[Face Ache]

From the Washington Post.

Fact-Free News

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, October 15, 2003; Page A23

Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is?

Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong.

Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction.

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

Now, this could just be pre-sorting by ideology: Conservatives watch O'Reilly, liberals look at Lehrer, and everyone finds his belief system confirmed. But the Knowledge Network nudniks took that into account, and found that even among people of like mind, where they got their news still shaped their sense of the real. Among respondents who said they would vote for George W. Bush in next year's presidential race, for instance, more than three-quarters of the Fox watchers thought we'd uncovered a working relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, while just half of those who watch PBS believed this to be the case.

Misperceptions can also be the result of inattention, of course. If you nod off for just a nanosecond in the middle of Tom Brokaw intoning, "U.S. inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction today," you could think we'd just uncovered Hussein's nuclear arsenal. So the wily researchers also controlled for intensity of viewership, and concluded that, "in the case of those who primarily watched Fox News, greater attention to news modestly increases the likelihood of misperceptions." Particularly when that news includes hyping every false lead in Iraq as the certain prelude to uncovering a massive WMD cache.

One question inevitably raised by these findings is whether Fox News is failing or succeeding. Over at CBS, the news that 71 percent of viewers hold one of these mistaken notions should be cause for concern, but whether such should be the case at Fox because 80 percent of their viewers are similarly mistaken is not at all clear. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and the other guys at Fox have long demonstrated a clearer commitment to changing public policy than to reporting it, and an even clearer commitment to reporting it in such a way as to change it.

Take a wild flight of fancy with me and assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Bush's reelection. Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Bush is revered among the peoples of the world -- all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers -- is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard -- moving votes into Bush's column and keeping them there -- Fox has to be judged a stunning success. It's not so hot on conveying information as such, but mere empiricism must seem so terribly vulgar to such creatures of refinement as Murdoch and Ailes.

So there's a very good question: Is Fox News failing or succeeding?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
So there's a very good question: Is Fox News failing or succeeding?

failing at accurate reporting, succeeding at right-wing propaganda and misinformation.
Don't forget, a Bush relative works at fox news.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Don't forget, a Bush relative works at fox news.

Who, and in what capacity?

[macvillage.net]

FoxNews is considered by most to be Entertainment.

I don't there are two many people who still take it as a serious news source.

It's like calling the Black Panther's a humanitarian watch group.


What I still don't get is why it's not considered false advertising the way they market. It's clear they make no intention to be "Fair an balanced". Yet they use that trademark excessively. More than I've seen any other network use any trademark (including "This is CNN").

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Who, and in what capacity?

a cousin, and I believe as a news editor (off camera). There was a flap during the election because he was funnelling exit poll data directly to his cousin as well as the one in charge of telling the anchors to call the election for Bush a little too early in the election....if I recall correctly.

[Jacket]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
failing at accurate reporting, succeeding at right-wing propaganda and misinformation.

And when Fox reports that the sky is blue they are lying, and when CNN reports that the moon is made of cheese they're telling it straight.

Aren't I right?

[NYCFarmboy]

Fox News is very fair and balanced. (to coin a phrase)



Seriously just because a news organization isn't blatently left wing like most, doesn't mean its necessarily right wing.

I think Fox is somewhere in the middle which is why I like it.

The only people upset with Fox are those on the ultra Left who are used to news organizations that put a left wing slant on every issue.

I wouldn't be upset about Fox.. for those on the hard left, you still have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN etc.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Jacket:
And when Fox reports that the sky is blue they are lying, and when CNN reports that the moon is made of cheese they're telling it straight.

Aren't I right?

Next time, please read the initial post.

Because that's kind of defined what this thread is about, mmmkay?

There's numbers in there, I know. Try anyway.

-s*

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Fox News is very fair and balanced. (to coin a phrase)



Seriously just because a news organization isn't blatently left wing like most, doesn't mean its necessarily right wing.

I think Fox is somewhere in the middle which is why I like it.

The only people upset with Fox are those on the ultra Left who are used to news organizations that put a left wing slant on every issue.

I wouldn't be upset about Fox.. for those on the hard left, you still have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN etc.

Lerk's law in action....


But the point of the thread is that your "middle" leaning news program is inaccurate more often that those bastions of liberalism. Which makes you wonder...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Jacket:
And when Fox reports that the sky is blue they are lying, and when CNN reports that the moon is made of cheese they're telling it straight.

Aren't I right?

LOL! actually, yes, you're right.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
Lerk's law in action....


But the point of the thread is that your "middle" leaning news program is inaccurate more often that those bastions of liberalism. Which makes you wonder...

funny, I was just getting ready to cite Lerk's Law, but you beat me to it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Fox News is very fair and balanced. (to coin a phrase)



Seriously just because a news organization isn't blatently left wing like most, doesn't mean its necessarily right wing.

I think Fox is somewhere in the middle which is why I like it.

The only people upset with Fox are those on the ultra Left who are used to news organizations that put a left wing slant on every issue.

Did you read the posted article?

-s*

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Did you read the posted article?

-s*

Yes...and those "FACTS" in the article are so slanted and biased the article defeats itself.

I think that is why people actually watch Fox..

because it upsets the left so much that people can watch a news source that is not biased to be left wing like almost every other news source.

[theolein]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Yes...and those "FACTS" in the article are so slanted and biased the article defeats itself.

I think that is why people actually watch Fox..

because it upsets the left so much that people can watch a news source that is not biased to be left wing like almost every other news source.

Foxnews=The ministry of truth.

But don't worry if you don't get it. It involves having to know how to read.

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Yes...and those "FACTS" in the article are so slanted and biased the article defeats itself.

I think that is why people actually watch Fox..

because it upsets the left so much that people can watch a news source that is not biased to be left wing like almost every other news source.

Are you basing this on the fact that it was a Washington Post story or because you know something about the groups that conducted the surveys and analyzed the data? (Serious question...many don't trust the Washington Post)

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by theolein:


Foxnews=The ministry of truth.

But don't worry if you don't get it. It involves having to know how to read.

Why does the left always resort to such nastyness? I mean does it REALLY bother you that much that there is a news source out there that gives a different point of view from the left?

There are like what 5,000 news networks in the world. One of them, and its viewers, is reserved for such special scorn?

In the United States we have something called the Freedom of the Press. Anyone can who can come up with a dollar can go to a copy shop and xerox off a few copies of their own thoughts for others to read.

Its perfectly legal and one of the foundations of our country.

Al Gore is working on forming a new network which will obviously compete with both CNN and Fox. Maybe it will be left, maybe it will be right... who knows, but he has that absolute right.

Fox News has just as much right to report on news as does Al Gore, or the Washington Post.

Its only revolting to those who want to control everyone elses thoughts.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by boots:
Are you basing this on the fact that it was a Washington Post story or because you know something about the groups that conducted the surveys and analyzed the data? (Serious question...many don't trust the Washington Post)

I'd like to echo these questions to NYCFarmboy.

Or are you, Farmboy, saying that the article is slanted because there IS a proven connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, you actually HAVE found WMD in Iraq, and/or the majority of people outside of the USA were actually in favor of the war?

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Why does the left always resort to such nastyness? I mean does it REALLY bother you that much that there is a news source out there that gives a different point of view from the left?

No.

What REALLY bothers me is that there is a "news" source that apparently encourages EIGHTY PERCENT of its viewers to believe TOTAL LIES AND FALSEHOODS that supposedly justify a bloody war resulting in thousands of deaths and turning terrorism in to a grassroots movement, which is the opposite of what SHOULD be happening.

You really don't see a problem with that?

-s*

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'd like to echo these questions to NYCFarmboy.

Or are you, Farmboy, saying that the article is slanted because there IS a proven connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, you actually HAVE found WMD in Iraq, and/or the majority of people outside of the USA were actually in favor of the war?

-s*

Those points are subjective words being used to attack a competitor in the field of journalism. I think the source of that article is highly subjective/biased however it certainly is their right to print it and I think thats just fine.

The Washington Post has a huge vested interest in attacking any competitor.

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Why does the left always resort to such nastyness? I mean does it REALLY bother you that much that there is a news source out there that gives a different point of view from the left?

No, it doesn't bother me that people can get information from several sources. Ideally, they should be independent sources. The problem you overlook with your rant is that some of us don't watch Fox because it is full of inaccuracies. You, as a citizen, have a civic responsibility to be informed. Why would you watch something that is shown to be inaccurate? That's the issue, not which is liberal and which is conservative (or which is left and which is right). So far, you've dodged the only real question raised here.

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Those points are subjective words being used to attack a competitor in the field of journalism. I think the source of that article is highly subjective/biased however it certainly is their right to print it and I think thats just fine.

The Washington Post has a huge vested interest in attacking any competitor.

This wasn't a Washington Times poll. WT is just reporting it. Check out BlackGriffen's "Interesting Graph" thread. Other papers have reported this too. That's why I asked if you didn't believe this because it was a WT article or because you knew something about the groups that generated the data.

You seem to be dismissing it because of the Washington Times, not because of the data presented.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by boots:
No, it doesn't bother me that people can get information from several sources. Ideally, they should be independent sources. The problem you overlook with your rant is that some of us don't watch Fox because it is full of inaccuracies. You, as a citizen, have a civic responsibility to be informed. Why would you watch something that is shown to be inaccurate? That's the issue, not which is liberal and which is conservative (or which is left and which is right). So far, you've dodged the only real question raised here.

It is a responsibility to be informed, absolutely. Why is it so bad to have different points of view allowed?

Why is it so troubling to allow the masses to view facts from a different perspective?

This sort of boils down to why there was a reformation. Remember when the Catholic Church was the ONLY allowed/sanctioned religion in Germany? It really upset some people in Germany that Luther was allowed to post his independant views.

Martin Luther came along and pointed out his opinions and was able to achieve something that is wonderful for all human kind. (in my opinion..apoligies to all Catholics...my sister-in-law is Catholic and I think the modern Catholic church is a very good thing).

The Catholic church was upset that Luther was able to give his views which went against the edicts of the Pope.

Fox News is no different, nor is Al-Jazeera..they are both attempting to nail up on the church door thoughts, facts, opinions that are perhaps are different from typical left wing news sources which dominate world coverage.

It may be upsetting to many on the left, but I think the right of all of the organizations to print or say what they want is an important thing.

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
It is a responsibility to be informed, absolutely. Why is it so bad to have different points of view allowed?

Why is it so troubling to allow the masses to view facts from a different perspective?

What if that perspective is just plain wrong? I'm not talking about putting facts into a different context. I'm all about that. I think that's very important. I'm talking about putting false facts into perspective. Just because you like the result doesn't mean it is true. It isn't about disallowing Fox to have a voice. It's about calling them (or any other source) down when they are wrong.

I make it a practice to get information from at least three sources. Fox is often just plain wrong when compared with other sources. That's in terms of the facts, not the spin.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by boots:
What if that perspective is just plain wrong? I'm not talking about putting facts into a different context. I'm all about that. I think that's very important. I'm talking about putting false facts into perspective. Just because you like the result doesn't mean it is true. It isn't about disallowing Fox to have a voice. It's about calling them (or any other source) down when they are wrong.

I make it a practice to get information from at least three sources. Fox is often just plain wrong when compared with other sources. That's in terms of the facts, not the spin.

Because everyone's own view of a fact is different.

[Timo]

nice catch, face ache. not surprised.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Because everyone's own view of a fact is different.

well....that kinda goes against the concept of "fact".
However, I will agree that different people will arrive at different conclusions from the same set of facts, but in order to be "facts" they must be provable sets of data that are independent of partisanship.

that's what the study was measuring, that certain "facts" are incorrectly understood, and that a much higher percentage of Foxnews viewers incorrectly understand them.
You will note that other sources have similar problems, though not as bad.
Now, that is the "fact".
The conclusion can be more problematic: does this happen because more confused people tune into Fox, or because Fox is better at confusing people? Certainly Fox lags behind in correcting reports they know to be erroneous. Is that intentionally misleading people or just plain lazy reporting? Or some sort of arrogance that prevents them from admitting misreporting information?

There are a variety of conclusions one can draw from this study, but the facts are not malleable.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
It is a responsibility to be informed, absolutely. Why is it so bad to have different points of view allowed?

You're confused.

You keep talking about "facts", and the rest of this post is about opinion and belief.

Sure, anybody has the RIGHT TO BELIEVE that there is a PROVEN link between al Qaeda and Saddam. Anybody has the RIGHT TO BELIEVE that the majority of the world's population was in favor of invading a sovereign nation. Anybody has the RIGHT TO BELIEVE that WMD have been found in Iraq. Anybody has the RIGHT TO BELIEVE that the Earth is a flat circle and you'll fall of the edge on your way to India.

The difference between those beliefs and a religion is that those have all been proven false, so anybody who actually DOES believe them is simply denying reality, or has fallen for lies.

-s*

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well....that kinda goes against the concept of "fact".
However, I will agree that different people will arrive at different conclusions from the same set of facts, but in order to be "facts" they must be provable sets of data that are independent of partisanship.

that's what the study was measuring, that certain "facts" are incorrectly understood, and that a much higher percentage of Foxnews viewers incorrectly understand them.
You will note that other sources have similar problems, though not as bad.
Now, that is the "fact".
The conclusion can be more problematic: does this happen because more confused people tune into Fox, or because Fox is better at confusing people? Certainly Fox lags behind in correcting reports they know to be erroneous. Is that intentionally misleading people or just plain lazy reporting? Or some sort of arrogance that prevents them from admitting misreporting information?

There are a variety of conclusions one can draw from this study, but the facts are not malleable.

All facts are malleable. This "study" comes from a very suspect source in my opinion. Thus the "facts" as stated in it are not "facts" in my opinion... just biased conclusions based partially on how biased questions where asked etc. But that is beside the point.

It is a wonderful thing that it was published as that is what makes a free press...a free press.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
All facts are malleable.

Well, if you believe that, therein lies the problem and goes a long way toward explaining the results of the study.

[boots]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
All facts are malleable. This "study" comes from a very suspect source in my opinion. Thus the "facts" as stated in it are not "facts" in my opinion... just biased conclusions based partially on how biased questions where asked etc. But that is beside the point.

It is a wonderful thing that it was published as that is what makes a free press...a free press.

No. A fact is a piece of information that is verifiably true of false. This is not malleable.

I will agree that polls must be taken with a grain of salt...and conclusions based upon polls even more so. That's just prudence. If this is the basis of your complaint, then call it that. It is neither left nor right, it is a weakness in method. As per my questions to you, this is exactly the point.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Jacket:
And when Fox reports that the sky is blue they are lying, and when CNN reports that the moon is made of cheese they're telling it straight.

Aren't I right?

That's how it works.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Those points are subjective words being used to attack a competitor in the field of journalism. I think the source of that article is highly subjective/biased however it certainly is their right to print it and I think thats just fine.

The Washington Post has a huge vested interest in attacking any competitor.

If you want to wear blinders, that's your business, but at least take them out from in front of your eyes.

As has been said before, facts are facts. They are not malleable, they are not subjective. The sun has risen every day I've been alive: fact. There are no ambiguities about facts, no subjectiveness, no questions. How to interpret facts, and thus both conclusions and analyses, is subjective.

The problem with Fox News is that they don't even come close to following their original ad campaign of, "We report, you decide." Fox news spends less time reporting factual news, and more time presenting analysis dressed up as news than the other stations.

Fox isn't the source of all things false, but it certainly appears to be an underperformer at informing its audience.

BlackGriffen

[petehammer]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

If you want to wear blinders, that's your business, but at least take them out from in front of your eyes.

As has been said before, facts are facts. They are not malleable, they are not subjective. The sun has risen every day I've been alive: fact. There are no ambiguities about facts, no subjectiveness, no questions. How to interpret facts, and thus both conclusions and analyses, is subjective.

The problem with Fox News is that they don't even come close to following their original ad campaign of, "We report, you decide." Fox news spends less time reporting factual news, and more time presenting analysis dressed up as news than the other stations.

Fox isn't the source of all things false, but it certainly appears to be an underperformer at informing its audience.

BlackGriffen

Very nice post. Pretty much sums it up!

[thunderous_funker]

The Topic for those who missed it:

Thorough study using all the accepted scienfific methods regarding polling and opinion measuring finds that people who watch Fox News have the facts WRONG more than people who get their news from any other news source. Followed closely by CBS.

We're not talking about editorializing. We're not talking about opinion.

We're talking about essential facts regarding very recent history being completely wrong.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No.

What REALLY bothers me is that there is a "news" source that apparently encourages EIGHTY PERCENT of its viewers to believe TOTAL LIES AND FALSEHOODS that supposedly justify a bloody war resulting in thousands of deaths and turning terrorism in to a grassroots movement, which is the opposite of what SHOULD be happening.

You really don't see a problem with that?

As much as I see problems with CBS encouraging 70% of its viewers to believe lies and falsehoods, as much as ABC, CNN, NBC encouraging over 55% of their viewers to believe lies, and NPR for encouraging one out of every 4 listeners to believe lies.

The Saddam-Al Qaeda questions should not have been included. Take that line away, and send me the re-tallied analysis.

Besides, this topic was already discussed last week.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

The Saddam-Al Qaeda questions should not have been included. Take that line away, and send me the re-tallied analysis.

Why should they not have been included? So Fox people don't look as moronic?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Why should they not have been included? So Fox people don't look as moronic?

how is that possible? the last part, I mean.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Why should they not have been included? So Fox people don't look as moronic?

Read the survey results (including questions, and PIPA's judging of answers against their premise that NO al-Qaeda-Iraq connections existed.

Ansar al-Islam--the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, notably attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam--has stepped up its activities elsewhere in the country. In some cases, say national security officials, Ansar is joining with remnants of Saddam's regime to attack Americans and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq. There is some reporting, unconfirmed at this point, that the recent bombing of the U.N. headquarters was the result of a joint operation between Baathists and Ansar al-Islam.

And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.

For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later.

Earlier that year, at another point of increased tension between the United States and Iraq, Hussein sought to step up contacts with al Qaeda. On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

I emailed Potter, a Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Toronto Star, about his findings last month. He was circumspect about the meaning of the document. "So did we find the tip of the iceberg, or the whole iceberg? Did bin Laden and Saddam agree to disagree and that was the end of it? I still don't know." Still, he wrote, "I have no doubt that what we found is the real thing. We plucked it out of a building that had been J-DAMed and was three-quarters gone. Beyond the pale to think that the CIA or someone else planted false evidence in such a dangerous location, where only lunatics would bother to tread. And then to cover over the incriminating name Osama bin Laden with Liquid Paper, so that only the most stubborn and dogged of translators would fluke into spotting it?"

Four days after that memo was written, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a famous fatwa about the plight of Iraq.

ACCORDING TO U.S. officials, soldiers in Iraq have discovered additional documentary evidence like the memo Potter found. This despite the fact that there is no team on the ground assigned to track down these contacts--no equivalent to the Iraq Survey Group looking for evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Interviews with detained senior Iraqi intelligence officials are rounding out the picture.

I'm not claiming that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, but when those surveyed are judged as having a misperception when selecting the choice labeled as "A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials", I take issue.

[theolein]

Newsflash: Foxnews just reported that a UFO landed on the Whitehouse lawn and that it's occupants got out to congratulate GW on doing such a good job.

Would you believe such a thing without questioning? No, well why do you believe it when they do the same thing with just about everything else they report?

It's simple, you don't even have to speak one of those nasty foreign languages. You just go to your internet browser and look up the same news item in a few other news sources to see if the majority is reporting the same thing. It has nothing to do with our/my/the radical marxist left's campaign to rob you of your well earned sleep.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Is Fox News failing or succeeding?

Sorry to quote myself, but the question is: Is Fox News failing or succeeding?

Is it their intent to report the news or to sway their audience and affect politics? And if it's the latter, to what end? This has gone beyond subtle nuance - we're talking outright misinformation here.

When Fox news becomes the unofficial mouthpiece of a right-wing government, is loose with the truth, and then we start talking about relaxing cross-media ownership laws to pander to Rupert Murdoch, well then democracy is in real trouble IMHO.

We are so close to Big Brother now. As theolein half-joked:

Foxnews = The ministry of truth.

And IMHO they are succeeding. Just look at this thread.

There are well documented techniques for breaking people down and getting them to talk/believe/act any way you want. Step one is to befuddle the subject until they don't know what to believe anymore. Then you rebuild them any way you want. I expect that of the CIA but watching Fox news do it to a mass audience is just scary.

And for the record, where I live if you want cable you have exactly ONE provider: Fox.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's simple, you don't even have to speak one of those nasty foreign languages. You just go to your internet browser and look up the same news item in a few other news sources to see if the majority is reporting the same thing. It has nothing to do with our/my/the radical marxist left's campaign to rob you of your well earned sleep.

Heh. You mean like people did with the �US destroys crops as punishment� story the other day?

This stuff cracks me up.

Want to see the numbers skew off the charts in the opposite direction, making Fox News viewers look like geniuses, and more �liberal� audiences look like complete dunderheads? Do a survey and ask such choice questions as:

�Do you believe 5,000 Israeli WTC workers stayed home from work on 9/11 because they knew something was up in advance?�

�Do you believe it wasn�t a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?�

�Do you believe that Bush/Israel was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks?�

�Do you believe that Airforce 1 crisscrossed the country on the morning of 9/11 because Bush was stupid and literally got lost?�

�Do you believe that Al Gore won the presidency?�

�Do you believe people have less freedom in the United States than people in Iran?�

I could probably come up with a few dozen more dippy conspiracy theories we�ve all been treated to over the past few years.

A survey like this is totally dependent on what questions you ask. Each political side has its �myths�, and a few outright off-the-charts conspiracy theories. Ask questions based on the myths of whichever side you wish to portray as �uninformed� and you can skew results either way.

Then you can blame the results on whichever news source the pollees were more likely to watch. Does anyone really believe that the above questions would be more likely answered in the affirmative by Fox News viewers over, say NPR listeners? Personally I think placing the blame solely on the news outlets is a bit of a stretch - it�s more likely the result of pre-disposed bias of the political sides, projected onto what programming they tend to watch.

[theolein]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh. You mean like people did with the �US destroys crops as punishment� story the other day?

This stuff cracks me up.

Want to see the numbers skew off the charts in the opposite direction, making Fox News viewers look like geniuses, and more �liberal� audiences look like complete dunderheads? Do a survey and ask such choice questions as:

�Do you believe 5,000 Israelis stayed home from work on 9/11 because they knew something was up in advance?�

�Do you believe it wasn�t a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?�

�Do you believe that Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks?�

�Do you believe that Airforce 1 crisscrossed the country on the morning of 9/11 because Bush was stupid and literally got lost?�

�Do you believe that Al Gore won the presidency?�

�Do you believe people have less freedom in the United States than people in Iran?�

I could probably come up with a few dozen more dippy conspiracy theories we�ve all been treated to over the past few years.

A survey like this is totally dependent on what questions you ask. Each political side has its �myths�, and a few outright off-the-charts conspiracy theories. Ask questions based on the myths of whichever side you wish to portray as �uninformed� and you can skew results either way.

Then you can blame the results on whichever news source the pollees were more likely to watch. Does anyone really believe that the above questions would be more likely answered in the affirmative by Fox News viewers over, say NPR listeners? Personally I think placing the blame solely on the news outlets is a bit of a stretch - it�s more likely the result of pre-disposed bias of the political sides, meshed with what programming they tend to watch.

You're right. Except for the numbers. I sincerely doubt that a number as large as 11% of the population of the US (the reported number that believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11) believed in any of these stories, with the exception of the Al Gore one (which was damn stupid of you to include with the others because it makes you look like yet another conservative who likes putting anyone who doesn't agree with his ideas into the same pot). I for one don't think Al Gore won the election. It was close, and there were irregularities in some areas, but I doubt that he won it with the electoral college system in use in the United States.

As for the other crack headed theories, you don't have to go far to find believers. Just do a majority research in most Moslem countries and you'll find a good number that believe all those things.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by theolein:
You're right. Except for the numbers.

According to who? There are no numbers for my poll to say one way or the other.

...with the exception of the Al Gore one (which was damn stupid of you to include with the others because it makes you look like yet another conservative who likes putting anyone who doesn't agree with his ideas into the same pot). I for one don't think Al Gore won the election. It was close, and there were irregularities in some areas, but I doubt that he won it with the electoral college system in use in the United States.

So then you'd answer the question correctly.

Also, as I recall, you're not a citizen of the US. Where did you get the idea the question would be aimed at you? And why would you be so offended by its inclusion anyway? It's a perfectly fair question.

[theolein]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
According to who? There are no numbers for my poll to say one way or the other.




So then you'd answer the question correctly.

Also, as I recall, you're not a citizen of the US. Where did you get the idea the question would be aimed at you? And why would you be so offended by its inclusion anyway? It's a perfectly fair question.

Well now, where should I start? Firstly, I should apologise, because you're right about the number when I come to think of it. I don't think that any but a tiny fraction of the western world believe any of the looney theories on the 9/11 desaster, BUT, if one goes further to the Moslem world, there are a fair amount who believe this drivel, right up there with the Jews owning the planet. So, apologies there.

Secondly, I don't give a rats stinking testicle whether or not I'm a hallowed US citizen or not. Strange as it may be, being a US citizen is not some magical thing that suddenly gives one the right to say one's piece on any given subject. It's true, this particular phenomonen exists elsewhere, like right where I'm sitting for example.

You know damn well that the Al Gore question was the little "I'm conservative and voting for anyone else is a sin" POS question, aimed as a side swipe at people who actually liked the man. You know how close the election was. You know that there were irregularities in some areas. You know that eventually the SC stopped it all and GW won. So what? He won it, fine, no problem. But it's perfectly natural that there's going to be people who're angry because it was so close and who will continue to not accept it.

There's a big difference between that and some paranoid myth about the 9/11 attacks being carried out by the CIA/KGB/SPCA/Men In Black/Little Green Men For Mars.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by theolein:
Secondly, I don't give a rats stinking testicle whether or not I'm a hallowed US citizen or not. Strange as it may be, being a US citizen is not some magical thing that suddenly gives one the right to say one's piece on any given subject.

Wow. Touchy, touchy there theo!

Relax man. Take deep breaths. The reason US citizenship is a factor here, is obvious. And no�� it has nothing to do with our/my/the radical right's campaign to rob you of your well earned sleep.�

This whole story, is ABOUT the US media, and what AMERICANS believe, or don't believe based on what news media they watch. Did you perhaps miss that?

Heck, if we're going to open this up to polling the whole world, and nutty things that people believe worldwide, you're right- one could tip the charts of 'absolute lunacy' all kinds of ways across all kinds of cultures.

It's true, this particular phenomonen exists elsewhere, like right where I'm sitting for example.

Right. But as stated, this whole topic deals with "...your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't..." Perhaps you could use a glance at the original article again?

You know damn well that the Al Gore question was the little "I'm conservative... rant rant rant...

Heh heh! Sorry, had to crack up at all that! Come on theo, you're usually way more coherent than this.

Asking a simple question OF AMERICANS about "Who was elected president?" is now some right-wing conspiracy?!

That's freakin' hilarious!

[Lerkfish]

Crash, you make some valid points there, but ultimately this is a sidestep of the core issue.

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Crash, you make some valid points there, but ultimately this is a sidestep of the core issue.

I'm not sure he really sidestepped it, but put his finger on one of the fundamental flaws inherent in polls. Spacefreak does the same thing.

Polls only reflect the sample. One must really be careful how the sample was selected, what questions were asked, and how many of those polled replied. There are a million ways to lie with statistics.

I asked NYCFarmboy why he didn't agree with the conclusions, and he did eventually answer that he thinks the people who conducted the research were biased. That is a very valid criticism.

Spacefreak took issue with the form of one of the questions (or rather, the lack of specificity) and the rather lose interpretation of the answer. That is a valid criticism.

CRASH raises the issue of "the Texas sharp shooter." If a person shoots randomly at the side of a barn, then circles the tightest grouping, it could easily look like he is a crack shot...even though it was a random grouping. The question that needs answering, and can't be answered form the info I've seen, is "Do the people with misinformation get that information from FOX, or do the people with more misconceptions (in this survey, not in general) watch FOX for whatever reason. There is no causal link demonstrated. Just a correlation. This is a very valid criticism.


That being said, I still do not like FOX news. It is conservatively spun, and I don't like the personalities. I don't like CNN either. I get snippets from the CNN web page (no personality, and the snippets are easier to disconnect from the spin), but I usually get more in depth from NPR and form various newspapers. No one news source for me (so I would be cut from a survey like we're discussing here).

[nvaughan3]

So taking spacefreak's post into account, it's actually possible this leftist poll has exposed that fox viewers are more intelligent. I'm glad I watch fox news.

[boots]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
So taking spacefreak's post into account, it's actually possible this leftist poll has exposed that fox viewers are more intelligent. I'm glad I watch fox news.

Or simply that it was a stupid question all the way around....

[moki]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
From the Washington Post.


So there's a very good question: Is Fox News failing or succeeding?

Well, the real story here is the old adage about lies, damn lies, and statistics. What the results of a poll really mean is far more nebulous than the actual data. If more people who watch Fox News (which is primarily a news *commentary* station, not a news station) get facts about the war in Iraq wrong, does that mean therefore (as is implied in this article) that Fox News lies to the public?

Or does it mean that the demographic of people who watch Fox News are more inclined to hold certain preconceptions? Frankly, the most frightening thing to me is that people who watch a straight news program as opposed to the news commentary on Fox, are almost as likely to be as misguided.

The reality is that the majority of people in *any* country really have no clue what is going on in the political arena, or the world in general. Need I point out that the majority of people in Egypt, for instance, still believe the CIA was behind 9/11 (followed by a close second of the Jewish Mossad... OBL is down at 7%)