Well that cuts it according to this study NPR is more objective then FOX News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,923
Location
Alma Illinois
Baltimore Sun
October 4, 2003

Study Hits War Views Held By Fox Fans

By David Folkenflik, Sun Staff

Heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as media consumers who rely on National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System, according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs.

"When evidence surfaces that a significant portion of the public has just got a hole in the picture ... this is a potential problem in the way democracy functions," says Clay Ramsay, research director for the Washington-based Program on International Policy Attitudes, which studies foreign-policy issues.

Fox News officials did not return repeated requests yesterday for comment on the study.

Funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, the study was conducted from June through September. It surveyed 3,334 Americans who receive their news from a single media source. Each was questioned about whether he held any of the following three beliefs, characterized by the center as "egregious misperceptions":

Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq.

World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

To date, as measured by government reports and accepted public surveys, each of those propositions is false, according to the center. The Bush administration has argued that evidence will be found of the weapons in Iraq as will direct links between Saddam and the al-Qaida members who planned the 9/11 attacks. But President Bush has been forced to acknowledge that no such proof has surfaced.

Sixty percent of all respondents believed in at least one of the statements. But there were clear differences in perceptions among devotees of the various media outlets.

Twenty-three percent of those who get their news from NPR or PBS believed in at least one of the mistaken claims. In contrast, 80 percent of Fox News viewers held at least one of the three incorrect beliefs.

Among broadcast network viewers there also were differences. Seventy-one percent of those who relied on CBS for news held a false impression, as did 61 percent of ABC's audience and 55 percent of NBC viewers. Fifty-five percent of CNN viewers and 47 percent of Americans who rely on the print media as their primary source of information also held at least one misperception.

The three evening network news shows command the largest audiences, together typically reaching between 25 million and 30 million viewers nightly. But Fox News, the top-rated cable-news outlet, has steadily increased its viewership by offering a blend of hard news and opinionated talk that often takes on a patriotic sheen. Its top show draws more than 2 million viewers nightly.

"Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions," the report concludes. "Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention."

The PIPA study suggests a strong link between people's understanding of the news and its source. That link held true throughout different demographic segments, such as those based on education level, viewing habits, and partisan leanings, Ramsay said.

"It proves that what we're doing is great journalism," says NPR spokeswoman Laura Gross. "We're telling the truth and we let our audience decide."

More information on the study can be found at www. pipa.org.
 
Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq.

World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.



No wonder. The Bush administration tried real hard to make the the first connection before the war, and continues to to try to make the second one.

Number two is pretty popular around this board as well.

Do you guys even try to understand what people of different opinions believe, or is that too much work?

Easier to just dismiss it all as liberal lies, huh?
 
Do you guys even try to understand what people of different opinions believe, or is that too much work?
I don't try too hard to understand it when the study comes from a demonstrably leftist organization like the Ford Foundation.
 
...according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs.

Well, gosh! I don't know why they didn't just call the Democratic (sic) party's headquarters and have the so-called "study" done for nothing. Wouldn't have taken ten minutes, I'm sure.
 
Hmm? Well that first question, at least, is a bit fuzzy. Linked is not the same as proven. I had the following 100% correct answer run through my head: "Yes, Saddam has been directly linked to 9/11, but the Bush administration has fail to prove it."

So I would have been 100% correct in answering "yes," and my 100% correct answer would have been counted as wrong by the UMd folks because they are incorrectly using linked as meaning proven.
 
Opinions labeled as opinion I can accept.

Opinions labeled as fact I cannot.

If you want a reason why the press is mistrusted, consider the recent hack job the L.A. Times did on Arnold, while giving Davis a bye on his reprehensible behavior.
 
NPR??????
I was in Saudi 3 years ago, and the drivel they were puking on the airways made me wonder just who's side they were on. They were on the Saudi side when it came to that female military member and the wearing of veils. I should retract that- I KNOW who's side they're on, and it is not ours!
 
C'mon, Destructo

Why is it narrow-minded only when one disagrees with liberals? And don't you have to hear what they say to disagree with them?

By my count, there are zero conservative media outlets supported by my taxes. But there's one big liberal one I'm paying for.

There should be zero of either kind.
 
Ah, I get it. We can't beat Fox News, so now we're going to tar their viewership as idiots!

I'm as well-read on the issues as any NPR listener ---

Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. - If you were paying attention to the, oh, 3487 speeches Pres. Bush has given since 9/11, you would know that Bush never said this or implied it. This is a war on TERRORISM, not on the 9/11 savages. Sadom supported and aided terrorism, thus, his regime and his fat behind were targeted. Got it?

Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq. - Having not found them in 6 months after Sodom had years to hide or destroy them doesn't mean that going to war was incorrect. Bush never said there was an imminent threat. We were going in before an imminent threat to prevent future terror with his WMDs.

World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. - Of course 'world opinion' was against us. So? The UN doesn't make US foreign policy. Just because the UN is a 'democratic' organization doesn't mean it's fair or impartial. It's full of socialists and tyrants who have little love for us.
 
Funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation
Major NPR backers. The only reason anyone even knows who the Ford Foundation is is because of their sponsorship spots on NPR. NPR and it's supporters (generalizing, I know) tend to think they are faaaar far smarter than everyone else. The elitist nose-in-the-air snobbery just drips off that channel.

This study is right up their alley. A study to show how everyone but NPR listeners are morons. A perfect fit for modern American liberal socilaists. "We know better than you, we can fix everything if given enough power, if only you were smart enough to see it."

- Gabe
 
I think their definition of "objective" depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

I can think of a few demonstrably untrue positions that most NPR listeners hold that the FOX audience is less inclined to believe.

- Socialism is beneficial

- Gun control is a good idea

- Democrats care more about freedom

Anyone have a few they'd like to add?
 
Polls depend on what questions you ask, or even how you ask them.

These are three negative statements regarding the Bush administration. All the NPR people will agree with any negative, while middle of the road, or right-tilting people are less likely to agree - rightly or wrongly.

You'd get the opposite finding if you asked people to agree or disagree with three positive statements about the administration, such as:

1. The ground war in Iraq was one of the most succesful ever waged.
2. Civilian casualties were far less than any other invasion of similar scale.
3. Mass graves of dissidents and minority groups have been found all over the country.

These are all true statements that resound positively for Bush. And in this case, you'd find the NPR people disagreeing - and you could claim that NPR gives a twisted version of the news.

Keith
 
---
Partisan Ranger --

You may have missed the point. You agree that those three statements are false (and note that they are not relevant). But far more Fox viewers BELIEVED those statements to be TRUE.
---

Anyway, I have not read the study, but either the study or the news article is confusing correlation with causation.

NPR listeners are more liberal than average. They want to disbelieve these things (that happen to be false).

Fox viewers are more conservative than usual. They want to believe these things are true (although they are false).

If the study were balanced, it would have included three "liberal untruths" ("assault weapons" are the weapons of choice of gang bangers, etc) to balance the "conservative untruths" listed.

It would probably find exactly the opposite. More NPR listeners would believe the left-leaning lies, and fewer Fox viewers would.

Most people filter what the hear to suit their views. Things that they agree with sink in; things they disagree with bounce off. Thus, this study's results are no surprise, but they also prove nothing about the accuracy of the news.

Just call me a journalism graduate with a respect for the truth. :)

Matt

[edit: darnit, Keith beat me to it. Gotta type faster or say less!]
 
In other news, only 30% of Fox News viewers but 90% of NPR listeners believed the following to be true:

1. The Founding Fathers never intended the 2A to cover military rifles
2. Rifles addressed by the AWB of '94 account for 20% of LEO-related deaths on duty
3. The gunshow "loophole" allows licensed dealers to skip NICS checks on buyers

None of the above are true. This proves that most NPR listeners are leftists who choose to believe what they want to believe and are not interested in facts.
 
mpayne You agree that those three statements are false (and note that they are not relevant). But far more Fox viewers BELIEVED those statements to be TRUE.
But the first one is true. Saddam has been directly linked to 9/11. Whether that link has been proven (it hasn't) or whether the link was made by the White House does not change the fact that the link was made -- indeed the very fact that UMd asked the question is proof that the link was made.

While mpayne is correct about the one-sided choice of conservative untruths vs. liberal untruths, with the first question they asked something so vague that we cannot interpret whether a "yes" vote is wrong or right.

"Yes" could mean what UMd folk apparently meant, "Yes, we've got evidence that supports a direct link." (An untrue statement)

But "yes" also could mean, "Yes, a link has been made, though it remains unproven." (A true statement.)

The passive voice of the question -- "has been linked" vs. "was linked" -- increases the likelihood that people will interpret it the second way but their answers be wrongly scored the first way.

.....
I would be 100% correct to say, "George W. Bush has been directly linked with flesh-eating, shape-shifting reptilian aliens from the lower fourth dimension," even though I think it's a laughable link. ;)
 
Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq.

This is in FACT a true statement, between 1992 and 1998 the UN inspectors found thousands of chemical weapons. The UN itself said so.
Bill Clinton launched a missile strike against Sadaam because he threw the inspectors out of Iraq, because Iraq had chemical weapons.
Right before the war started the UN's own weapons inspector said he could not give them a clean bill of health.

Liberals of course have terrible memories, so they have forgotten these facts.

Now if the statement was: Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq by the US army since George W. Bush ordered the war.

The answer would be false, they only found chemicals that could be used to make weapons, and documents that seemed to indicate that there were weapons.

Chemical weapons like Box cutters do not commit horrible crimes its the mind of the madmen who control the anthrax or the box cutter that is the danger.
 
But, at least the interviewers on NPR allow their guests to complete their sentences, do not insult their guests out of hand, and allow the speakers enough friggen air time to let the audience get a feel for the speaker's POV. (An interview cannot be conducted in 90 seconds. Someone needs to tell them this.)
Fox News does none of these. The 'moderators' on Fox are in desperate need of adult supervision and refresher courses in both journalism and manners. Lastly, do not confuse shouting with content, nor should you equate intellectualism with socialism. Yes, NPR tends more towards moderate and left-of-center viewpoints (your local station may be different, one way or another), but what one hears is closer to journalism than Howard Stern-esq shock-jock soundbytes.
 
That may be so KC, but I tend to think that NPR selects way more guests whose views mirror theirs than FOX. FOX wants left leaning folks for its show, since conflict drives up ratings and sells advertising, something NPR doesn't worry about, other than at pledge time.
 
I dont have any experience of NPR (thankfully), but to me FOX News is just like every other media organization controlled by RM - about as trustworthy as a snake who bulges in the middle and yet claims he hasnt seen your gerbil all day. Any media organization that has the gall to defend its right to lie publicly must be viewed with a heathly mixture of suspicion and contempt.

also, the "saddam and 9-11" / "saddam and al-Qaeda" links have been repeatedly stated on various networks, almost two years after the alledged Atta meeting in Prague was shown to be wrong and despite the obvious flaws in the links with al-Qaeda.
 
...about as trustworthy as a snake who bulges in the middle and yet claims he hasnt seen your gerbil all day. Any media organization that has the gall to defend its right to lie publicly...
Those two assessments are polar opposites, BTW. Which is it -- do you think Fox lies but pretends it doesn't lie or do you think Fox lies and asserts it has the right to do so?
also, the "saddam and 9-11" / "saddam and al-Qaeda" links have been repeatedly stated on various networks, almost two years after the alledged Atta meeting in Prague was shown to be wrong and despite the obvious flaws in the links with al-Qaeda.
Thus it is true that Saddam "has been linked." The link is unsubstantiated and may yet prove erroneous but nonethessless those who answered "yes" would be correct. The question -- as asked -- wasn't about the substantiation or correctness of the link, just whether the link exists.

The poll-takers did not ask what they meant to ask.
 
Ah, NPR. The same NPR that I listen to on my daily commute? The same one that has pounded the same psychological message for two weeks now?
GOVERNOR Grey Davis supports…
Lt. GOVERNOR Cruz Bustamante stands for…
body builder arnold schwarzenegger stammered a reply…
body builder arnold attempted to…
the former body builder struggled through…


Kinda like they refer to our President. You know, Bush, Bush Jr., George Jr., Mr. Bush… ANYTHING but President Bush.

Repeat as necessary.


Believe me, if I notice something, it's not subtle.
:eek:
 
As others have mentioned, the survey is worthless because it asked three questions of the kind believed by the right, so of course Fox viewers are more likely to believe that. Why not ask three fallacies of the kind Leftists retail, like "GWB claimed the Iraq threat was IMMINENT."

Btw, Kay DID find botulism in Iraq, so arguably WMD have been found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top