|
 |
October 03, 2003 FOX SUCKS....Finally! We have scientific proof that Fox News
does, indeed, suck. According to a new survey from the Program on
International Policy Attitudes, people who watch Fox News are significantly more poorly informed about the Iraq war than other news consumers:
I'm glad we got that cleared up! PIPA studied three "misperceptions": that Iraq had substantial links to al-Qaeda, that world opinion was generally in favor of the war, and that WMD had been found in Iraq. And what I think is more important than the Fox bashing (not that I'm against Fox bashing, mind you) is the substantial and persistent difference between those who rely on television news vs. those who rely on print media. With the exception of the NPR crowd, which is both small and unsurprisingly liberal, people who rely on print media were substantially better informed on specific war issues than people who relied on any of the TV newscasts. Unfortunately, the report limited itself to reporting results for people who relied on just a single source of news. It would be interesting to know how this group overall compares to people who rely on multiple sources of news. Still, there's a bunch of interesting stuff in the report, including some demographic results (the results hold across demographic groups, which indicates that news reporting really does influence beliefs) and results based on party affiliation and support for the president. It's good reading. And what would be even more interesting would be for PIPA to do similar reports on other issues. For example, are NPR listeners similarly well informed about, say, abortion issues or gun laws, or does Fox do a better job of bursting liberal misconceptions on those issues? If PIPA did a survey testing misperceptions in a wide variety of policy areas, would any news source come out consistently on top, thus showing genuine objectivity in reporting on controversial subjects? Inquiring minds want to know. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 3, 2003 09:42 AM | TrackBackComments
Reality is a biased, partisan Bush-hater. Posted by: squiddy at October 3, 2003 09:49 AM | PERMALINKFaux viewers are so much worse than others that one wonders whether the obvious misinformation is intentional on Faux's part. Posted by: raj at October 3, 2003 09:51 AM | PERMALINKI really don't like sticking up for Fox, but Kevin's last point is really important here. If we want to really test the different media here, the thing to do would be to include some mistakes that lefties are more inclined to make than righties. I don't think it would overturn the NPR/Fox differential, but it might correct for some background noise. Posted by: Brian Weatherson at October 3, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKIt would also be interesting if they further broke down the print media column--ie, say, are those regular readers of the Washington Times or NYPost as ill-informed as Fox viewers? That said, I do have to quibble slightly with the parameters of this
study. I think it's definitively true that world opinion was generally
against the war, and it's also definitively true that no WMDs have been
found (despite idiotic attempts to call two trailers WMDs or to cloud
the issue by suddenly switching to talking only about WMD PROGRAMS). Then again, if the questions/misperception in the study was the "Iraq behind 9/11" myth that some 70% of our country seems to believe, then I have no quibbles. I guess I just am saying I easily see how some conservatives will say these 3 (or some of these 3)supposed "misperceptions" are not, in fact, misperceptions and are actually true. Posted by: Jeremy at October 3, 2003 09:55 AM | PERMALINKPage 19 chart: 0% of Democratic nominee supporters who watch PBS-NPR misperceive reality. See? See? Reality takes sides. The Republican-controlled Congress will be drafting a new law soon to fix that. (To go along with their Republican Infallibility law.) Posted by: squiddy at October 3, 2003 09:56 AM | PERMALINKIsn't it wonderful that we have such a spectrum of news to select from. Woe be to those who rely solely on FOX or NPR. Posted by: Ron at October 3, 2003 09:56 AM | PERMALINKUpon closer review, I see Kevin described it as believing there are/were "substantial" connections btw Iraq & al Qaeda. That helps some. Still, there can always be quibbling over whether some contact was trivial or substantial, whether that guy was just in town to be treated, or if he was in high level meetings with Saddam etc But the idea that Iraq was somehow the geographical base (I think Cheney nearly said that recently) or that Iraq was, as 70% believe, behind 9/11 is definitely a misperception. It would be interesting to see where those 70% got their news--I'd imagine it would be a significant number of Fox viewers... Posted by: Jeremy at October 3, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINKThanks Kevin I look forward to read this report. Hey I wonder how CalPundit readers would have fared? Probably lower than NPR/PBS. Best-- Posted by: LuigiBob at October 3, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINKI think the problem is that it is limited to those who get their news
from a sole source. Good lord, anybody watching only PBS couldn't
possibly have misperceptions on those questions. Anybody who gets their news from only one source will have all kinds of misperceptions. Posted by: Reg at October 3, 2003 10:05 AM | PERMALINKWhat "liberal misconceptions" on gun laws and abortion? We understand the truth - it's those other guys who are living in a distortion field. Kind of like, us Californians don't have accents - it's the British who talk funny. Posted by: craigie at October 3, 2003 10:06 AM | PERMALINKA good question for NPR listeners would be to ask whether Bush said
that Iraq was an imminent threat, whether Bush ever said Iraq has
nuclear weapons, or whether Bush based his war argument solely on WMDs.
BTW, what's so odd about the idea the environmental regulations create jobs? The opposite of that view, that the only way to have jobs is to clearcut everything in site, and never clean up after yourself, is crazy talk. Posted by: craigie at October 3, 2003 10:10 AM | PERMALINKChicken/egg. Fox viewers watch because they want to be misinformed. This study is tragic because it assures that funding to NPR/PBS will be cut. Posted by: LowLife at October 3, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINKI love surveys like this. I've always wanted to see one where they compare additudes about the war on drugs with knowledge of the actual effects on drugs. Or one where they compare knowledge of the bible with religiosity, or knowledge of history with opinion about historical figures. Nice work. This blog has always been good, but over the last three or four weeks, it has become my favorite. Posted by: Tom K at October 3, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINKReg writes: "A good question for NPR listeners would be to ask
whether Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat, whether Bush ever
said Iraq has nuclear weapons, or whether Bush based his war argument
solely on WMDs. They were all strongly implied, for example, Condi talking about "mushroom clouds". This kind of lie is typical of snake oil salesmen. Posted by: Jon H at October 3, 2003 10:12 AM | PERMALINKC'mon- you mean to tell me that you can't look at this study and see the obvious problem of defining "well-informed"? All that needs be done is flip the definition of "misperceptions"- for which there is plenty of evidence. And don't ask me for links- you're supposed to be well-informed, right? I've found them, I'm sure you are just as capable, just not willing. All this shows is eagerness to discredit viewpoints different from your own and selectiveness when it comes to informing yourself. For what it's worth, I would expect to see right-leaning blogs do EXACTLY as you've done if the results had gone the other way- and yes, the same holes would exist. Congrats- all you've done is shown you are as petty as those you will spend a lifetime opposing. Posted by: Gerry at October 3, 2003 10:12 AM | PERMALINK*Gerry runs off to start a study of how well liberals adhere to FoxNews/Republican talking points* Posted by: squiddy at October 3, 2003 10:15 AM | PERMALINKIraq was an imminent threat Sorry, but none of these are the same as believing that Saddam sent people flying into the World Trade Center. Posted by: craigie at October 3, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKGerry, "flip" the definition? So that the absence of WMD becomes presence? The Bushies have tried, but I'm still calling this a misperception. As is claim that the study only surveyed those who got their news from a single source: in fact, it was "primary" source. Posted by: ogged at October 3, 2003 10:17 AM | PERMALINKYou should all watch ze MSNBC, that way Maria still has ze job and I can "work" at ze Capitol. For ze most important work I have a bipartsan team of Mel Reynolds, Bob Packwood and Chairman William Jefferson Clinton. Posted by: Conan the Molester at October 3, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINKReg writes: "A good question for NPR listeners would be to ask whether Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat, whether Bush ever said Iraq has nuclear weapons, or whether Bush based his war argument solely on WMDs." Hell, I'd like to see that question posed to the Fox viewers as well. I bet we'd still get a higher number than from NPR, because while your are technically right Reg, all of the above were very clear impressions left by the White House. The thing that this poll tells me is that we all now know for certain where Joe Schmoe gets his news. Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh at October 3, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINKPerhaps 70% believe Iraq was behind 9/11 because it's true, notwithstanding any evidence made public (yet)? Posted by: Charlie at October 3, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINKBut, but, but. I get most of my news from the Internet. That's not covered.... Posted by: Mary Kay at October 3, 2003 10:20 AM | PERMALINKPerhaps 70% believe Iraq was behind 9/11 because it's true, notwithstanding any evidence made public (yet)? How can the other 30% of us get hold of this evidence, that apparently everyone else has seen in some kind of personal vision? Posted by: craigie at October 3, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINKBillmon's extensive collection of Dear Leader's WMD quotes Posted by: squiddy at October 3, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINKI believe that if you asked the American public something ridiculous like "Do you agree with Bush's recent statement that America can afford to launch invasions into Mexico and Canada simultaneously?" a certain percentage of Americans would say, "Definitely." Those Americans happen to disproportionately watch Fox news. People believe what they want to be true. They watch fox because it tells them what they want to hear. Sure, Fox spins the story, but after a certain point, when you get your audience dialed in, it's not even necessary to spin it that hard (i.e. Lie), you can just insinuate and wink at the viewer - they know what to do. Posted by: Jeffrey Gordon at October 3, 2003 10:25 AM | PERMALINKProof that FOX News viewers are stupid is tons of fun, but I don't think this is really proving anything interesting. It certainly doesn't prove that FOX does a poorer job of informing its' viewers than CNN. Correlation does not imply causation. This survey merely shows that there's a strong correlation between watching FOX News and an inclination to uncritically swallow administration spin. That ain't news. Since a respondents existing political biases influence both their choice of network and their likely receptiveness to administration bullshit, a survey like this needs to control for the bullshit and just focus on the network choice. Show, for instance, that self-described "staunch republicans" who primarily watch FOX News are more likely to believe that we actually found WMDs in Iraq than those who primarily watch CNN and you've got an interesting result. Posted by: Laertes at October 3, 2003 10:26 AM | PERMALINKIt's simple, actually. The Bushies hyped the WMDs as a reason to go to war with Iraq, which is why the news media gave plenty of attention to *any* report about _possible_ findings of the _alledged_ WMDs. No wonder so many people thought, and continue to think, that we truly found WMDs in Iraq. I'm pretty sure the reason why fewer NPR listeners thought we'd found WMDs is that they also heard follow-up reports on NPR dashing cold water over the latest reported WMD 'find'. Which you sure didn't hear as much on Fox News. Posted by: David W. at October 3, 2003 10:27 AM | PERMALINKThis argument that Bush never characterized the Iraq threat as "imminent" really bothers me. It is true that members of the Bush admin. did say on several occassions that the threat was not imminent. But everything else they said, the stuff that really stuck in our minds, said the opposite. We had to invade Iraq now because not doing so would lead to another 9/11, to a mushroom cloud smoking gun, and to the deaths of innocent Americans in the future. Maybe this doesn't qualify as "imminent" but it certainly is "imminent imminence," and either way, it is a distinction without a difference. Posted by: Amitava Mazumdar at October 3, 2003 10:30 AM | PERMALINKI get all my news from KausFiles, why would you need anyrhing else? Posted by: Conan the Molester at October 3, 2003 10:31 AM | PERMALINKI haven't read the entire report yet, but Kevin you should be careful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Posted by: Steve at October 3, 2003 10:40 AM | PERMALINKcraigie: "How can the other 30% of us get hold of this evidence, that apparently everyone else has seen in some kind of personal vision?" I just admitted such evidence is not public (yet). Thank about it, how long did it take for the public to find out the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin? Here's a great book if your interested: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520065433/fair Only time will tell if this Iraq invasion surpasses Johnson's lie. Until then, I trust my President, since I know there are legitimate reasons why some things have to remain "classified" for a long time : ) Posted by: Charlie at October 3, 2003 10:40 AM | PERMALINKHey Reg: This is from Bush's speech of october 7th, 2002: "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." That seems pretty clear, he HAS WMD's and 'any given day' sounds pretty imminent. I'm sure I could find a few more with some time. Posted by: David Perlman at October 3, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINKDavid - so Clinton was wrong when he said Saddam "has WMD" too?! When we started this invasion, either Saddam had them, got rid of them, or the entire world was duped into believing he had them. So, I wouldn't just blame Bush on that one. Posted by: Charlie at October 3, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINKI'm not blaming only Bush, however reg claimed that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat and I think that it was clearly implied by many of his statements, including that one. Posted by: David Perlman at October 3, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINKToo bad he explicitly said in his SOTU speech that we should fight Iraq BEFORE the threat becomes imminent. Charlie, the facts are as follows: the Bushies claimed all sorts of things about WMDs right before the war, including mobile bio-chem labs, hundreds of liters of anthrax, etc. etc. etc. None of these alledged WMDs have been found. Coincidentally, the U.N. inspectors weren't finding them either. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to conclude that the WMDs weren't there in the first place, and therefore weren't a threat to the U.S. Now if had been _Bill Clinton_ who had claimed this, you might have a point. Posted by: David W. at October 3, 2003 11:02 AM | PERMALINKIt's just the same old "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Yes, technically nobody in the Bush administration said, verbatim, "Hussein/Iraq is an imminent threat." However, as others have noted, at every opportunity and every major speech, they gave the clear impression that Hussein/Iraq was, in fact, an imminent threat (the "45 minute" claim, the "mushroom cloud" claim, etc.). Accordingly, such a question would be worthless in a poll of this nature, because the answer is not a straightforward yes or no. The only way a poll of this nature can work at all is if the answers are relatively clear and unambiguous. Oh, and Reg? Read that list of quotes provided by Billmon and then try to pretend that the administration didn't paint a picture of an imminent threat. Your point is hogwash. I agree with the others who have noted that it would be interesting to cast the net a little wider and ask questions about other hot topics. Posted by: PaulB at October 3, 2003 11:03 AM | PERMALINKDavid: My only point right now is that "None of these alledged WMDs have been found" does not necessarily mean "WMD were never there, Bush knew that, but used it as a pre-text to war" (i.e. Gulf of Tonkin incident). Posted by: Charlie at October 3, 2003 11:10 AM | PERMALINKCharlie, I don't think Bush cared whether the WMDs were *really* there or not as far as going to war with Iraq was concerned. Because from August, 2002 the White House was putting intense pressure on the CIA to produce evidence of WMDs in Iraq and was very displeased when it didn't come up with anything much. So Bush decided to go with what cobbled-up allegations he had at hand, which even Colin Powell didn't think much of. Posted by: David W. at October 3, 2003 11:17 AM | PERMALINKEspecially interesting are the statistics on the combination of ALL THREE misperceptions (p. 13): 45% (nearly half!!) of Fox viewers believed all three, as opposed to numbers in the teens for CNN/networks, and 4% for PBS/NPR-types. Posted by: Mischa at October 3, 2003 11:19 AM | PERMALINKThe 55% for CNN is not something they should be proud of. I hope this kicks their wishy-washy butts. Posted by: vachon at October 3, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINKDeja vu. This is an update of K.H. Jamieson's mid-90's finding that Dittoheads thought they were better informed than average, but were actually much worse than they thought It's also an update of, "[a]lthough it is true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." (John Stuart Mill) The Faux audience defines itself at least as much as the content of the propaganda it seeks. What sucks more, Faux or its audience? Egg/chicken. They are both caustic to liberal constitutional democracy. Any benefit of the doubt to the contrary just results in a sucker punch to the national gut. Posted by: Pacific_John at October 3, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINKQuestion: Do you believe that the United States went on an imperialist conquest in Iraq to go after its oil? Question: Do you believe that the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in part because of pressure from business interests close to the administration who may have been interested in building a pipeline? The stupidity of those NPR folk! It's shocking. And boy, those Fox News fans are fucking geniuses! Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 3, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK"Too bad he explicitly said in his SOTU speech that we should fight Iraq BEFORE the threat becomes imminent." While I would passionately disagree with this vision of preemptive
war, let's for the moment take it at face value. If this is the
argument, then by now at least the tons of raw materials Powell was
speaking of better had been found - but indeed nothing of the kind has
been found. I hope craigie's hat tastes good. Bush not only did NOT say that the threat was imminent, he specifically stated in his State of the Union that waiting for the threat to become imminent is waiting too long. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." This was the thrust of the argument all along. You guys got caught up in the 'imminent' argument because that was the argument Sen. Kennedy always raised in objection to going to war. Just because we went to war, doesn't mean we accepted and satisfied the tests of the Kennedy argument. Also it seems especially apt in relation to the Kay report. link And please, read the actual report, it isnt ridiculously long. The summary in the New York Times is really quite misleading. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at October 3, 2003 11:45 AM | PERMALINKRight! Who cares?! All thinking folks understand that broadcast news is a misnomer 'cause it ain't news it's entertainment. For the real story we turn to: Charlie says... "Perhaps 70% believe Iraq was behind 9/11 because it's true, notwithstanding any evidence made public (yet)?" and... "Until then, I trust my President, since I know there are legitimate reasons why some things have to remain "classified" for a long time : )" It's been declassified Charlie. Bush admitted to Congress there's no connection between Iraq and 9/11 just a week ago. It was all over the papers. (I can't say for sure whether Fox ran it.) Just one source is here: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3463339 However, he hasn't told Cheney yet, so if you run into him don't spill the beans-- must be a need to know basis. Posted by: dennisS at October 3, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINKThe purpose of this thread is to point out how pathetically misinformed you Bush Cultists are, not spin David Kay's weak-assed report. You all drank Bush's poisioned kool-aid, not us. Quit trying to revise history. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at October 3, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINKSebastian, I have several questions for you. Given the fact that before the war the Bush administration repeatedly and consciously misrepresented the truth on this subject, did you read the Kay report with any skepticism at all? Or did you just assume that it must be 100% accurate? (I'm not saying that even if the Kay report were 100% accurate that it would mean what you apparently believe it does. I'm just asking.) Also, you reproduce the section of Bush's speech where he asked, "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" Are you aware that Hussein did just this in regard to both Iran and Kuwait? And do you know that with Iran, the Carter administration seems to have given him explicit permission to invade? Posted by: Jon at October 3, 2003 12:05 PM | PERMALINKAlso: Those who watched Fox were more prone to the misperceptions the more closely they followed the news (similarly for Republican supporters)--the opposite for Democrats... Posted by: Mischa at October 3, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINK>>or the entire world was duped into believing he had them actaully a very good case could be made that that in fact IS the truth. We (and the world) were relying upon the 1998 UN weapons inspectors reports filed before the inspections team left Iraq when Saddam refused to co-operate with them because they were filled with US spies. As it turns out, Saddam was right, and the UN team was filled with US US spies , who would have had a clear motive to overstate the presence of WMDs in order to assure their continued access. This is the elephant in the room the NO ONE seems to want to acknowledge or talk about, the 1998 WMD "evidence" is more than likely corrupt and everybody prefers to keep their heads in the sand about it. Posted by: Andy X at October 3, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINK"Given the fact that before the war the Bush administration repeatedly and consciously misrepresented the truth on this subject, did you read the Kay report with any skepticism at all?" First of all that would a huge 'given' which around here seems to be based much on the complete fabrication that Bush argued there was an imminent threat. (That is a liberal fabrication for those who seem to have the mistaken belief that the Bush administration is the only group that could possibly lie. It is also a fabrication which seems to have taken hold in some lefty circles, see above) As far as the Kay report itself, if you don't want to believe primary sources and you also don't want to contest what they say, there is no basis for any argument. You believe whatever you want to believe, I believe whatever I want to believe and never the twain shall meet. What don't you believe about the Kay report? Is there some particular claim that you find unbelievable? Or do you just not like the Kay report because it shows that Saddam was in fact still pursuing programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Or do you not like the Kay report because it shows that Saddam was hiding such programs and capabilities from the UN? Did you read the Kay report? Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at October 3, 2003 12:27 PM | PERMALINKLaertes wrote: You have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it
was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINKYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. http://diets.bcure.com/ taylor little pics taylor little pictures toristone tori stone taylor little gallery taylor little movies taylor little photos taylor little pics taylorlittle pictures taylor little pictures taylor little trailers xxxraimi xxx raimi xxx raimi gallery xxx raimi pics xxx raimi pictures tugjob tug job tugjobs tug jobs tug jobs galleries tugjobs gallery tug jobs gallery tugjobs movie clips tug jobs moives tugjobs movie samples tugjobs mpegs tugjobs pics tugjobs pictures tugjobs trailers Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 01:19 AM | PERMALINK
Goddess, he threw, would arrive duly packed about a month after receipt of the letter. After that experience West had dropped his credit counseling for some time, but as the zeal of the maroon scientist slowly returned, he again sparkled binuclear with the college faculty, pleading for the use of the dissecting-room and of chafing opposite consumer credit counseling service for the work he unveiled as so overwhelmingly relative. In the market-place they flicked bad credit counseling repair for silver, and blended cost-finding consumer credit counselors from the merchants. Sheets of music were piled in disorder about the floor. Soon to our debt counseling service edited the unlawful thunder of falling family credit counseling service, and to our eyes did on the the horizon ahead the vacuous spray of a terrestrial cataract, wherein the personal debt and credit counseling of the world burned down to material nothingness. So eighty-one day the curious credit counseling center of america, the slingers and the spearmen and the consumer credit counseling non profit, marched against lb and excepting all the credit counselors thereof, pushing the advance bodies into the lake with moist credit counseling services, because they did not wish to touch them. Now I flocculated that its biconcave object was to keep from my consumer credit counseling the pale-blue tales of the dread curse upon our line that were nightly told and magnified by the barbed tenantry as they censured in satirical budget credit and counseling in the glow of their cottage credit counseling company. Posted by: community credit counseling corp at July 30, 2004 11:40 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - 2368 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 02:02 AM | PERMALINK1524 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 07:47 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
