New Study: Fox News Viewers Most Misinformed

[HoosierGuy]

University of Maryland did a study and found Fox News viewers are very misinformed.

Watching Fox News leaves viewers less informed, study finds - thestar.com

While regular consumers of news were found to be more informed on issues surrounding the 2010 Senate elections, daily Fox viewers were significantly more likely to believe incorrect information on the economy, climate change and whether or not U.S. President Barack Obama was born in America.

Researchers found that the more you watched Fox News the more misinformed you became; it didn’t matter whether you turned on the channel as a Republican or a Democrat.

[bytebear]

I had a friend post a similar link from a left wing source, but the funny thing is, if you actually read the study (and not the commentary on the study), it doesn't say anything specific about Fox News at all, other than Fox viewers tend to believe Republican spin, and MSNBC viewers tend to believe Democratic spin.

From the study:

All respondents were asked the same questions about a range of news sources—for each source, whether they got news from it almost every day, about two to three times a week, about once a week, rarely or never. The news sources asked about were:

•newspapers and news magazines (in print and online)

•network TV news broadcasts

•public broadcasting (NPR or PBS)

•Fox News

•MSNBC

•CNN

Looking at the frequency of misinformation among the consumers of various news sources, one striking feature is that substantial levels of misinformation were present in the daily consumers of all news sources. Even the daily consumers of news sources with the lowest levels of misinformation still included substantial numbers with misinformation.

Spin spin spin.

Edited December 18, 2010 by bytebear

[captmoroniRM]

First, I never trust studies like these because a person can prove anything with a study if they wanted to, because a person can ask certain questions to solicit certain responses, and find the one they want. Second of all, the study declared 3 organizations and their expert opinions as "true information," and the data was based off of that. Pick the "expert opinions" from different sources, and you'll find the "misinformation" values would change. (and its not surprising considering the 3 main expert organizations they picked would have fox news being the most "misinformed" as the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences would probably hold a lot of "expert" opinions contrary to theirs). Third, like bytebear said, misinformation was across the board. Fox news was led more misinformation that other networks in some areas. Others held more than fox news on different issues. The problem of misinformation isn't limited to just fox news but the media in general. Each media outlet has their own "truth" that they spin the news too. MSNBC and CNN tend to bias things to the Left. Fox News has a definite conservative bias.

I personally think if you consider any once source of media as "good information" you will always be misinformed. We are commanded to seek knowledge from the best books and find truth wherever it lies.

[Elphaba]

I had a friend post a similar link from a left wing source, but the funny thing is, if you actually read the study (and not the commentary on the study), it doesn't say anything specific about Fox News at all, other than Fox viewers tend to believe Republican spin, and MSNBC viewers tend to believe Democratic spin.

From the study:

Spin spin spin.

Apparently you didn't read the study either. On the very next page of the report, that you quote, it states, specifically:

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. 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)

These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. 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.

The report did go on to say this also happened with MSNBC, and CNN, but not with the same number of issues.

It then provides the charts breaking down the numbers on the issues identified above, specifically demonstrating those who watch FOX news every day are the ones most misinformed about them.

Spin, indeed.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Did a quick google and came up with three pages of blogs and liberal sites reveling in this story. And yet, very little from the mainstream press. My "smell detector," is such that, no matter how many charts, or how many numbers this study contains, there is bias in what was looked for. "Misinformed," to one, is "opinionated" to another, is "correct" to another.

On the other hand, could it be that FOX has tapped into a voracious demand for conservative commentary after decades of liberal dominance in the media, and perhaps gotten sloppy in differentiating that commentary from straight news? All sources have, and perhaps conservatives ones more so. After all, when you are hungry, you are less concerned with the finer notes of what you are eating.

[Elphaba]

My mother is one of those who watches FOX News every day, all day long. She saturates herself with it.

Every single day, all day long. Saturday and Sunday included. FOX is her life.

She is, literally, the most uninformed person I know in my real life.

She watches it, not because she's interested in the truth, but because it feeds into her extreme right-wing ideology.

I've given her demonstrable examples of factual inaccuracies, and she just gets defensive. She's not interested. She literally said that.

Elphaba

[captmoroniRM]

My mother is one of those who watches FOX News every day, all day long. She saturates herself with it.

Every single day, all day long. Saturday and Sunday included. FOX is her life.

She is, literally, the most uninformed person I know in my real life.

She watches it, not because she's interested in the truth, but because it feeds into her extreme right-wing ideology.

I've given her demonstrable examples of factual inaccuracies, and she just gets defensive. She's not interested. She literally said that.

Elphaba

The same can be done with someone who watches MSNBC or CNN all the time. It also depends on who is providing the factual innacuracies for the argument. There are expert scientists who support climate change. The "facts" in our day are extremely relative. There are other experts who deny it. You watch Fox, you get the ones who are more anti-climate change. You watch MSNBC you get more pro-climate change spin.

The problem with the media today is everyone sees to be tyring to hold a monopoly on who is right. It is a large problem with society today in general.

[Gwen]

i'm not claiming an agreement with the study or not, in fact i didn't read anything but this thread. the reason i didn't is because of the obvious issue i saw from the first post. it's been pointed out so i'm just saying the same thing my own way but.... lol it's a forum i'm allowed to do that.

my issue with such a study is what information are they asking about and who chooses the "truth". on things like where someone was born that's pretty cut and dry and i'm ok with that. when you get into the climate issues that's very objective and i don't think anyone really has the "truth". i think it's somewhere in the middle. also there is more than "is there global warming vs it's not happening". i pick this subject because it's one i have information on outside of the so called media preferred "experts". there is climate change but do we really know the "source", the "reason", or the "solution", or if there even needs to be a "solution"? we can't deny there is climate change, lived in the southeastern usa my whole life, in 2000 i saw snow for the second time, it was very light and wasn't good for much more than seeing in the air and closing schools. the last 3 yrs it's snowed, one being the most snow we've ever had in this state, and one freak spring snow. something is changing, if you are alive and have a memory you can see that. the how's, and why's are what i don't buy from the media. so in a survey if i'm asked "do you believe in climate change?" the answer is yes. if i'm asked "do you believe in global warming?" the answer is no. sooooo am i "misinformed"? depends on who you ask. (i know the question asked what most scientists think and yes that's objective too.)

in my opinion of the 9 questions elph quoted only one of them was not "objective" on what the "correct" answer was. so i can't believe the study was truly unbiased, depends on who put it together. and that's why i didn't read the links.

if ppl would stop fighting about who is "right" and what everyone else should do to "fix" things and worry about what they personally can do things would get fixed a lot faster. but it's easier to point at a big factory and say "the govn't needs to shut those polluters down" while you throw your mcdonald's bag out the window on the interstate. it's easier to complain that some gov't official needs to set up a program to feed the homeless guy you see on the corner every day than it is to cook an extra breakfast and feed him yourself. we all "know" he doesn't want food he would rather have money and if you give him money he will just buy beer with it... right?

edit: thought i should add that i'm not committed to any particular news source. so don't read into my post as to whose "camp" i'm in. lol

Edited December 18, 2010 by Gwen

[NeuroTypical]

Not gonna spend much time on this. Only wanted to mention that I already had low expectations of people who gain their information about how the world is working mainly from network news. Hearing that Fox news people win the position for last place, while the cnn'ers of the world proudly hold up their 2nd-to-last gold star, isn't incredibly devastating to me.

[TL10]

I can't say I'm not surprised.

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised the survey was also biased as well.

[Guest]

My mother is one of those who watches FOX News every day, all day long. She saturates herself with it.

Every single day, all day long. Saturday and Sunday included. FOX is her life.

She is, literally, the most uninformed person I know in my real life.

She watches it, not because she's interested in the truth, but because it feeds into her extreme right-wing ideology.

I've given her demonstrable examples of factual inaccuracies, and she just gets defensive. She's not interested. She literally said that.

Elphaba

THAT is what media has done to American politics. People do not explore all sides of the issue anymore. Because - politics is now on the level of entertainment - you only watch/listen to the one that appeals to your sense of rightness because it happens to have the word News on the channel (Fox News, Cable News Network, etc.) so you find it "reliable".

So that, when you've assimilated the "spin" that appeals to you, you refuse to listen to the "spin" of the other side because - of course, they're republican/democrat so they must be wrong.

So much for democracy - the exchange of valid ideas. Now, it's nothing but partisan politics with one side demonizing the other. A Republican could say - let's all eat vegetables because it is healthy for us - and a Democrat would say - bullhokey, it's just going to make vegetable corporation more powerful abusing the poor man. And vice versa.

And of course, people like Elphie's mom who are followers of one party would just nod their heads and say, Amen, Brother! Regardless of how crazy it sounds if one would actually take out the party name out of the statement!

I would bunch Fox News with CNN and MSNBC, etc... in this one. It just happened to be on the other side of the partisan politics. Fair and balanced. Yeah. Okay.

Edited December 18, 2010 by anatess

[HoosierGuy]

An informed electorate is very important to the U.S.A. With half the country being informed by Fox News and angry AM Radio, that half of the country is going to vote for the wrong interests.

[Wingnut]

An informed electorate is very important to the U.S.A. With half the country being informed by Fox News and angry AM Radio, that half of the country is going to vote for the wrong interests.

In your opinion.

[Just_A_Guy]

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

1. most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

2. most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

3. the economy is getting worse (26 points)

4. most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

5. the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

6. their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

7. the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

8. when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

9. and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Part of the problem is that some of these are loaded issues. For example: 1) is highly debatable (government stimulus can put people to work in the public sector, but only by reducing the capital--and thus the hiring ability--of the private sector); 2) (as far as I know) can only be positively debunked by comparing ten years of revenue with six years of outlays; and 5) may have been thrown off by people who understood the difference between a permanent tax cut and a one-time tax credit (the stimulus had plenty of the latter; AFAIK it had little or none of the former).

I haven't read the whole study, but based on what I see here it appears that the study basically illustrated that FoxNews viewers are less likely to view reality through a somewhat left-of-center lens. To which I say: duh. Thus skewed, the study becomes basically a vehicle for progressives to portray their opponents as a bunch of uninformed boobs without having to intellectually address and refute any pesky counterarguments. This is elementary Alinskyism.

But of course, it's the conservatives who are the cause of all the divisiveness in modern political discourse.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

Part of the problem is that some of these are loaded issues. For example: 1) is highly debatable (government stimulus can put people to work in the public sector, but only by reducing the capital--and thus the hiring ability--of the private sector); 2) (as far as I know) can only be positively debunked by comparing ten years of revenue with six years of outlays; and 5) may have been thrown off by people who understood the difference between a permanent tax cut and a one-time tax credit (the stimulus had plenty of the latter; AFAIK it had little or none of the former).

I haven't read the whole study, but based on what I see here it appears that the study basically illustrated that FoxNews viewers are less likely to view reality through a somewhat left-of-center lens. To which I say: duh. Thus skewed, the study becomes basically a vehicle for progressives to portray their opponents as a bunch of uninformed boobs without having to intellectually address and refute any pesky counterarguments. This is elementary Alinskyism.

But of course, it's the conservatives who are the cause of all the divisiveness in modern political discourse.

Exactly, and when you look at false information that makes Bush or the Republicans ("it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending foreign money to back Republicans") look bad, guess who is misinformed... That's right. MSNBC viewers. And FOX viewers were most informed of all.

So, if the study had only questions (or a majority of questions) dealing with false information about Republicans, MSNBC would have the most misinformation. Change the questions and you change the results.

As I said, spin spin spin.

Now, does that mean that Fox is actively telling their viewers that Obama wasn't born in the US or that MSNBC is telling their viewers that Republicans are funneling money through Europe? No, and other than a few egregious examples (one that got Dan Rether fierd) the media gives factual information, but they do tend to give it a spin to whether they like the facts or not.

I would recommend anyone read Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News by Bernard Goldburg. But be aware, it doesn't bode well for those who think Fox News is the unbalanced one.

His follow up book A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media covers the 2008 election and is even more critical of liberal media. I can cite example after example of how MSNBC, CBS, NYTIMES, etc are all far more biased than Fox News.

Both books are excellent, but I fear if Elphaba reads them her head will explode, so please take caution.

Edited December 18, 2010 by bytebear

[Dravin]

In your opinion.

No, he's right. Not a single republican has voted for me for Emperor of the World.

[Bini]

No, he's right. Not a single republican has voted for me for Emperor of the World.

Dravin, would you please stop being serious for once and just talk plain nonsense?

lol!

[prisonchaplain]

I'll add this. Conservatives have felt, probably since the 1980s, that we are despised by "the media elite," "the mainstream media," etc. I remember a study done around 1990 which showed the extreme slant of media. Reagan stories were mostly negative, Democrats mostly described as moderate, whereas Republicans were "right-wing" or "extreme". I could go on...of course liberals begged to differ.

Rush Limbaugh captured that persecution complex and built it into his commentary. He would tell stories of national press describing all states not on the coasts as "flyover country." And so, what was he? Not so much a conservative commentator, but "the restoration of balance."

As conservative media gathered steam, it imbedded into its DNA this same sense of victimhood. We can tell the news from our slant, 'cause the other side owns the mainstream press.

So, today, we see the likes of MSNBC and NPR in the beginning stages of a reaction. They are increasingly moving towards liberal commentary-news. Since FOX is nearly a decade ahead, of course those who use it exclusively will tend to accept opinions as facts, and make statements that often end up labeled misinformation.

Extreme case in point: There are still some who wonder if Obama harbors Muslim faith. He says he's a Christian. Yet, from a conservative point of view, many of his actions appear to favor the Muslim nations. So, the question asks, "Is Obama a Muslim." The respondent has heard some commentator speculate on FOX that he might be, and answers "Yes." Aha! FOX misinformed him! Really?

Of course the solution may be a lost cause. We all need to start reading again. The internet can actually make that easier...if we don't resort to getting our news from video clips.

[Elphaba]

Exactly, and when you look at false information that makes Bush or the Republicans ("it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending foreign money to back Republicans") look bad, guess who is misinformed... That's right. MSNBC viewers. And FOX viewers were most informed of all.

So, if the study had only questions (or a majority of questions) dealing with false information about Republicans, MSNBC would have the most misinformation. Change the questions and you change the results.

As I said, spin spin spin.

No, that is not what you said. You said the spin was the fact that the study did not address FOX specifically, when it clearly did. You were wrong.

Both books are excellent, but I fear if Elphaba reads them her head will explode, so please take caution.

What makes my head explode is when a person is proved wrong, and rather than acknowledging the mistake, he dissembles about it, pretending he never actually said . . . what he actually said.

My head exploded reading your post. It took me hours to put it back together.

Elphaba

[bytebear]

No, that is not what you said. You said the spin was the fact that the study did not address FOX specifically, when it clearly did. You were wrong.What makes my head explode is when a person is proved wrong, and rather than acknowledging the mistake, he dissembles about it, pretending he never actually said . . . what he actually said.

My head exploded reading your post. It took me hours to put it back together.

Elphaba

Actually what I said, and I quote:

it doesn't say anything specific about Fox News at all, other than Fox viewers tend to believe Republican spin, and MSNBC viewers tend to believe Democratic spin.

which is true. Seems you forgot that little end part. :)

The study itself does not conclude that "Fox News Viewers Most Misinformed." as the topic of this thread claims.

Edited December 19, 2010 by bytebear

[Elphaba]

Actually what I said, and I quote: . . . .

which is true. Seems you forgot that little end part. :)

You also actually said, and I quote:

I had a friend post a similar link from a left wing source, but the funny thing is, if you actually read the study (and not the commentary on the study), it doesn't say anything specific about Fox News at all, other than Fox viewers tend to believe Republican spin, and MSNBC viewers tend to believe Democratic spin.

That is the part I am talking about when I said you were wrong.

My head's fine, though, so no worries.

Elphaba

[bytebear]

Well, that little "other than" kinda changed things a bit, don't you think?

[NeuroTypical]

I've given her demonstrable examples of factual inaccuracies, and she just gets defensive. She's not interested. She literally said that.

Even more proof that Elphaba and I are the same person, just from paralell universes. Lots of people would get defensive like my liberal dad, but the "Not interested" comment is a clincher.

LM

[bytor2112]

I usually watch CNN for news and Bulls and Bears on Fox....that's about it. I get the real news from Keith Olbermann and Michael Savage :)

[FunkyTown]

I usually watch CNN for news and Bulls and Bears on Fox....that's about it. I get the real news from Keith Olbermann and Michael Savage :)

Lying is a sin, Bytor.