New Survey: FNC

[RunInRed 18,113]

Any one watch Fox News?

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/null

[Tigermike 3,657]

Is'nt AlterNet for short bus riders?

[Aufan59 168]

By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.

Correction: Watching TV makes you stupid. The media just likes to bash FOX News.

[AFTiger 282]

Fox haters keep on hating.

[RunInRed 18,113]

The article adds colorful commentary which can be dismissed as opinion, if you so choose. However, the meat of the article is a survey, which supports the points noted in other surveys.

[Aufan59 168]

The article adds colorful commentary which can be dismissed as opinion, if you so choose. However, the meat of the article is a survey, which supports the points noted in other surveys.

Public polls are taken on all types of subjects (geography, science, religion, politics) and they come back with horrible answers. Either people are stupid or they are good at picking stupid people to poll. Either way, I don't think it is FOX's fault. A think a better hypothesis is that people who watch a lot of TV are less informed.

[AFTiger 282]

Alternet: Soros-Funded Study Says Fox Viewers Are “Stupid”

Posted by Dana Loesch Dec 18th 2010 at 4:58 am in Soros, media bias | Comments (79) if(wp_logged_in) document.write('Edit |');No! A Soros-funded study says that Fox viewers are stupid? I AM SHOCKED.

Does Alternet actually research things for conflict of interest before they skip to their keyboards? Says Alternet:

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland,

conducted a survey

of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.

[...]

The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.

The first thing I do when I see one of these outfits release a study like WorldPublicOpinion.org is to go and see who bankrolls them. This study was too comical not to, and lo, it took all of two clicks to see this:

Soros funded survey

Look at the third group the WPO thanks. That’s right. The Tides Foundation. And who funds the Tides Foundation? George Soros. Soros has donated millions to the Tides Foundationa and Tides Center over the past several years.

Alternet and other progressive bloggers were far too eager to spread this false information through the blogosphere in an attempt to persuade the public through lies as opposed to presenting their ideas based on any sort of merit.

The “conclusions” were inane as they were based completely on the presupposition that the un-researched questions themselves were valid:

• 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
• 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
• 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
• 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
• 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
• 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
• 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
• 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
• 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

I can do this, too, except base it on actual facts instead of Soros-rhetoric. Watch:

• 91% of Alternet readers likely think that the stimulus created jobs
• 72% believe that the health care law doesn’t increase the deficit
• 72% believe that the economy isn’t getting worse
• 60% believe that climate change is real and polar bears are dying
• 49% believe that taxes haven’t gone up
• 56% believe that Obama didn’t double down on the GM/Chrysler bailouts or that Obama made that even worse by forcing out the board of a private company or how his administration refused to sell its shares and return ownership to private citizens
• 38% believe that Obama didn’t press Bush for the rest of the unspent TARP funds for further spending
• 63% believe that the birther theory was started by Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton’s old attorney buddy Philip Berg

See how much more honest, compelling, and not stupid it is when you use facts? What is all that Soros money going for? Apparently not for research.

jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: '/wp-includes/images/blank.gif'});

[Tigermike 3,657]

The article adds colorful commentary which can be dismissed as opinion, if you so choose. However, the meat of the article is a survey, which supports the points noted in other surveys.

You got the meat of the article but the bone that holds the opinions presented as facts is that it is yet another Soros funded hit piece.

But if it makes you feel better, so be it.

BTW I remember after the presidential election there were several polls/studies presented (by the left) which concluded the conservative right was dead and would never rise again. How is that holding up?

[RunInRed 18,113]

The point is, those who exclusively get their news from one cable source are overwhelmingly misinformed, as study after study and poll after poll point out. The obvious answer, choose broad inputs and then "decide for yourself."

[Aufan59 168]

The point is, those who exclusively get their news from one cable source are overwhelmingly misinformed, as study after study and poll after poll point out. The obvious answer, choose broad inputs and then "decide for yourself."

You didn't read the article...

CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases.

The article you are citing claims that CNN is only "slight better." It is more likely that getting your news from TV makes you misinformed, as the internet is a much better place to get information.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence

This is funny, because what you watch can't determine your intelligence.

It can determine how well INFORMED you are, what knowledge you have, but a matter of intelligence ?

Swing and a miss. Equating knowledge to intelligence is fallacious.

Gotta love the irony.

[RunInRed 18,113]

The point is, those who exclusively get their news from one cable source are overwhelmingly misinformed, as study after study and poll after poll point out. The obvious answer, choose broad inputs and then "decide for yourself."

You didn't read the article...

CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases.

The article you are citing claims that CNN is only "slight better." It is more likely that getting your news from TV makes you misinformed, as the internet is a much better place to get information.

You're missing my point - I'm not claiming one news source to be better/worse than the others, certainly they all have their flaws -- I'm just agreeing that when folks choose to get their news exclusively from once source, particularly when that source has an obvious slant -- they tend to be "misinformed" or "informed" only to the extent that their information aligns with the POV the source puts forth.

[AFTiger 282]

'Study' Claiming Fox News Viewers 'Misinformed' Is Fraught With Errors

By Lachlan Markay | December 20, 2010 | 16:19

For the past few days, the far-left Fox haters have been using a study by the University of Maryland's World Public Opinion project to claim that FNC "mis-informs" its viewers. There's nothing particularly novel about the claims, but some lefties are apparently under the impression that this study lends academic weight to their deranged hatred of everything Fox. It does not.

Let's start with the study's broad disclaimer, which should have (but so far has not) dissuaded the Fox haters from their rabid attacks. The study's findings (pdf) plainly state:

…misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.

Anyone who thought calls to refrain from extrapolating some condemnation of specific media outlets from this study would deter liberals from doing just that clearly has not dealt with the Fox-haters before.

Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik expanded on the problem with singling out Fox, or any other news organization, using this study's findings:

Most of the fact-based questions about whether certain programs were started under Bush or Obama were, in fact, the very subject matter of political attack ads. And it would be no surprise to find that far more of those ads aired on Fox, since it is by far the highest-rated cable news channel with the biggest audience. And the channel is watched by many independents and people who are likely to actually go to the polls and vote. I read nothing in the report that addressed that possible misreading of the data -- that the "misinformation" came from the political ads viewers saw on Fox and not from Fox editorial content.

These issues of course did not stop liberal blog after liberal blog after liberal blog from piling on, with equal parts righteous condemnation and jubilant "told-you-so" snark.

But there are plenty of problems inherent in using the study as a cudgel against Fox beyond the specific, direct warning to not do so, and the problems inherent in ignoring that warning. Chief among them is the study's strange means of deciding what is true.

Guest-blogging for Patterico, Aaron Worthing examined one such example:

But the hilarious part is that the authors of the study themselves are misinformed. For instance, their first question is this "is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation: A) created or saved several million jobs, saved or created a few jobs, or C) caused job losses." The first option is marked as correct.

WPO's "evidence": The Congressional Budget Office "concluded that for the third quarter of 2010, ARRA had 'increased the number of full time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 to 5.2 million compared to what those amounts would have been otherwise.'"

But there are two problems with that. First, um, we are going to trust the government to estimate the success of the government on this? Really?

Second, that utterly fails to relate to the question, which is whether a majority of economists who studied the question believe this to be the case.

And that question - whether a majority of economists agree with some contention - is a strange way to phrase it. Johnny Dollar explains:

Any time you ask about what 'most economists' believe, you aren't really asking for facts or data. You're asking someone to know the result of some survey--like an episode of Family Feud.

Furthermore, CBO's numbers have no basis in reality, as I have reported a number of times before. They are based on models that assume stimulus spending will create growth and employment, and hence the success of this particular stimulus package is predetermined. So if the idea is to reveal who is more attuned to reality, the CBO numbers are irrelevant; they only exist on paper, and have no real bearing on the success of the ARRA in creating jobs.

The blind faith the study puts in CBO's numbers suggest that it is quite eager to pass them off ipso facto as truth. That says a lot about WPO's perspective on the issue, and their politics generally.

The study makes a similar move with regard to the CBO score on ObamaCare's effect on the deficit. It parrots the numbers CBO released just before ObamaCare passed in March showing deficit-neutrality, but neglects to mention that those numbers pegged the law's 10-year cost using only 6 years of expenditures.

Rep. Paul Ryan

beautifully during the health care "summit." Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin blasted the "fantasy" numbers, and claimed the law would add $562 billion to the deficit. Even Democratic Senator Max Baucus admitted that the bill's cost was roughly 250% of the CBO score.

So the WPO study once again cherry-picked the numbers that would produce the "truth" best suited to bashing Fox News. For a study ostensibly concerned with "misinformation," the WPO is certainly peddling its fair share.

Zurawik picked up on this trend as well. "[T]he definition of a respondent who is considered 'informed,'" Zurawik wrote, "is essentially someone who agrees with the conclusions of experts in government agencies."

So, presumably, if you were to disagree with such top economic experts in government as Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers, you would be labeled as misinformed. If you dared to disagree with those experts in government who say that the Wall Street bailout was absolutely necessary and that the takeover of GM was desperately needed and that healthcare reform will actually be good for the economy -- you would be labeled as MISINFORMED...

Or, think of it this way: If this survey had been conducted when George W. Bush was president and his wall of "experts" in "government agencies" were working overtime to sell the New York Times on the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, you could have been "misinformed" if you said there were no such WMD's in Iraq. M-I-S-I-N-F-O-R-M-E-D. Agency experts did, after all, say the existence of such weapons was a fact.

Beyond the problems with the supposed-"truth" of specific questions, the question selection was itself stilted against Fox, as Johnny Dollar noted:

When you touch on 11 issues, most of them about 'misinformation' from the right, with only one (re the Chamber of Commerce) about 'misinformation' from the left , you are going to end up with many more cases of 'right wing' misinformation, skewing the result. Why no questions like: Were the Bush tax cuts primarily for the wealthy? Or: Does the middle class pay the majority of federal income taxes? By making most of the questions about one variety of 'misinformation', the study insured that more 'misinformation' would be found among viewers of that persuasion.

After all this, it should come as little surprise that WPO receives funding from a variety of hard-left organizations, such as the Ploughshare Fund and the Soros-backed Tides Foundation.

And it should be even less surprising that despite all the inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in this study - despite even a direct warning against using the study to condemn single media outlets - it's been received by a frenzy of Fox-hatred from the left.

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...s#ixzz18hGtj5PX

[aKaBeasTTT 0]

have you guys read the cable that Wikileaks released about some politician telling Fox news what to say and how to say it?

FoxNews is a farce of a news outlet. Only old-close minded-conservatives would even listen to anything they say. They hate Obama but love Palin who is dumber than a bag of rocks. Obama sucks as a president as well but so do all of them when you have people higher up than President telling him what to do.

Anywho what are your guys thoughts on this so called "net-neutrality" BS that the FCC is voting on today.

* Josh Halliday

* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 12.37 GMT

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is today expected to formally approve controversial new rules on how internet users access content such as YouTube and Skype.

Dubbed by one US senator as "the most important free speech issue of our time", the rules drawn up by the country's media and telecoms companies would effectively create two levels of internet access – one delivered by traditional fixed-line broadband, and another by wireless and mobile providers.

FCC members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn last night said they would support the proposal laid out by chairman Julius Genachowski. The five-member FCC panel is expected to approve the proposal in Washington later today.

Fixed-line internet providers will be prevented from blocking content and online services from rival companies or providing preferential treatment to paying clients under the new rules.

However, the new framework would allow mobile internet service providers to charge content companies for more efficient delivery to US homes. Wireless providers will also be allowed to block applications or services, providing that they are not competitors. Fixed-line and wireless provider Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to block access to Skype because it provides a rival voice service.

The new rules also open the door for providers to charge customers more for using high-bandwidth services such as downloading or streaming videos on YouTube or online movie rental site Netflix.

Today's vote represents the first time the principle of net neutrality – where all internet content is treated equally – has been formally ratified in the US. It is the culmination of five years of heated discussion over the future of the internet.

In the UK, communications minister Ed Vaizey will have a close eye on the US regulatory framework as he looks to implement new rules governing how internet service providers such as BT and BSkyB deliver content to UK homes. A number of internet companies, including eBay, Skype and Yahoo wrote to Vaizey earlier this month urging him to enshrine the principles of net neutrality into law.

Public interest groups and technology companies called the framework "fake net neutrality" and said the rules "create a vague and shifting landscape, open to interpretation", rather than enshrining principles of the open internet. Netflix, Skype and Amazon have also previously expressed reservations about the plans.

Al Franken, the Democrat senator, said the vote would decide "the most important free speech issue of our time".

"Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast's video-on-demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favourite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online," Franken said on Monday. "The internet as we know it would cease to exist."

Here is an explanation of it describing it better than I ever could.

Obama's quote in 2008:

"We are up against the belief that it's OK for lobbyists to dominate our government — that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore."

Sen. Barack Obama

January 26, 2008

Obama's quote today:

(something along the lines)

This is good, change is good, blabbity blabbity Republicans holding me hostage.

[AFTiger 282]

Haters gotta hate. Especially closed minded liberals.

FoxNews is a farce of a news outlet. Only old-close minded-conservatives would even listen to anything they say. They hate Obama but love Palin who is dumber than a bag of rocks. Obama sucks as a president as well but so do all of them when you have people higher up than President telling him what to do.

Andrea Mitchell Plays Press-Sec-For-A-Day For Napolitano, Biden

By Mark Finkelstein | December 21, 2010 | 07:36

Amidst all the talk of Robert Gibbs' imminent departure as White House press secretary, could Andrea Mitchell be gunning for the gig? NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent certainly gave a strong audition on today's Morning Joe, doing her best to paper over the latest stumbles by two gaffe-prone Obamaoids.

Mitchell first tried to paint an innocent gloss on Napolitano's curious boast that her homeland security minions are working "364 days a year" to keep the nation safe. Later, Mitchell spun with the best to explain away Biden's claim--at odds with official US policy--that the US will be "totally out" of Afghanistan by 2014, "come hell or high water."

Mitchell gave her game away with her facial expression at the very end of the video clip. After Joe Scarborough gives her a skeptical "come on" for her shilling, Andrea breaks into a wry smile. Cut me some slack, Scarborough, Andrea seems to be signaling. A gal's has got to give her best MSM try for the home team!

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6U8zSUSU

Watch Andrea play D for the Os. The show opened with the clip of Napolitano's calendar confusion . . .

JANET NAPOLITANO: What I say to the American people is that we are, and thousands of people are working 24/7, 364 days a year, to keep the American people safe.

Scarborough had the perfect line. And Andrea didn't have much material to work with--but did her best before packing in the cards.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Help us out here, Andrea. So, if Janet Napolitano says we're not going to have to worry about terrorism because we've got people working 364 days out of the year. Are they giving us a heads up to let us know the day they're all taking off so I can keep my family home?

ANDREA MITCHELL: One person takes off a different day: you see, that's the deal--they're covering for each other. I don't know. Maybe it's Christmas Day.

Later, after playing Biden's "completely out" of Afghanistan by 2014 claim, and Gibbs' strained explanation that Biden was only referring to combat operations, Andrea again went to work on behalf of her boys.

SCARBOROUGH: So who's telling the truth: Joe Biden or Robert Gibbs?

MITCHELL: I think the distinction is there will be a status of forces agreement, as there is in Iraq, where we are out of the combat role, and we are there --

SCARBOROUGH: But Joe Biden said we'd be completely out. And you know what that means. That means he was sending a signal to everybody: just relax, Americans are all going to be home in 2014, and the White House had to back off of it. That was not consistent with what they said in Portugal, just a few weeks ago.

MITCHELL: I think they're defining, he is really suggesting, that it is like the Iraq commitment, where we still have troops there in a training mode. We will still have Air Force people, helicopters --

SCARBOROUGH: Gibbs is saying that.

MITCHELL: That's what Gibbs is saying.

SCARBOROUGH: But that's not what Joe Biden is saying.

MITCHELL: It's not literally what he said: you're right.

Note how Mitchell reluctantly nodded her head and smiled wryly, like a defense attorney begrudgingly conceding a point.

SCARBOROUGH: He said we're going to be completely out. And Andrea's being very polite. And of course, and we thank you for that, because we have a No Criticize Joe Zone here. The Vice-President. [Here Joe addresses himself to conservative Matt Lewis of Politics Daily] You can't do it [criticize him]. Don't even think of it.

MITCHELL: I think the distinction is no one is saying and the Vice-President isn't saying that there will never be one single US service member --

SCARBOROUGH: Aw come one, come on.

Watch again as Andrea's body language gives up her game.

Read more: http://www.newsbuste...n#ixzz18klbm0Qi

[RunInRed 18,113]

The misinformation "came from political ads that aired on FNC ... not from FNC directly" --- classic.

[OldNewby 27]

This entire discussion reminds me of the old adage "it's your junk, but it's my stuff."

[jj3jordan 2,160]

have you guys read the cable that Wikileaks released about some politician telling Fox news what to say and how to say it?

FoxNews is a farce of a news outlet. Only old-close minded-conservatives would even listen to anything they say. They hate Obama but love Palin who is dumber than a bag of rocks. Obama sucks as a president as well but so do all of them when you have people higher up than President telling him what to do.

Anywho what are your guys thoughts on this so called "net-neutrality" BS that the FCC is voting on today.

* Josh Halliday

* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 12.37 GMT

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is today expected to formally approve controversial new rules on how internet users access content such as YouTube and Skype.

Dubbed by one US senator as "the most important free speech issue of our time", the rules drawn up by the country's media and telecoms companies would effectively create two levels of internet access – one delivered by traditional fixed-line broadband, and another by wireless and mobile providers.

FCC members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn last night said they would support the proposal laid out by chairman Julius Genachowski. The five-member FCC panel is expected to approve the proposal in Washington later today.

Fixed-line internet providers will be prevented from blocking content and online services from rival companies or providing preferential treatment to paying clients under the new rules.

However, the new framework would allow mobile internet service providers to charge content companies for more efficient delivery to US homes. Wireless providers will also be allowed to block applications or services, providing that they are not competitors. Fixed-line and wireless provider Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to block access to Skype because it provides a rival voice service.

The new rules also open the door for providers to charge customers more for using high-bandwidth services such as downloading or streaming videos on YouTube or online movie rental site Netflix.

Today's vote represents the first time the principle of net neutrality – where all internet content is treated equally – has been formally ratified in the US. It is the culmination of five years of heated discussion over the future of the internet.

In the UK, communications minister Ed Vaizey will have a close eye on the US regulatory framework as he looks to implement new rules governing how internet service providers such as BT and BSkyB deliver content to UK homes. A number of internet companies, including eBay, Skype and Yahoo wrote to Vaizey earlier this month urging him to enshrine the principles of net neutrality into law.

Public interest groups and technology companies called the framework "fake net neutrality" and said the rules "create a vague and shifting landscape, open to interpretation", rather than enshrining principles of the open internet. Netflix, Skype and Amazon have also previously expressed reservations about the plans.

Al Franken, the Democrat senator, said the vote would decide "the most important free speech issue of our time".

"Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast's video-on-demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favourite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online," Franken said on Monday. "The internet as we know it would cease to exist."

Here is an explanation of it describing it better than I ever could.

Obama's quote in 2008:

"We are up against the belief that it's OK for lobbyists to dominate our government — that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore."

Sen. Barack Obama

January 26, 2008

Obama's quote today:

(something along the lines)

This is good, change is good, blabbity blabbity Republicans holding me hostage.

Dude, you nailed it. I don't know what you define closed minded as, but if it means I don't want to hear your left leaning bedwetting psychobabble then you are right, I am a closed minded old (54) conservative and I listen to Fox news. You haven't identified anything bad yet, but keep trying. Only an absolute moron would vote for Obama either before (because if you did YOU were uninformed) or now, because you know he stands for destroying the republic as we know it to remake it in his desired image. He is the worst thing EVER to happen to this country. Read his book. Did you see the part where he said that he loathes the US but will put his feelings aside to run for president. How outrageous is that? He hates this country, our country. He needs to take it somewhere else.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Any one watch Fox News?

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/null

I could swear I've seen this " survey " before.

News channels can't make you stupid.

They can, like MSNBC, misinform.