quote: The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.
I don't normally bust out with an Ornery type post, but what the heck. Here's a little mud slinging for ya.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A quick search on the guy's background shows he's a pretty neutral guy, although he does do a lot of NPR interviews.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, good grief. That's not the way the game is played. You have to disparage the source as biased, sniff at the source, ask if they asked x, y, z, etc.
Edit: wrote that before seeing Pat's post. Was not a sarcastic jab at Pat.
posted
I fully expected the guy to be a liberal hack, but he's not. He has some studies supporting a lot of Conservative viewpoints.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions about the stuff that NPR and PBS preach. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions about the stuff that NPR and PBS preach. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.
On the other hand, people who get thier news from NPR and PBS also had misperceptions about certain other things--they believe no one else has any friends, either, and that Garrison Keillor is wild good fun.
posted
The really frightening thing is that the book title Blinded By The Right doesn't seem to be that far off the mark.
quote:Average frequency of key misperceptions among those who plan to vote for:
President George Bush 45% Democratic nominee 17%
Looking at just the Republicans, the average rate for the three key misperceptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however the rate was 54% while Republicans who get their news from PBS-NPR the average rate is 32%. This same pattern obtains from with Democrats and independents.
(Though, it should be noted that while the pattern is intact with Democrats and independents, the percentages are lower. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does the title mean? FOX viewers are losers? FOX viewers lose? (Surely, they are too uptight to be loose. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, it's just my way of poking fun at the subject and myself--'dumb' grammar', dumb poster, dumb subject, see?-- so that the conservatives on the site will understand that I don't take the study as a definitive potrayal of them by any stretch of the imagination. As doc mentioned, I'm sure there is lots of stuff liberals are not really seeing truthfully--assuming that the things the study present as the right viewpoints are really the correct viewpoints.
posted
That would have been me. I e-mailed the the things that come up the most often here at Hatrack. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, they gave the answer in the analysis.
quote:From January through September 2003, PIPA/Knowledge Networks conducted seven different polls that dealt with the conflict with Iraq. Among other things, PIPA/KN probed respondents for key perceptions and beliefs as well as for their attitudes on what US policy should be. In the course of doing this, it was discovered that a substantial portion of the public had a number of misconceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominate view in the intelligence community.
posted
I wonder if the data shifts at all if you add in "misconceptions" whose benefits fall on the other side of the partisan lines. A list of things recently said by Michael Moore would do.
It seems, to my mind, that Fox News has the most of these particular misconceptions because they have a decided conservative slant, and it helps their cause to let those misconceptions linger. It seems reasonable to me that a more liberal news source might engender a whole different set of misconceptions.
I think that once a news source passes tests on BOTH sides of the partisan lines, THEN we can use this kind of data to hold it up as being unusually reliable.
[ October 17, 2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
So, where do most Hatrackers get their news? My primary sources of news are NPR, The BBC News website, and the Weekly World News, or as I like to call it, "The Paper".
For science news my primary source is New Scientist, both in print and online.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, I forgot about Salon.com. I hit it most days. I also usually watch a half hour or so of FOX news when I go to the gym, simply because it's usually either that or sports.
I usually visit Slate.com about once a day too, and occasionally go to www.bangkokpost.com. Their print newspaper is much better than their site though.
quote:Heh, I'd call Slashdot "all over the place" or "inscrutable" before I'd call it neutral
I would agree with this assesment. I placed them in the nuetral catagory because they tend to be balanced out by sheer volume. Plus, I can't detect a bias one way or the other on their forums.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care whether you're lib. or con., donkey or elephant, moderate or radical: FOX news is trash. I don't really hold all that hostile of views toward mainstream media, they more or less report objectively what they think is true and signifigant. But FOX is trash. Don't watch it.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I am am major Fox fan. And I would have to agree with your placing of the slants with the differant news organizations, except MSNBC is very much not neutral. And I think that you should add to your conservatve slanted organizations, The Weekly Standard, and The EIB network.
quote: And I think that you should add to your conservatve slanted organizations,
What I was listing:
quote: Some of my news sources.
I agree that EIB(Rush Limbaugh) and the others you mentioned are conservative, however they are not news sources to me.
As for MSNBC, why do you think they are conservative? They have Scarborough on who is conservative himself, but Chris Matthiews and others seem to balance him out. As for their news reporting, I cannot see a political slant, only the slant of wanting to be sensationalistic about everything.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rob, I don't know that MSNBC is 'conservative'. I do think they make more of an effort to reach out to conservative viewers than CNN. I mean, they had Michael Savage there for a while....
posted
Now that I think of it, they did let Phil Donahue's show go, despite the fact that it was their most popular show. So....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My therapist told me to avoid the news because it was making me anxious and people would tell me if anything really important happened. Now and then I ask Survivor if anything worth knowing about has happened.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka: you really shouldn't get your news from "reality" TV shows about people on a site out in the middle of nowhere. They're all about isolationism, and never include world opinions. Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
