• Tue news: Merck's Keytruda stages comeback in head and neck cancer. GSK, Pfizer RSV vaccine sales fall. Astellas gene therapy bet. Extreme weather —>drug shortages. J&J discontinues bladder cancer drug. See more on our front page

Shocking: Study finds Fox News viewers LEAST INFORMED

Quote




This study (which showed the exact same outcome last year) is beyond hilarious. It is more evidence that despite having high ratings, it shows that the American people who watch it are not the sharpest pencils in the box. What doubly confirms it are the right-wing wackos on here who are the puppets of Fox News, and they confirm that they are ill-informed robots spouting off Hannity/O'Reilly/Palin/Limpballs, etc. talking points.
 




Very predictable. Ever notice that whenever libbies get a major slap of reality upside the head, like the 2010 elections and Wisconsin recall results, they get so frustrated that the best they can do is say conservatives are not intelligent. Yet it is their convoluted rationalizations that never seem to make sense and that are rejected over and over again.
 








Pale Horse said:
I don't know about that. Fox was the first to let me know that SCOTT WALKER WINS!
Click to expand...

Based on drawling conclusions from the study, it sounds Fox is only going to inform viewers of the things they want you to hear. Otherwise, why would viewers be less informed than no news at all as the study shows? We know the answer. You just don't like it.
 




SPN said:
Very predictable. Ever notice that whenever libbies get a major slap of reality upside the head, like the 2010 elections and Wisconsin recall results, they get so frustrated that the best they can do is say conservatives are not intelligent. Yet it is their convoluted rationalizations that never seem to make sense and that are rejected over and over again.
Click to expand...

They sure do keep getting these election result predictions wrong. Must be because they aren't watching FNC.:eek:
 








Surferdude said:
DUH..they wanted you to know that. Dude, the study speaks for itslef. Fox viewers are just getting talking points of Limpballs, Hannity, O'Lielly, and the other Fox dweebs.
Click to expand...
If the study is to be believed, then you would be well served to make it regular viewing. Your shit state government union indoctrination isn't serving you well.
 












Surferdude said:
More like, this study if f--cking hilarious and proves you wacks, who are glued to Fox News, are ill-informed. This is always going to be a shadow to the laughable Fox News.
Click to expand...

What's laughable is that if we are ill-informed than whatever you watch is making you absolutely ignorant because without fail we run circles around you.
 




RockificationSpacification said:
A statistician replies to the survey. All things considered, this survey really has no substance. Read on:

I've been following your "False Equivalence" series and have generally enjoyed and agreed with your insights, but I fear you may have jumped to a possibly unfounded conclusion on this one. I'm a statistician by trade and have worked with various US government statistics departments the past and current work for an international organization. Though I find these results entertaining from a media frenzy point of view, a number of alarm bells go off right away when I see this survey. In ascending order of what bothered me most (with the relevant survey disclaimer quotes in italics):

1. It was conducted as a telephone survey. "Survey results are also subject to non-sampling error. This kind of error, which cannot be measured, arises from a number of factors including, but not limited to, non-response (eligible individuals refusing to be interviewed)....." . With caller ID these days what are chances that randomly chosen people would pick up for an unknown number? And of those that pick up, how many are likely to agree to talk on the phone for 10 minutes to complete a survey such as this? I would surmise that the response rate was quite low (I didn't see any documentation in the report). A low response rate raises the possibility of nonresponse bias - the possibility that certain demographic types would be undersampled. The report states that responses were reweighted to account for discrepancies in race, age and gender proportions as compared to the national average, but presumable there are other factors that go into nonresponse bias.

2. Only 8 questions were asked. "Survey results are also subject to non-sampling error. This kind of error, which cannot be measured, arises from a number of factors including, but not limited to, ..... question wording, the order in which questions are asked, and variations among interviewers." This is a structural bias issue. For example, what if Fox News reported particularly poorly on one or more of the topics included in the survey, but reported much better on some other topics not included? While I don't see any inherent bias in the questions that doesn't mean there isn't any. How were the questions selected? Did both liberals, conservatives and centrists screen them for bias? And how well the result of 8 random news questions relate to "what you know" anyway?

3. The deep breakdown of data in the survey. 1,185 people sounds like a lot, but when it is broken down to such a low level the sample size dwindles. The graph that you use in your post shows the average number of questions answered correctly by respondents who reported getting their news from just this source in the past week. So of the 1,185, how many watched Fox News and not any of the other sources listed? MSNBC? I would think that most people get their news from multiple sources (local news AND Fox News for example). These people are apparently excluded from the analysis. Presumably, the remaining sample could be quite small. Which leads to the possibly most important issue:

4. Lack of standard errors on the correct answers statistic. "The margin of error for a sample of 1185 randomly selected respondents is +/- 3 percentage points. The margin of error for subgroups is larger and varies by the size of that subgroup." The size of the subgroups on which the graph is based are not mentioned. Also +/- 3 percentage points does not apply to the number of questions answered correctly. I do not see evidence of statistical testing to show there are significant differences by respondents reporting receiving their news from different sources (though I suppose there's a chance it may just not have been mentioned in the report).

While I'm not sure that the team at Farleigh Dickinson could have done a much better job than they did with their resources, I think this type of survey does not rise to level of "news" (nor do most soft surveys like this). It is extremely easy to jump to conclusions based on a graph that agrees with one's inklings about news sources even when the data behind it may not lend itself to clear cut conclusions. Another thing that should be noted is the issue of causality. You note in your post "that NPR aspires actually to be a news organization and provide 'information', versus fitting a stream of facts into the desired political narrative" While this could be true, it is also possible that even if the survey results were correct there may be a bit of self-selection when choosing news networks. In that case, ignorance could be the viewer's fault rather than the fault of Fox News.
Click to expand...



Take a look at this graph and tell us why anyone who watches Fox News should be giving lectures on statistics, and why anyone should listen to them.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tter-graphics/2011/12/12/gIQAUVgNqO_blog.html

Perhaps you're clueless as to whats wrong with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:




LOL. Typical Fox "News" propaganda. No wonder study after study shows their viewers are dumbasses. Just look to the reicht wing repukelikkkans on this site alone for even more proof.
 




Surferdude said:
LOL. Typical Fox "News" propaganda. No wonder study after study shows their viewers are dumbasses. Just look to the reicht wing repukelikkkans on this site alone for even more proof.
Click to expand...

If someone looks all they see is you and the other libtards getting constantly beaten down. Again, if we are ill-informed then you and your buddies are nothing but ignorant!
 
















Similar threads

‘Shocking failure’: Pentagon and FBI come under fire for Jan. 6 response
Replies
0
Views
124
Political Discussions
anonymous
Shocking ! (Not). Lifelong compulsive liar and cheater hasn’t paid squat in taxes in decades
Replies
10
Views
366
Political Discussions
anonymous
shocking! take 1 guess where mubarak is planning his exile?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Political Discussions
Bubble Burster
Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer
Replies
9
Views
347
Political Discussions
anonymous
Vagitarian
bible study
Replies
25
Views
906
Political Discussions
anonymous
Top Bottom
Back
Quote