experiment or mathematics then it doesn't matter how stubborn the "old guard" is. Especially in todays age where each paper is put through a peer review of many researchers before publication. There is no way a single person could stop a paper from being published.

Also just because someone publishes a controversial paper doesn't mean everyone in their field is supposed to automatically accept their view. It is natural for there to be hesitance to ideas that change established thought. After sufficient evidence is brought forward that hesitance dissolves away and becomes a thing of the past.

Do you have any examples of such a thing occurring in the last 30 or 40 years. 

 



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Kasz216 on 18 December 2010
Mendicate Bias said:
Kasz216 said:
Mendicate Bias said:

I get that it can be annoying but professors are people like you or me. No person is completely unbiased and no matter how hard they try their own opinions will always leak through.

What your supposed to do is absorb the raw information they give you and use it in your own way. If you disagree with a professor then do a study or experiment and prove him wrong. That is how science advances.

And that that scientist claims  a dozen reasons why your study is wrong (even though it isn't) and ignores progress until he dies or retires.

People have an idealized view of science... but the truth is, very rarely is a new truth aloud to live until the old guard "Dies out".

In political sociences... oh boy, it's worse. 

If you can prove your position with a reproducible experiment or mathematics then it doesn't matter how stubborn the "old guard" is. Especially in todays age where each paper is put through a peer review of many researchers before publication. There is no way a single person could stop a paper from being published.

Also just because someone publishes a controversial paper doesn't mean everyone in their field is supposed to automatically accept their view. It is natural for there to be hesitance to ideas that change established thought. After sufficient evidence is brought forward that hesitance dissolves away and becomes a thing of the past.

Do you have any examples of such a thing occurring in the last 30 or 40 years. 

Yes.  Every theory EVER.

Have you ever submitted anything through the peer review process?  That's exactly what the peer review process is 90% of the time. 

Have you ever debated a scientific paper you've done with someone?  That's literally exactly what happens when you disprove their theory... because scientsits REALLY want to be right, because it gives you more glory, renown and tenure.

There has been no great change since "The Structure of Scientific Models" came out.


People pretty much never except the controversial until the "old guard" is gone or marginalzied.  If the math is solid, everyone in the field SHOULD accept the new view... at least if it's more solid then the old view.

Too much time is wasted on old methods because they are the "familiar" methods.



Killiana1a on 18 December 2010
badgenome said:

No, Juan Williams doesn't make you balanced. But between Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel, Geraldine Ferraro, Alicia Menendez, Ellis Henican, et al, Fox is easily more balanced than either CNN (whose idea of a conservative is Kathleen Parker) or MSNBC (whose idea of a conservative is probably Dennis Kucinich).

By all means, hold everyone accountable. But all complaints about how shitty the media in general, and cable news in particular, is seem to start and end with Fox News. Granted, they are the ratings leader by lightyears, but no one seriously thinks that's why they're the whipping boy. Nor are they especially bad as far as cable news goes. It's because and only because they dare to lean the other way.

Problem is, all those you listed as progressive are contributors who come in for 2 to 5 minutes at a time.

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are all conservative and the biggest draws to Fox News in their time slots. Where are their progressive counterparts who have a 1 hour prime time television slot on Fox News?



Kasz216 on 18 December 2010
Killiana1a said:
badgenome said:

No, Juan Williams doesn't make you balanced. But between Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel, Geraldine Ferraro, Alicia Menendez, Ellis Henican, et al, Fox is easily more balanced than either CNN (whose idea of a conservative is Kathleen Parker) or MSNBC (whose idea of a conservative is probably Dennis Kucinich).

By all means, hold everyone accountable. But all complaints about how shitty the media in general, and cable news in particular, is seem to start and end with Fox News. Granted, they are the ratings leader by lightyears, but no one seriously thinks that's why they're the whipping boy. Nor are they especially bad as far as cable news goes. It's because and only because they dare to lean the other way.

Problem is, all those you listed as progressive are contributors who come in for 2 to 5 minutes at a time.

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are all conservative and the biggest draws to Fox News in their time slots. Where are their progressive counterparts who have a 1 hour prime time television slot on Fox News?

What about that is different from MSNBC?



Killiana1a on 18 December 2010
Kasz216 said:
Killiana1a said:
badgenome said:

No, Juan Williams doesn't make you balanced. But between Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel, Geraldine Ferraro, Alicia Menendez, Ellis Henican, et al, Fox is easily more balanced than either CNN (whose idea of a conservative is Kathleen Parker) or MSNBC (whose idea of a conservative is probably Dennis Kucinich).

By all means, hold everyone accountable. But all complaints about how shitty the media in general, and cable news in particular, is seem to start and end with Fox News. Granted, they are the ratings leader by lightyears, but no one seriously thinks that's why they're the whipping boy. Nor are they especially bad as far as cable news goes. It's because and only because they dare to lean the other way.

Problem is, all those you listed as progressive are contributors who come in for 2 to 5 minutes at a time.

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are all conservative and the biggest draws to Fox News in their time slots. Where are their progressive counterparts who have a 1 hour prime time television slot on Fox News?

What about that is different from MSNBC?

Nothing. According to the survey in the original OP, MSNBC is by the least watched news network with Fox News being number 1. I will concede MSNBC has emulated Fox News by trying to be the liberal Fox News with Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, and that crazy guy, yet they still are miles away from CNN and hundres of miles away from Fox News' heels in the ratings race.

Unfair comparison. Fox News by far is the most watched news network. They are more comparable to NY Times and the Washington Post as far as news media goes. Comparing Fox to MSNBC or CNN is like comparing the NY Times to the East Oregonian. You cannot compare the echelon with the gutter.

Personally, as a far Left progressive my preferred news channel is Fox News. They have the hottest news anchors like Megyn Kelly as Howard Stern will attest to. Furthermore, working 10pm to 6am and getting all my media online I watch them for opposition research and for entertainment in how they twist a story by the very words they use such as "Government Option" instead of "Public Option," which their focus group pollster, Frank Luntz stated support is split 50/50 if the "Public Option" would have been used during the 2010 healthcare debate, while using "Government Option" skews Fox News voters more to 70/30 opposed.