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!
I am sure I will lose some of my positive karma on this one but nevertheless...Are those not watching Fox News doing that much of a better job? Looking at the world that's highly questionable in my opinion
RGdot.com
It's not about correlation, causation, polls, or journalism. It's about shameless, mindless, easy click-whoring. Slashdot pageviews must be running a bit off-pace here at the mid-month mark, so Taco's decided to set that right with a quick snark-fest. Slashdot may make the Leftie noises tech-hipsters crave, but they gotta make a payroll just like any other right-wing capitalist organization.
You're right. It would be completely impossible for an intelligent person to have a differing opinion with someone as intelligent as yourself. We should just make a law that declares liberals right, republicans stupid and MSNBC as the national news network while banning all other channels so they stop misinforming people with these scandalous opinions that disagree with common sense.
Yes, if one of the sides is clearly false. Ignorance is not a point of view.
And who gets to decide whether something is 'clearly false'? Short of simple mathematics, there is very little that can be proven to be 'clearly false'.
This is very important. Consider that FNC is the ONLY news channel that will mention the IPCC climate gate scandal, for example. People who watch FNC who would answer no to the question of "does man made global warming exist?" would be considered "wrong" if you are using the IPCC's data as the judge.
As for Obama's birthplace it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. The birth certificate exists but they will not produce it. Contrast that with what each and every one of us have had to do multiple times in our lives (you can't even play little league sports without producing your long form birth certificate). Do I think Obama was born in the US? Probably, more because the Clinton machine wouldn't have let THAT one slide than because of anything Obama has produced. I think it's been hidden more because there is something that he's claimed (such as his birth name, parentage, etc) that would be proven a lie and an embarrassment, as in why they also hide his college transcripts to hide the fact he was an affirmative action graduate. Frankly, Obama has only himself and his actions to blame for the fact that ANYONE doubts his birth because they won't take 5 seconds and release a document.
Seriously, if you hate Fox News, go watch MSNBC, you'll be happier.
Corporatism != Free Market
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>"Buy hospital insurance or... well there is no other choice." ----- OK, I've seen this Libertarian objection to the new Health Care law before, and I have a question about it. What do you consider the viable alternative?
>>>
Pay Cash. Most visits, even serious things like inserting a pacemaker or getting a hysterectomy, cost less than a new car (i.e. less than $20,000). Supplement that with: Catastrophic insurance. When you develop a serious illness like cancer that exceeds some minimum (say $50,000) then the company will cover your bills and "save" you from being bankrupted.
As for poor people, I'd simply use Welfare to pay their bills. Or some other safety net. We don't need to Force everyone into a government-run program. Just the bottom ~5% that are too poor to help themselves. A net. The rest of us would not need the net, so we would receive no government assistance. (Likewise I'd convert SS to a needs-based system which excludes the rich or well-off.)
.
>>>Given the three facts/assumptions above, what is the better option than compulsory health insurance?
Freedom of Choice is preferable to being treated like a child too dumb to make his/her own decisions. What's next? They force me to eat nothing but vegetables instead of hamburgers??? C'mon. I had a mommy & daddy and then I grew-up. I don't need Congressmen acting like a replacement parent. ----- So FREEDOM is the better option PLUS the government-safety net I outlined above (welfare, medicare, food stamps, and so on) to help the bottom 5%.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall