Slashdot Mirror


Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed

A survey of American voters by World Public Opinion shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. One of the most interesting questions was about President Obama's birthplace. 63 percent of Fox viewers believe Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear). In 2003 a similar study about the Iraq war showed that Fox viewers were once again less knowledgeable on the subject than average. Let the flame war begin!

57 of 1,352 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously? by AnonGCB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Correlation != Causation. This is basic guys, cmon.

    --
    http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    1. Re:Seriously? by wjousts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

    2. Re:Seriously? by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember folks, just because you agree with it doesn't make it unbiased!

    3. Re:Seriously? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I ordinarily find the "zOMG correlation != causation" brigade to be a trifle tiresome, there is a good bit of evidence from other studies that people find ideologically conformant information comfortable and ideologically nonconformant information uncomfortable(albeit to varying degrees: your fundamentalist of any stripe can barely restrain himself frothing at the mouth over the fact that nonconformant information even exists. Joe user just tends to change the channel).

      Now that there is a media outlet for almost any political persuasion, it is quite reasonable to suspect that people are congregating around channels reporting from their preferred reality. Trouble is, of course, that there is only one reality actually out there, and it has numerous pitfalls and teeth. We ignore it at our peril.

    4. Re:Seriously? by jayme0227 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by equally biased, you are talking about MSNBC, then sure. But if you're saying all the other news channels are equally biased than you are truly a special kind of person. CNN and the major network news organizations do have a bias. This is true. However none of them so heartily embrace one side of the aisle in their coverage as FOX News and MSNBC.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    5. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The daily show

    6. Re:Seriously? by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't even call MSNBC "equally" bias. They are bias, and they don't do much to hide that fact (like adopting a slogan like "fair and balanced")... but "equally" bias?

      I can't think of any examples where MSNBC hosts openly shilled, on the air, for political candidates. I can't think of any national events MSNBC has helped engineer. I can't think of any politicians that MSNBC supported and ultimately hired as on-air personalities when their campaigns failed. There have not been any leaked e-mails from top MSNBC employees to their on-air personalities, grooming them in what language to use when presenting certain issues.

      No fucking way is MSNBC equally bias to Fox.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:Seriously? by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually TFA wasn't about people believing things the researchers didn't agree with, it was about people believing things that are simply false. If believing things that are false doesn't qualify as "misinformed" what does?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:Seriously? by Gibbs-Duhem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NPR? At least so long as you don't mind hearing from frustrated rational conservatives as well. I've found that the guests that I disagree with I find I can at least respect for their thoughtful analysis. Also, not guiding your programming by what will improve your ratings the most helps a lot towards making the discourse more informative and less bombastic.

    9. Re:Seriously? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If "leftist news channels" were "equally biased" with Fox News, wouldn't they make you less informed? This study shows that MSNBC, arguably the most leftist of the cable news networks, has the best informed viewers.

      There are two ways I can see to explain this result. If this effect is causative (the news channel you watch causes you to be better or worse informed), then we must conclude that MSNBC is more factual (since their viewers know more facts). This would disprove your claim of equal bias.

      On the other hand this could just be correlational. That is people watch what they agree with, and it just happens that more informed people prefer left-biased news. This would mean that leftists are more informed, and the right wing is more ignorant.

      I don't see any way to spin this in favor of either Fox News or conservatism.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Seriously? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we vote with our wallet when we buy things, and we vote with our eyeballs when we choose a channel, then may I remind you of your right to abstain? Cut the cable. Choose none. Ignorance is bliss. I hate to say it, but I've definitely been happier since we cut cable TV to our house and I stopped watching the news. If something is important, I'll hear about it secondhand from friends, bloggers, aggregators, or some other method. News that's actually important will get to you one way or the other. And when it comes to being informed in important matters, a few minutes of research online will serve you far better than the hours of spin, propaganda, and advertising that you're getting now from the boob tube.

    11. Re:Seriously? by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

      In my experience (and observed in a recent conversation with a conspiracy theorist who blames everything on lawyers and/or Obama) some people gravitate towards information sources which reinforce their own present views.

      If your only source of information is one with a certain bent or otherwise narrowed view, that could become your view as well. It's best to seek out differing opinions and evaluate each on the strength of its case, rather than whether or not those views agree with your own or not. Changing your mind is exercising your liberty.

      Critical Thinking is an important skill best developed early.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:Seriously? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

      That's like looking at a school which consistently produces kids with terrible grades and terrible test scores and saying "Well, it must just be that stupid kids are going to that school."
      Maybe it's the school that's the problem!

      People are using Fox News to learn stuff about the world. If they end up misinformed, chances are it's because of the misinformation that Fox News is providing them.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    13. Re:Seriously? by LocalH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a left-leaning person is not even willing to hear from anyone labeled a conservative, I would posit that they are part of the problem as much as they harp on the right.

      --
      FC Closer
    14. Re:Seriously? by localman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      samzenpus said "let the flame wars begin" so...

      The larger the government is, the fewer choices the individual has

      You throw that in as if it is an established fact, but it is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of places you can live right now with little or no government and the result is certainly not increased freedom. In such cases you're either living nearly isolated (which limits your options) or you're dealing with bandits and warlords (which limits your options). On the flip side, you and I live under an enormous government and we exercise a degree of freedom unimagined in such places -- exemplified by having this stupid debate on Slashdot in the middle of a workday.

      Folks, please -- the whole "government == bad" thing is naive in the extreme. It can only be said by people who haven't the slightest bit of experience in places with little or no government. I'm not saying "government == good", because it certainly is not. Government is a tool, and a necessary one. Dismissing it as "bad" simply means you don't know how to use it properly and aren't willing to try.

    15. Re:Seriously? by PyroMosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can accept that MSNBC and Fox News are equally biased, but I can not accept that they are equal.

      Their methods, and quality, are not equal.

      Even the hyper-partisans (Maddow, Olbermann) at MSNBC are generally fair with their treatment of the opposition. They base their arguments in facts, and they present their fluff stories as fluff, not serious news (War on Christmas? It's snowing so global warming is a myth? Seriously?)

      Is MSNBC flawed? Hell yes. But it's not a brain dead mouthpiece for a political party like Fox News.

      I would welcome intelligent discourse from the right. There ARE respectable ideas from the right. I don't agree with Ron Paul, but he's a thoughtful, intelligent individual. As is Condalisa Rice. David Frum has been called intellectual, and I'd say he deserves it. William F. Buckley certainly qualified.

      But look at this list. There are certainly others you could add to it that I can't think of at the moment, but where are the leaders? Everyone who is on the right and shows the slightest hint of intellectualism is not taken seriously by the right wing base. Meanwhile, even if the inner circle doesn't take her seriously, Sarah Palin is in the spotlight of the populist base. That's a shame, and our republic is weaker for it.

      No, I don't hate Fox News because it's right wing. There are plenty of things I don't agree with or don't like that I can just happily ignore.

      The reason I detest Fox News, and the reason I can't just happily ignore it is because its not just anti-intellectual, but its gone so far as to be "proudly stupid", and because many of the tactics it employs are shady and dishonest.

    16. Re:Seriously? by formfeed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correlation != Causation. This is basic guys, cmon

      You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

      Except, that they don't talk about uninformed, they talk about misinformed
      It's not that the viewers have no information, they have wrong information. And if people claim to get their information from that particular source it stands to reason, that there is causation. -At least on a statistically relevant level. Not for each individual of course. A smoker with lung cancer could also have spent half of his live in his parents radon filled basement..

      And the things they were asked are facts. Someones birthplace, when a law got passed, who initiated it, or the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers are just plain facts.

      No, this is not a liberal rant. It is a civility/democracy rant. Sadly, politics and journalism has sunken to the point, where anything goes and fact checking is replaced with the pseudo-objectivity of he-said she-said. Fox, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are despicable, but so was Air America on the left.

    17. Re:Seriously? by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ASIDE:

      My research shows World Public Opinion is sponsored by the Liberal-leaning, Socialist-loving University of Maryland (the state where 70% of the government is Democrat). So the survey bashing FOX viewers is as unsurprising as a Microsoft-funded survey showing Google Chrome is insecure.

      When you say "your research" would you be referring to the second sentence in TFA?

      "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."

      It's not like they do anything to hide their funding. Also, you're going to dismiss a study because it is funded by a public research institution in a state that has a lot of democrats in it? Seriously? It's a pretty serious charge against an academic to claim that his research is garbage because of a political agenda. If you want to level such a charge, you'll have to offer more than just some vague statistic about there being a lot of democrats in the government.

      Besides, it's unnecessary. The study is available. It says what questions they asked, what the answers were, and who gave the answers. If you have a problem with the results, then just point out the flaws in the study. Shouldn't be too hard. Without looking deeply into the methods and results myself, I don't discount the possibility that the study has flaws, but it's absurd to dismiss it purely on the grounds you list.

    18. Re:Seriously? by bar-agent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An Engineer or Programmer who doesn't have $20,000 cash (or available credit from a card, or bank loan) is a person who can't handle money.

      Even if this is true... what if you can't handle money? Not everyone is thoughtful and disciplined all the time. How do they get their necessary medical care when they hadn't planned for it in advance?

      Or, what if they are thoughtful and disciplined, but made an educated gamble that they don't need to worry about it yet and bought a new house instead? But then they get nailed in an explosion and need heart surgery and a new leg.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    19. Re:Seriously? by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not a Fox viewer myself, but I rather like some of the facts this article gives:

      72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

      While a quick google search shows this article-- By the very site claiming that "economy getting worse" is misinformation-- from august, stating that "the economy is getting worse"! Wow, just wow.

      72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

      As opposed to a NY Times article stating that thats EXACTLY what will happen. So we're sitting here bashing on how bad Fox is, when an avid reader of the times could walk away with exactly the same impression? Sort of like how above someone could have read an alternet article about how the economy is sinking, only to be called stupid for doing so in an article 4 months later? Fantastic. Not to mention "healthcare reform bill reducing deficit" is speculation ANYWAY (you saying there will be NO differences from projected costs?), so its rather brash to call anyone who believes otherwise "misinformed".

      60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

      I would wonder A) how the question was worded (ie, "do you believe MAN has caused significant global warming" vs "do you believe the climate is changing"), and B) what the poll statistics were for other news networks, or the population in general. Sadly the link to the poll is down, if anyone managed to grab it I would be interested in seeing it.

      In fact the big problem with the article is that its so biased its not even funny-- the headline puts the worst of slashdot's to shame. You've got flamebait, wild speculation, and assumptions of causation when only correlation is shown. The links to previous polls are hillarious-- we have one poll, by NBC, showing that NBC viewers are smarter (didnt we just get done laughing at poll by Microsoft showing that Microsoft's browser is the best?). And their conclusion, that I particularly liked:

      The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason.

      Yes, that totally follows-- first, we're going to assume causation, and then we're going to assume intent, and then we're going to claim, whats more, that there is a reason behind all this, and finally that all of this is corroborated by the poll.

      Excuse me, while I dont much like a lot of what I see on Fox, its a hell of a lot better than this sort of garbage (well, the news segments at least).
      Commenters, if you dont much like Fox, thats great, but please note just how biased this story you're applauding is. Its practically a parody of itself.

    20. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I am for Heathcare Reform and against Obama's proposal.

      The best option wasn't presented. We don't need health insurance reform, you need health CARE reform which actually removes insurance from the loop entirely. I say we model our healthcare off of the Canadian style health care where it is all covered by Taxes.

      This will actually motivate the US government to get some of the healthcare prices inline (hopefully, if not we are screwed regardless of what plan they use) and will make sure everyone is covered. Main problems we will have are the same ones they have:

      A) illegals coming from the south using the healthcare claiming to be from that country (many Americans cross the border to do just that up there), which we already have happening along our southern boarder already so that won't change.

      B) Hypochondriacs who want to come in over every little cough and sneeze which can be remedied by imposing a limit to how many checkups they can have in a year that doesn't actually have a problem.

      Last I checked we spend the equivalent of over 2 times the amount they do per citizen even though theres is spread between the entire taxbase while ours is concentrated on just who has to go.

      And hopefully this would help motivate the Hospitals to quick playing favorites on who gets seen based on what it looks like they can afford. Having gone to the hospital with a really bad case of food poisoning to the point I couldn't walk, my hands wasn't working correctly and my neck would go limp whenever I sneezed to only have them put me in a room and leave me there for 6 hours while this little old lady was in and out within 30 minutes, it is bullshit. And the only reason why they put me in a room instead of leaving me in the emergency room waiting area the whole time was the rest of the people in the waiting area kept asking if I was alright. Still no idea what caused me to be that extreme as after about 5 hours in the room I threw up (filled half of a grocery bag at one time and almost passed out from not being able to breath while doing it) and started feeling better some and after watching the little old lady go in and out within 30 minutes I got pissed and staggered out there and went home as they had never even sent a person in to check me the entire time. Staggered out like a drunk cause my body still wasn't entirely right (and no, I do not drink, smoke or do any drugs).

    21. Re:Seriously? by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a left-leaning person is not even willing to hear from anyone labeled a conservative, I would posit that they are part of the problem as much as they harp on the right.

      I would tend to agree, at least when that conservative makes well reasoned arguments (we can agree to disagree about the solutions, at least). But I would not consider Fox News in that category.

      The times I've attempted to watch Fox, I've found the fallacious-arguments-per-minute rate to be so high that it's pretty impossible to make much sense out of any of it. In fact, it's a veritable textbook of such argument styles. I'm left to conclude that it's viewership must be pretty incapable of recognizing basic fallacies such as the straw man, false dichotomy, guilt-by-association, omission, etc.

      I've caught "progressive" media making those sorts of fallacious arguments too, and I think it does neither the progressive nor conservative case well in using them.

    22. Re:Seriously? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A man with an estimated IQ over 160 and far more knowlegeable than any of us

      Hey, here's a thought: stop worshipping men like Jefferson. He wasn't god, Jesus, Mohammad, or the Buddah. He was a man. Learned and experienced? Certainly. Wise and thoughtful. Obviously. But a man. Nothing he or his contemporaries said or wrote was abject, undeniable truth. They're simply ideas.

      The blind, thoughtless worship of the "founding fathers" is utterly absurd, and something to be deplored, not celebrated.

  2. Sheesh by mark72005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can you mod an entire article "troll"?

    1. Re:Sheesh by Carewolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why Troll. The article is serious and fits perfectly with common observations. It is the editorial comments that is something wrong with, but it is not a troll, it is very literal (-1 flamebait).

    2. Re:Sheesh by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed

      This title implies that people were tested on current events, randomly assigned a news source to watch or read, and after some period of time were tested again. Now that would actually be a good and interesting study to perform.

      In reality, all the study did was take a survey/test that included current events and which news sources you view, there's no control group, there's no attempt to isolate which is the cause and which is the effect, and there's no meaningful result except to say that people go to the news source that agrees with their views, which isn't exactly ground breaking insight.

      The study itself isn't flamebait or trolling, but the summary and title sure as hell are.

    3. Re:Sheesh by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In reality, all the study did was take a survey/test that included current events and which news sources you view, there's no control group, there's no attempt to isolate which is the cause and which is the effect, and there's no meaningful result except to say that people go to the news source that agrees with their views, which isn't exactly ground breaking insight.

      They didn't even limit their questions to objectively provable facts.

      Just to give one example: Has the US "lost jobs" or "gained jobs"? The way you word that question is going to greatly influence how people answer. If the number of jobs increased in absolute terms, but the increase was less than the number of people who entered working age due to population growth do you count this as a gain or a loss? Many of the other questions are similarly subjective and easily manipulated.

      Between the institute that ran the survey and Fox News it's hard to tell who is the pot and who is the kettle.

    4. Re:Sheesh by BStroms · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not going to defend Fox News, but reading the questions they asked it's obvious this whole survey was designed in a way to create the answer they found. I couldn't find a single question where giving the right answer wasn't something that would look bad for a Republican and/or good for a Democrat or at the very least create some cognitive dissonance among Republican beliefs.

      1. In these situations, Republicans aren't going to want to admit the truth even if they know it is true.
      2. A conservative leaning news organization is less likely to have reported this news in the first place.
      3. If they truly don't know the answer, Republicans will more likely pick an answer that would reflect well upon their beliefs and Democrats likewise.

      If you reversed the questions and asked things where the correct answer reflects badly on Democrats, you would find very different results. Say if they were about Charles Rangel's ethics violations or Robert Byrd filibustering the Civil Rights Act. If every question were designed so that the truth reflected poorly on Democrats, I'm sure the result would have been that Fox News made for better informed listeners.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Surprised? by fructose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FOX also makes sure to point out any 'controversy' in science stories.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/fox_news_bureau_chief_told_staff_to_cast_doubt_on_climate_change.php?ref=fpb

    This is just the result of their policies. They probably designed it this way to make people want to watch/read more FOX news. If you are unsure about something going on today you try to learn more, and you learn what's going on in the world by watching the news, right?

    1. Re:Surprised? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FOX also makes sure to point out any 'controversy' in science stories.

      Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?

    2. Re:Surprised? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?

      Yes, if one of the sides is clearly false. Ignorance is not a point of view.

    3. Re:Surprised? by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well let's take an issue that actually has been debated on Fox News. The issue of Obama's birth. The people who "get to decide" that one side of this "debate" are wrong, are the people who look at the evidence, and form their opinions on where the facts lead them. The ones that proclaim, without any evidence, that Obama is a Kenyan citizen are wrong. Period. There is no nuance here. There isn't two equally valid sides that can debate in good faith. One set of people base their opinions on the evidence, and the others just make shit up.

      There are actually facts, in the real world. You're playing a semantics game that isn't rooted in common sense. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

  5. bias maybe? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Worldpublicopinion.org founded by Pipa.org
    http://www.pipa.org/sponsors.htm

    Their sponsors are a who's who of liberal politics.

    Sponsors

    PIPA's activities have been supported by:

            * Rockefeller Foundation
            * Rockefeller Brothers Fund
            * Tides Foundation
            * Ford Foundation
            * German Marshall Fund of the United States
            * Compton Foundation
            * Carnegie Corporation
            * Benton Foundation
            * Ben and Jerry's Foundation
            * University of Maryland Foundation
            * Circle Foundation
            * JEHT Foundation
            * Stanley Foundation
            * Ploughshares Fund
            * Calvert Foundation
            * Secure World Foundation
            * Oak Foundation
            * United States Institute of Peace

  6. Say what you mean. by clone52431 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a difference, and a significant one at that, between all of the following statements:

    1) Fox News makes its viewers less informed. (What headline said, which is impossible.)
    2) Viewers of Fox News tend to be less informed. (What headline meant.)
    3) Fox News makes its viewers more mis-informed. (What summary said.)
    4) Viewers of Fox News tend to be more mis-informed. (What summary should have said.)
    5) Viewers of Fox News tend to believe stuff that I think is hogwash. (What summary meant.)

    --
    Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
  7. I am sure by das3cr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That a survey designed year after year to bash Fox News isn't at all biased in design, intent, delivery, execution and conclusion.

    Good job liberals .. more FUD for the fodder. Mixing cool aid is Fun !!

    --
    Hurricane Island Outward Bound
    OB
  8. Re:Fox News is fine...for news by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People have to separate the channel as a whole from the actual news shows. Their actual news is fairly decent and objective. The rest of the shows on that channel are pure columnist style speculation and opinion however.

    Bullshit. The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. and that stupid people AVOID news by swschrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a large part of the Faux News audience is folks who think they know it all already, and are only seeking reassurance of their obvious superiority.

    they won't be angered by this, because they are only good for words of one or two syllables. just nod at the rest.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  10. To paraphrase a FoxNews commentator.. by s0litaire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not saying all the viewers of Fox news are moronic idiots...
    It's just that a lot of moronic idiots watch Fox News.

    --
    Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
  11. People don't watch Fox News to become informed... by unitron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...having already made up their minds and not wishing to be confused with the facts, they go there to have their preconceptions re-enforced.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  12. The Causation is Clear by Motard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    By defining truth in their own way, they are causing a correlation. Consider this 'result'...

    "72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit"

    Apparently, the inferrence to be made is that the health reform law will not increase the deficit. This cannot be supported by facts because the law hasn't even been implemented yet. There are still regulations to be made. The CBO did do an estimate, but it stopped short of showing the long term effects. And this doesn't even address the necessary changes to the law whose need will become clear as people decide not to purchase the mandated coverage and instead pay the much cheaper fine.

    Anyone who claims that the health reform laws will not affect the deficit is at least as big of an idiot as Steve Ducey.

  13. News Flash!!! Fox viewers have different opinions by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow! Amazing, Fox viewers do not have the same opinions about various topics as those who watch networks which favor the expansion of state power.
    I do not watch Fox News (or any other television news). However, most of the things that they use as examples of Fox News viewers being stupid are opinions, not facts. The very first one they list is the large number of Fox News viewers who think that the stimulus legislation lost jobs. Well, the U.S. economy has lost quite a few jobs since the stimulus legislation was passed, so it is perfectly legitimate to blame the stimulus legislation. However, that is an opinion. There are people who believe that the U.S. economy would have lost more jobs if the stimulus was not enacted. That is also an opinion.
    Basically, the site in question calls their opinions "facts" and then belittles those who disagree with those "facts".

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  14. Re:Plusgood Groupthink! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obama was born in the US, however he moved to Indonesia and then back to the US in his teen years, he has spent a couple million so far keeping the same sorta college records sealed that are available to anyone looking into Bill Clinton's or George Bush's college years.

    There is some though that Obama put down "Indonesian" on his college aid forms to game the system as grants to foreign students were much more attractive than grants for citizen students.

    I am not a "birther" nor do I really care where someone was pushed out of their mom's va-jay-jay. But we need to see his college financial aid forms because he could have lied about his citizenship status on the student aid forms meaning he either...

    1. Previously Denounced his citizenship, making him ineligible for the office of POTUS.

    or.

    2. Gamed the system illegally for his own ends, which shows a pattern of not giving a shit about the law and would be a nice black mark on his record and degrade the trust the American people have in him.

    So why has Obama spent 1-2 million dollars keeping records sealed that haven't been for previous presidents?

  15. Re:I think the title should be... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In socialist Germany, we have government sponsored universal health care that is alot cheaper and more efficient than in the U.S. I can go to the doc any time I want to and not have to worry about being able to pay the bills.
    In socialist Germany, we have a state funded independent news organization that reports important facts from around the world from an unbiased standpoint, instead of reporting on the lives of teenaged girl-stars or the most recent, spectacular highway robbery.
    In socialist Germany, the state grants us legal protection from getting fired without good reason, unemployment benefits, parental benefits, grants for families with children, education sponsorships, the list goes on.
    In socialist Germany we have low unemployment and a trade surplus.

    You know, capitalism isn't everything. Basically, the extreme capitalism that the Republican Party and Fox News preach only means that the power is transferred from the government to the corporations and their owners. Problem is that corporations have even less interest in the public than the government. Corporations only want to make more money.

    The vast majority of europeans are astounded by the fact that so many americans are so spiteful and disapproving of the best president they've had in a long time. Obama is fighting for reforms that intend to help the middle and lower income classes and yet you people demonstrate against him to keep the system in place that clearly favors the wealthy. And all of this while juggling the tremendous deficit and two wars that Obama inherited from his precursor, and an economic crisis sparked by just these wealthy allmighties which the taxpayer had to step in for.

    Us here on the old continent can't understand why in the world anyone would ever vote for the Republican party that so clearly is the political wing of the wealthiest 5%. The only thing that can explain this discrepancy between european and the broad american view on what is going on in your own country, is the tremendous influence held by misinforming "News" Corporations, such as Fox News.

  16. Re:Not Stupid but #1 with Stupid People by Zantac69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So is the iPhone.

    It has the most users. One could argue that, among the technically challenged (i.e stupid), iPhone is more popular. Stupid iphone users > stupid other smartphone users.

    Thus, iPhone is the #1 choice of stupid people.

    That is not to say that all iPhone users are stupid...

    --
    1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
  17. Marvelous! by Cornwallis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thank you Slashdot for finally giving me the needed push to stop visiting here. When tripe like this is "reported" here as news I know I'm wasting my time. And there seems to be more and more of this.

  18. Re:Fox News is fine...for news by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.

    And you think that any other 'news' shows are any different?

    Yes, I do. I don't think that other news shows' editorial staff makes specific decisions on the wording to be used on every story covering a particular issue, like global warming or health care reform. I do not think any other news source has ever stated in a memo that reporters are never to use the phrase "The public option" and must always refer to it as "The government-run option."

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  19. Discount the above by spun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Good observation.

    And here's what I observed: World Public Opinion is sponsored by the Liberal-leaning, socialist-loving University of Maryland (the state where 70% of the government is Democrat)(and 90% of professors are too). So the survey bashing Libertarian-leaning FOX viewers is as unsurprising as a Microsoft-funded survey showing Google Chrome is insecure. BOTH surveys are meaningless bullshit, not worth the paper they are printed on.

    Commodore64_love's posts are 70% libertarian and 90% conservative. He is biased so you don't need listen to anything he says, even if it is true. His posts are meaningless bullshit, not worth the electrons they are displayed with.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Discount the above by linguizic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What puts a bur up my butt is the assertion that Fox News is Libertarian when in fact it is 100% Authoritarian Statist Conservative. True libertarians are against the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, Medicaid Part D, the banned use of new stem cell lines, and are FOR abortion rights. Fox News does not qualify under any of these. I wish people would stop throwing the word "Libertarian" around so willy-nilly. The KKK used to use that word too, even though equal right is a fundamental tenant of Libertarianism. It gets used to mean "I'm against the things that I don't like, and the rest of the country is for the things I don't like, so I'm against them". Fuck that, I'm sick of this shit. Assholes like that ruined the idea of state's rights by hiding behind it any time they were told they can't systematically fuck people over just because they are different. Now we have a bunch of liberals who are Federalist Liberals because the states rights issue is now associated with those fuck wads. What those liberals don't seem to understand is that they can all move to the coasts, legalize pot, abortion, and put socialist principles into practice while the next state over is free to the exact opposite and we can all live in our separate worlds in peace and harmony. The same goes for these holier than thou Christian Theocrats. YOU CAN HAVE MISSISSIPPI ALL YOU WANT JUST DON'T LET IT AFFECT ME IN MY STATE OF CHOICE. God damn it this pisses me off.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    2. Re:Discount the above by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You missed the point. The point is that ad hominems are logical fallacies. It doesn't matter whether the publishers of the survey are biased or not. It only matters whether the survey is true. You have not presented any evidence that the survey is wrong in any way.

      What you are doing is called poisoning the well. You are trying to call the motives of the publisher into question. The problem with that is, the publishers motives have no bearing on the veracity of the survey. They could all be child molesting professional con artists and still publish an accurate survey.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Discount the above by GreyFlcn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not likely.
      Libertarians are still, at the core of their ideology, trickle down economics fundamentalists.

      The basis of their ideology is a rejection of reality.

      Which also might have something to do with their rejection of econometrics.

  20. Nobody bothers to read the original opinion poll? by cartman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What astonishes me is that so few people even bother to "click through" to find the original source of this claim, even though it's so terribly easy to do so on the web (due to hyperlinks).

    This slashdot story is a "summary of a summary" and is several degrees removed from the original source.

    The news story upon which this is based, was taken from a lefty news source (alter.net), and is hysterically distorted. The original poll does not claim that "Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources." Nor does the original poll claim that Fox news causes viewers to become misinformed. Quite the opposite, the original poll claims that Fox news viewers are less informed about some issues, whereas viewers of lefty news sources are less informed about other issues, and that "...this suggests that 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."

    The alter.net story has drastically distorted the original poll. The story picked and chose specific issues about which fox viewers were less informed, while ignoring (and failing to re-print!) other issues about which they were better informed. Then the story then concluded (contrary to the poll's specific language) that Fox viewers were "less informed".

    What astonishes me, is that lefty commentors here on slashdot appear to have read a drastically distorted and incorrect news story, then swallowed it whole, without any criticism or research, all the while believing that they are open minded, critical, and better-informed than the stupid people who watch Fox.

    It's especially ironic that the alter.net article was complaining about bias in the news on the conservative side, when the article itself was a particularly striking example of not just bias but outright flagrant distortion in the news from the left.

  21. Re:FOXNews has a problem not all of libertarianism by joggle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're not really good arguments. It seems like anything less than letting everyone in the country get a chance to personally examine the birth certificate won't be satisfactory. Did you ever see Reagan's birth certificate in person or McCain's or anyone else other than your own or someone in your family? Where the heck is this even coming from? They even announced his birth in one of the local Honolulu papers at the time of his birth for crying out loud. I've yet to hear the conspiracy theory to explain that one away.

    FYI, here's the account of a group that has personally examined his birth certificate: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  22. Re:FOXNews has a problem not all of libertarianism by Foofoobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some sound arguments have been made that the earth is flat too. Does it make them any less ridiculous? Does it mean that we should start actually acting like those flat earth theories are 'reasonable' and be teaching them in schools? Should we be pandering to the blathering idiots who sit on this lunatic fringe and rant like madmen?

    Well only if they only they own media conglomerate apparently. Theories are only that unless their is scientific method to back them up. Until then it is conspiracy theory and voodoo in which case you'd have better luck proving it by throwing bones before a pregnant frog on a full moon; I believe this is how Bill O'Reilly chooses what to talk about.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  23. Re:FOXNews has a problem not all of libertarianism by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Tell me this... please - which is a bigger story - the one behind Obama not being born in the US or the story that its possible to fool the most extensive background check team (the secret service - who I assume checks this stuff) in the world?

    Both stories kinda defy reality and suggest a huge conspiracy - one bigger than the government could easily cover up.

  24. Re:FOXNews has a problem not all of libertarianism by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not a birther, but I do understand why a large amount of people think Obama wasn't born where and when he says so.

    In a vacuum, maybe so, but can you understand why a large amount of people disagree with the Republican government of Hawaii, which certified that he was in fact born there?

    I mean, if you're looking at the issue in a vacuum, sure, he hasn't produced his longest-evar-form birth certificate. But the Republican government of Hawaii did acknowledge that he was born there, so why would anyone assume that there is anything suspicious going on? There's a line of text on the very bottom of the certificate which says that it is prima facie evidence of live birth in Hawaii. That sounds like it obviously answers the question.

    In other words, if that document is good enough for the government of Hawaii, why isn't it good enough for every redneck sitting in front of their TV?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  25. Seriously by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While you may be right that the article is hugely biased, I myself have seen fox news on several occasions and

    The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason.

    There is not even enough doubt about this for it to be worth writing an article, and the failure of this article to conclusively prove this fact is laughable and somewhat sad. Fox news is known around the world to be deliberate misinformation. I think it is also silly to simply shout correlation != causation as the first post did, as though correlation proves the complete absence of causation. We learn from and gain our understanding of the world from the news sources we read. To say that a news source that so blatantly disregards even the basics of journalistic integrity has no effect on it's viewers' level of informedness about the world is absurd and untenable.