Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:it wasn't a study it was a poll.

No, if you actually read what he linked, it’s a study, based on a series of seven polls, and conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. It studied multiple different things, mostly showing that people who were more ignorant of the actual facts in regards to Iraq, and of their (lack of) relationship to Al Qaeda, were more likely to support the war. The parts that show regular Fox viewers to have a higher rate of misconceptions and mistaken ideas about world events, Iraq, and Al Qaeda, are just part of a larger whole.

Certainly I know what a push-poll is, and how statistics can be manipulated. But those are pretty significant accusations to level, considering that you didn’t take the time to even read the front-page summary of the study. That rather undercuts the likelihood that you actually looked at their methodology, and instead makes clear that you’re attacking the study without reading it, based on what little you know about its conclusions. Bad approach.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz, good job.

One concrete example I gave was the difference between how Fox and other networks covered the President's talk at the GoP retreat in Baltimore. Do you perceive a difference there?

That being said, if you can't see the quality difference in what you're consuming, I can't tell why. Maybe it's just that you don't watch the standard Fox reporting.

Yea I can. Fox is biased hard right. that doesn't make it "worse" that makes it hard right. Much of their stories are sensationalist and geared to a conservative audience. Switch liberal for conservative and voila:

Just like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and NPR.

No, I’m not just talking about a political viewpoint/bias. I’m talking about the WAY they report.

They way they fail to present opposing views, or do so via guys like Allan Colmes, who aren't allowed to ask hard questions, are relegated to a secondary role, and eventually removed entirely.

Or gloss over/whitewash findings like there having been no WMDs found in Iraq, so that to this day you can still poll regular Fox viewers and find a significant percentage who think WMDs actually WERE found.

Or make up the term “terrorist fist jab” and then deny responsibility for likening the President and First Lady to terrorists, by claiming that they were just reporting how it “had been characterized in the media” while failing to mention that they were the people who came up with that characterization.

Or (as they’ve repeatedly done) put a “D” next to the name/title of a Republican politician involved in a scandal while they were reporting on it.

Or edit shots of larger crowds from a totally different event into footage from Tea Party coverage to make it look bigger and better-attended than it actually was.

Or clipping a Biden interview from 2008 in which he was quoting John McCain, and presenting it as being Biden giving his own opinion at an interview he had just done, in March 2009.

Or clipping an Obama response in April 09 about why we can’t have a healthcare system just like European countries, to make it look like Obama was saying he wanted a system like the European countries. That’s literally editing to make the person look like they’re saying the opposite of what they’re actually saying.

Or quoting a Republican Communications Center press release, complete with typo, and presenting it as being Fox News analysis. That’s directly misrepresenting one party’s political talking points as being the news network’s “unbiased” reporting.

Or Chris Wallace and WSJ’s Jim Towey, last August, misrepresenting the Veterans’ Health Administration’s booklet on end of life planning, totally distorting what it contains and falsely claiming that the VHA under the Bush administration had suspended its use. This was both dishonest reporting and directly supporting that “death panel” BS. Funnily enough, an article Towey wrote on it dishonestly and inaccurately likened part of the booklet to a push poll.

Not even getting into their political bias, the poor quality and repeatedly demonstrable dishonesty and misrepresentations embodied in their reporting are well documented.

Frazzled wrote:A documentary is the support? What is every other part of the documentary? Who paid to make the documentary? Come on I'm not going to make your case for you.

If you were to watch the documentary, perhaps you’d have an informed opinion on it. You could see whether they were catching Fox in actual lies, distortions, and bad reporting, or if it was just a partisan attack on Fox for some other motive, as you’re trying to imply. Come on, you should know better.

You're right I am completely wrong. Im will rely on this one cited study, not question its methodology, motives or anything of the sort. Fox is evil, corrupt conniving, full of ingrained rabid mad dog pundits, and only watched by inbred mogoloids. I too realize that we should all have a thrill run up our leg when president Obama speaks, and the Tea Party should be called "teabaggers" at all times.

I have learned my lesson and promise to listen daily to the New York Times, Daily Kos, and Huffington.com for all necesary daily goodfacts. I will not question these goodfacts, because that would be wrong.

Thanks a lot. Glad I went to the trouble to cite examples. I appreciate your open-mindedness, and your use of evidence to demonstrate an opposing view.

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks a lot. Glad I went to the trouble to cite examples. I appreciate your open-mindedness, and your use of evidence to demonstrate an opposing view.

1. I am doing this on coffee breaks. I'm not going to check out studies et al.
2. I dfind the concept that one nertwork, conveinetly the only major conservative network, is somehow worse than everyone else in bias or quality to be prima facae lacking merit.

1. I’ve got less time for this that you do, on the whole, as our post counts amply demonstrate. If you’re not going to read a couple of paragraphs describing what the study was, how can you honestly claim to know what it is? Hell, you came right out and SAID it was a poll, not a study. That’s a false statement, even if you made it out of ignorance rather than malice.

2. Bad logic. I cited a pile of examples of Fox misrepresenting data, or reporting in such a way as to distort the truth. While my being a Liberal may give you reason to question my motives in impugning Fox’s accuracy and reliability, that has no bearing on whether or not the examples I gave are accurate or not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I will still buy you a beer when we meet someday, no matter what.

Mannahnin wrote:1. I’ve got less time for this that you do, on the whole, as our post counts amply demonstrate. If you’re not going to read a couple of paragraphs describing what the study was, how can you honestly claim to know what it is? Hell, you came right out and SAID it was a poll, not a study. That’s a false statement, even if you made it out of ignorance rather than malice.

2. Bad logic. I cited a pile of examples of Fox misrepresenting data, or reporting in such a way as to distort the truth. While my being a Liberal may give you reason to question my motives in impugning Fox’s accuracy and reliability, that has no bearing on whether or not the examples I gave are accurate or not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I will still buy you a beer when we meet someday, no matter what.

Where did you get the items you noted Ragnar? Although I don't have a study in front of me, I've seen many of these events on other networks. Indeed look at the Tea party movement, how many positive stories have there been from the MSM on them since their inception in 2009? Look at the coverage currently. Its all about a few of the nuts and Sarah Palin and how she's an idiot.

Where was MSM talking about the Edwards affair? What about CBS attempting to sandbag Bush on the eve of the 2004 with false stories? Where is nuetral coverage of the earlier Tea Party protests? There are lots of studies about bias and incompetence in the media. I'm just shocked you focus on one pissant cable network. Where's similar attention to MSNBC?

And no, no beer, now if you offer rum then we're on baby.

Rum or Tequila? Maybe we're better off with Rum; we might fight less.

I got my examples online, with a quick Google for Fox inaccuracies. I've seen some of them reported on The Daily Show, as they're happy to do Gotchas against news shows, not really being one themselves. And yes, they've burned MSNBC badly on occasion as well. Like their utter credulity leading up to the bank collapses. Jim Kramer got spanked hard, for one.

I would happily concede that other networks have problems too. Specific examples are good. I have not seen any other network routinely make the kind of distortions and false statements I get from Fox. That's not to say I like the all the others. I find MSNBC and CNN's reporting pretty terrible and shallow, and watch BBC America more often. But I don't see much stuff like the examples I cited above.

If we could avoid all the "amusing" inB4lock stuff please. ta.

..we'll let you know when .

Mannahnin wrote:Rum or Tequila? Maybe we're better off with Rum; we might fight less.

I got my examples online, with a quick Google for Fox inaccuracies. I've seen some of them reported on The Daily Show, as they're happy to do Gotchas against news shows, not really being one themselves. And yes, they've burned MSNBC badly on occasion as well. Like their utter credulity leading up to the bank collapses. Jim Kramer got spanked hard, for one.

I would happily concede that other networks have problems too. Specific examples are good. I have not seen any other network routinely make the kind of distortions and false statements I get from Fox. That's not to say I like the all the others. I find MSNBC and CNN's reporting pretty terrible and shallow, and watch BBC America more often. But I don't see much stuff like the examples I cited above.

Rum baby.

I did some google searches and it got way long. whew.

This is enlightening about opinons in general
http://people-press.org/report/543/

Rum it is. How about a Cuba Libre?



Yeah, it's a pretty good opinion poll. The bit about the widening of disparity along party lines specifically during the Bush administration is especially interesting.

I'm sure you found a lot of stuff on Google. Any good specific examples to compare to the kind of cites I gave? Direct distortions, or places where they made a person seem to be saying the opposite of what they actually said?

Mannahnin wrote:Rum it is. How about a Cuba Libre?



Yeah, it's a pretty good opinion poll. The bit about the widening of disparity along party lines specifically during the Bush administration is especially interesting.

I'm sure you found a lot of stuff on Google. Any good specific examples to compare to the kind of cites I gave? Direct distortions, or places where they made a person seem to be saying the opposite of what they actually said?

1. Mmm drink good.
2. I'll have to try to get back to this. the Real World (TM) beckons for attention.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm saying you're full of it. Chris Matthews is no more intellectually honest than Beck or Hannity or Janine garafalalalafalo or any of them. If not, then he's a true believer, and to be feared.

Intellectual honesty is not a freedom from bias, its intellectual honesty; ie. speaking in concert with the rules of inference. Fox doesn't do this, Matthews, MSNBC, and the other liberal outlets do. That doesn't mean they aren't unbiased, it simply means they are intellectually honest.

dogma wrote:Intellectual honesty is not a freedom from bias, its intellectual honesty; ie. speaking in concert with the rules of inference. Fox doesn't do this, Matthews, MSNBC, and the other liberal outlets do. That doesn't mean they aren't unbiased, it simply means they are intellectually honest.

You can't make blanket statements like that. They all offend the idea of intellectual honesty at some point or another, it happens. I have seen it on every station, and it bugs me every time, but that is reality. It bugs me more though when it is someone like Rick Sanchez, who claims to be a journalist says stupid things, and let me tell you it happens quite often. I expect brash, blanket statements from Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olbermann and O'Reilly, but I expect a higher level of integrity from those actually reporting the news.

JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't make blanket statements like that. They all offend the idea of intellectual honesty at some point or another, it happens. I have seen it on every station, and it bugs me every time, but that is reality. It bugs me more though when it is someone like Rick Sanchez, who claims to be a journalist says stupid things, and let me tell you it happens quite often. I expect brash, blanket statements from Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olbermann and O'Reilly, but I expect a higher level of integrity from those actually reporting the news.

You're right, of course. I suppose I should say that I observe a more deliberate desire to violate intellectual conventions on Fox. Though I think that its mostly a result of their target audience's predilections. If nothing else, they know their demography quite well.

dogma wrote:You're right, of course. I suppose I should say that I observe a more deliberate desire to violate intellectual conventions on Fox. Though I think that its mostly a result of their target audience's predilections. If nothing else, they know their demography quite well.

Nobody accused them of being a poorly run business. Also, while I am no fan of Fox News, I do find their business channel to be quite good. And another note to whoever dissed on Murdoch: the Wall Street Journal is one of the best papers in the business, and he owns it. Sure it has a slight bias, like any newspaper, but it is easily one of the most reliable and valuable newspapers out there. News Corp is a business first, not a political organization, remember that.