New Study: Fox News Viewers Most Misinformed

[rubondfan2]

That will never happen at Fox as long as Ailes and Murdoch are running the show.

Elphaba

Ah... finally... after all the back and forth bantering about Republican vs. Democrat; news vs. commentary; liberal vs. conservative; statistics vs. reality... the truest of truisms was finally spoken.

Rupert Murdoch is pumping his agenda into the hearts and minds of nearly everyone in... no... not just the United States; but the entire world. This ONE MAN owns a controlling interest in more media outlets (radio, internet, magazine, newspaper, satellite, cable, network "news", etc.) than any other person in the entire world. If that doesn't scare the pants right off you, then you're completely asleep.

This is why I have said on more than one occasion on this forum... turn off your TV's, cancel your "news"paper and magazine subscriptions and start reading history... looking to alternative sources for your information (read it all... extreme right-wing... even hate centered and extreme left-wing... "New Age" literature). Read it all and pray with all your might for the Spirit of Discernment to teach you what is true and what is false.

As PrisonChaplin stated in an earlier post on this thread, there has been a movement away from news toward "commentary". What we see on the TV today is so far from "objective", "fair", "balanced" or actual "news" that you literally cannot trust a single thing you see or hear.

Conspiracy? Absolutely. The agendas of a very small number of very evil, power hungry and greedy individuals being pumped into your heads at every turn throughout your daily walk? You betcha. Satan is alive and well my fellow Saints. Now, more than ever, reliance upon the Spirit to guide and direct you to the truth is essential... it's life and death at this point and so few see it or realize it.

Thank you for the OP. This is dialogue that is needed desperately... let's not be tempted to get caught up in the wrong arguments however. It's not "left vs. right" or "CNN vs. FoxNews" or even "real news vs. sensationalized commentary". It's about Satan vs. God... good vs. evil... choosing a side. Who will you and your house serve?

Here's a link to take a look at to just get you started on your OWN research about what I've said here. Don't just believe (or discount) the things said on this ONE site. Use it to jump start your research into the claims... find out for yourself what is going on and what is true or not true. I'm not going to try and spoon feed information to anyone. What I know (and what you can know) can only be obtained through personal study, research, prayer and revelation. You won't get it from the TV and you SHOULDN'T believe anything just because I or someone else said so.

May we all march on in the cause of righteousness in this fight against very real powers of darkness.

The Man Who Rules The World

[prisonchaplain]

As a balance, I would offer that commentary has its place. However, far better to get it from publications, such as National Review, or Nation. There is far more information, and the flow of thought is so much richer in such sources. TV news is so concise, it really ought to stick mostly to who, what, where, why, when and how?

[NeuroTypical]

What we need is an impartial commitment to comprehensive, in-depth and factual analyses, combined with an overt disdain for those who interpret these facts through the lense of their ideology.

If you seek such a thing from human ranks, you'll never find it.

(Well, the 'impartial' part anyway. 'Overt disdain' directed at the other side of the fence is as common as toe fungus.)

[dash77]

I agree with almost all of what Rubonfan2 has to say. However, I am not sure if it all boils down to good versus evil – there can be honest cross cultural differences in life.

However, I agree that it is not an issue of left versus right. I also agree that people need to only use the media sparingly and other sources (websites and forum boards, professional magazines) are paramount. I would also add the need for academic sources and it is good to read academic articles that have differing conclusions. For example, if you want to learn about social issues (e.g., national health care, sporting events and violence, No Child Left Behind) it is good to read different academic sources that highlight different conclusions and then come to some type of personal decision, using prayer in the process.

I think the use of media as a primary source to social decision making boils down to a lazy way of assessing social issues -- although I can understand the difficulty of finding time to read and study issue when raising children. But Fox news is the worst.

A very well reasoned post, Rubonfan2. Thank you.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Well, I'm an unabashed fan of Foxnews. They cover stories, issues, and angles that the others won't cover because of their liberal bias. CNN and MSNBC refuse to hold accountable this administration as they run rough shod over the will of the American people with bail outs, Obama care, and trying to raise taxes. CNN and MSNBC anchors are alway trying to put their liberal heroes in a positive light. In the 1960's didn't the liberals say to distrust the government? What changed?

I like Foxnews. Greta rocks. So does Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly. Conservatives in Foxnews are a great way to balance out the whacky left of the other, less popular networks.

[john doe]

I think John's comments right above are spot on regarding all news channels. However, I think Fox is the worst of them all. I am always shocked at LDS 's-- who are suppose to value education -- who watch Fox news. They are all isleading -- but Fox seems to be the most misleading.

In your opinion. Others who lean different directions will disagree with you.

[john doe]

That's the last thing we need.

What we need is an impartial commitment to comprehensive, in-depth and factual analyses, combined with an overt disdain for those who interpret these facts through the lense of their ideology.

That will never happen at Fox as long as Ailes and Murdoch are running the show.

Elphaba

It also won't happen at MSNBC as long as Olbermann and Maddow are employed there.

[Gramajane]

England and US Education used to be values based- from the Bible.

The very first books to teach kids to read and write were "morals".

-- With the main part of the media- TV, Movies etc showing the "hero"

telling lies, cheating, etc, and no one teaching that "honesty is the best policy"

or expecting that people have control over their bodies enough to be moral,

-- and even some churches, "looking the other way" or outright accepting

immorality as normal- it is left to righteous parents, and the few righteous people to even say

there is right and wrong- everything is NOT relative! Gramajane

[Elphaba]

It also won't happen at MSNBC as long as Olbermann and Maddow are employed there.

I agree regarding Olbermann. I think Maddow is very principled.

I only addressed Fox because I was responding specifically to anatess' statement about it.

ETA: I do think Maddow is very principled; however, I think it is obvious she also analyzes the news through her ideology. I don't want to give the impression that I'm not aware of that.

Elph

Edited January 8, 2011 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

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

How so?

Elphaba

[dash77]

You are missing Rubonfan2"s point -- can you find other sources other than the news to conceptualize and think about social issues?

[john doe]

You are missing Rubonfan2"s point -- can you find other sources other than the news to conceptualize and think about social issues?

Uh..... about 95% of the internet? My kids get indoctrinated at school. Many times I have to remind them that teachers are not always right, especially when it comes to pushing ideologies or theories.

[dash77]

John:

I am with youo on schools curriculum endoctrinating kids -- one of my fravorite books is "Lies that my teachers told me." I wish schools would teach kids how to think (e.g. evaluate different forms of information, look at rival cause, learn how to interprete qualitative and quantatative research, etc.). Although it both democrates and republications support No Child Left Behind, it is more of the right wing (e.g. Mitt Romney types) who think schools should just be memorizing facts and the facts are also value oriented. It sure would be great is schools would teach more skills on how to think and evalaute information.

[prisonchaplain]

I know this is a bit late, but for those who just intuitively believed this survey, and the headlines that followed were biased...here's some justification! As we all suspected (well, most of us)...broadcast news is biased these days...but what "misinformed" means is definitely in the eye of the beholder...

Z on TV: Survey on Fox News: Who defines 'misinformed'? - TV show critic David Zurawik on the show business, culture and craziness of television - baltimoresun.com

[RipplecutBuddha]

78.6% of all reported statistics are made up on the spot.

[prophetofdoom]

I love how all these "studies" appear showing that people are misinformed. Who are these arbiters of information that declare something true or untrue? There are very few objective facts when it comes to political information.. most information is relayed on a very subliminal level.

The way in which a question is phrased can adversely effect outcomes.

[FunkyTown]

I love how all these "studies" appear showing that people are misinformed. Who are these arbiters of information that declare something true or untrue? There are very few objective facts when it comes to political information.. most information is relayed on a very subliminal level.

The way in which a question is phrased can adversely effect outcomes.

Err... There are objective facts. This 'Democratization of information' is a very bad thing. A thing is either true or untrue, only interpretations of events are up for grabs.

There was a survey done back in... 2005 or 2006? Where Fox news viewers were asked a very simple question: Were WMDs found in Iraq.

70% of those surveyed answered that WMDs were found. 70% who watched Fox News believed that WMDs were found in Iraq. I remember hearing a story on Fox about how 'Chemicals that could be used to create WMDs' were found. I remember yelling at the screen that chemicals to create Chlorine Gas exist under every kitchen sink in America and that WMDs could be made with the amount you find in a typical supermarket.

I have found the level of bias dangerous on Fox and just don't watch it any more. Sadly, the great and trusted Network News Anchors seem to have disappeared.

[NeuroTypical]

But Funky - WMD's were found in Iraq. It is an objective fact. Problem is, only one news organization reported it. I forget the year - I admit the possibility that it could have been after the survey you remember.

I mean, it wasn't a lot of them. A dozen or two artillery shells containing something (mustard agent I think - I've misplaced the article). They were leftovers from when Saadam used them against his own people. But yeah - chemical weapons. More than half a centerfuge buried in someone's back yard. More than a trailer set up to mix weapons. More than the chemicals used in making weapons. But real, actual, touchable weapons themselves. The kind you load into an artillery piece and shoot at someone and they go 'aah my eyes someone just shot a wmd at me!'

Real WMD, found in Iraq. Certainly not enough to justify going in the 2nd time, but then WMD was only part of the case made against going in the 2nd time.

Anyway, I have a very vivid memory that goes a few years back than your very vivid memory. I remember the countdown to war. I remember a 'coalition of the willing'. I remember Saadam not complying. Oil for food scandal. Violating fly-over rules. Violating lots of agreements signed that ended the first war.

I remember all that, but the vivid part was how all the liberals just brushed it all aside, grabbing on to the WMD issue. No other beef existed in their media and minds - only the wmd issue. They gambled we wouldn't find any, and they'd use that fact to crucify Pres. Bush. They gambled correctly.

[prophetofdoom]

Err... There are objective facts. This 'Democratization of information' is a very bad thing. A thing is either true or untrue, only interpretations of events are up for grabs.

There was a survey done back in... 2005 or 2006? Where Fox news viewers were asked a very simple question: Were WMDs found in Iraq.

70% of those surveyed answered that WMDs were found. 70% who watched Fox News believed that WMDs were found in Iraq. I remember hearing a story on Fox about how 'Chemicals that could be used to create WMDs' were found. I remember yelling at the screen that chemicals to create Chlorine Gas exist under every kitchen sink in America and that WMDs could be made with the amount you find in a typical supermarket.

I have found the level of bias dangerous on Fox and just don't watch it any more. Sadly, the great and trusted Network News Anchors seem to have disappeared.

I understand what you are saying. However, the answer to WMDs being found in Iraq is not objective. Many conservatives believe that WMDs were found in Iraq because of the numerous weapons caches found in Iraq. Questions have to be VERY specific when it is on a politicized issue.

For example, instead of "Were WMDs found in Iraq?" The question should have been "Were there nuclear weapons found in Iraq?" The public has never been given a solid definition on what a "WMD" is.

[prisonchaplain]

There are facts. Of course there are. However, these types of surveys are often skewed to condemn those who say the glass is half full, because they failed to recognize that it was half empty.

Let's be honest. It's fun to believe that conservatives/liberals/moderates etc. are more ignorant than I am. So, these academic studies blend facts and perceptions, and declare THE OTHER to be woefully uninformed.

I used to love political commentary. However, now that it has been conflated with straight news reporting, I'm finding increasingly that FOX/MSNBC are a form of informational crack. Highly addictive, very self-satisfying, but hard on the long-term functioning of the brain.

[Matthew0059]

78.6% of all reported statistics are made up on the spot.

I heard it was 82.31%.

Someone needs to nail down this elusive percentage.

[rubondfan2]

Sadly, the great and trusted Network News Anchors seem to have disappeared.

And even more sad than this, in my opinion, is that many people have even thought of those "trusted network news anchors" as... umm... trustworthy. Good grief, these guys (and gals) are nothing but puppets and actors/actresses on a stage... nothing more. Even the "great" Walter Cronkite... nothing more than a face and a voice reading from a script containing information that only a select few wanted you to hear. It's no different today... we just have more actors and actresses on the stage.

"He who controls the media controls the hearts and minds of the people who listen to it." I just made that up, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a real quote out there attributable to someone more enlightened than myself, but for now, I'll take credit for it. :)

[slamjet]

"He who controls the media controls the hearts and minds of the people who listen to it." I just made that up, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a real quote out there attributable to someone more enlightened than myself, but for now, I'll take credit for it. :)

[rubondfan2]

Ah, yes... the villain from Tomorrow Never Dies. Well played slamjet... well played.

[FunkyTown]

And even more sad than this, in my opinion, is that many people have even thought of those "trusted network news anchors" as... umm... trustworthy. Good grief, these guys (and gals) are nothing but puppets and actors/actresses on a stage... nothing more. Even the "great" Walter Cronkite... nothing more than a face and a voice reading from a script containing information that only a select few wanted you to hear. It's no different today... we just have more actors and actresses on the stage.

"He who controls the media controls the hearts and minds of the people who listen to it." I just made that up, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a real quote out there attributable to someone more enlightened than myself, but for now, I'll take credit for it. :)

That's untrue. Flat out untrue. Modern anchors tend to just be a face to the news in major outlets, but smaller areas often have the news anchors helping write the stories they put on the air. As the face of the news, anchors are responsible to report the truth. Unfortunately, the society that made the move from news as an information conduit to something called 'Infotainment' where the news is simply a conduit to titillate, frighten or reaffirm our political beliefs has corrupted the network anchor.

Walter Cronkite flew in bombers during bombing missions in world war 2. He was live on the scene in North Africa when bullets were flying around. He specifically changed the way he spoke when giving editorials and opinion rather than fact. His trademarked 'That's the way it is' was only said when he wasn't ending on an editorial or opinion. In this way, he made sure the audience knew when he was giving the news and when he wasn't.

Walter Cronkite was a breed apart. He was not just a talking head.