FOX & MSNBC for dummies

[clover]

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

[deadserious]

Well, I'm not a Fox news watcher, but from what I read here, it sounds like Fox is at least preaching the truth.

[clover]

"What is perceived...is real" 

[deadserious]

"What is perceived...is real" 

If a politician is shot in the woods, was he still an a-hole?

[clover]

If a politician is shot in the woods.........how soon will the party start?

[azbob]

No they will blame Cheney!!!!!!1

[deadserious]

No they will blame Cheney!!!!!!1

Now that's funny.

[ragman]

The typical attacks against FOX   

Mark Tapscott: Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be 'skeptical'


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/mark-tapscott-oh-horror-fox-bureau-chief-told-reporters-be-skeptical#ixzz18G1xAMTz

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/mark-tapscott-oh-horror-fox-bureau-chief-told-reporters-be-skeptical#ixzz18G1DjsjD

[clover]

My post wasn't an attack on FOX....it was a poll.  They asked questions that had verifiable answers, in other words the truth.  The people that incorrectly answered the questions were asked what sources did they use for their news.  The most ignorant polled said they watched FOX and MSNBC.  That's what my article very soberly reported, and it was all verified.

It was no surprise to me that those 2 news sources were #1 for feeding shit to those that gleefully swallowed it with pride.  I've watched both stations, and at times laughed out loud at the newscasters that tell bold faced lies with a straight face.  I think the people that make a steady diet of those stations have certian political paradigms, and those stations reinforce those paradigms.  I mean who said knowing the facts was important?