FoxNews America's most trusted name in news

[Patranus]

And 60 some % of them think Iraq was involved in 9-11. Whats your point?

Link?

 

[shira]

View Post
If i had been an American, i'd try to hide this info as best as i could.

It generally means that people trust opinions more than facts.

I'd see that coming in Yemen or Darfur but in the US? Are people really that fucked up in he US?

Only about half of them.

This thread is /facepalm

Actually, more like 60%. Let's see:

Only 39% of the American public believe in the theory of Evolution:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

But a full 95% of Americans believe either in God or a higher power:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/go...od-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans

So am I surprised that the public puts their faith in Fox news? Yawn.

 

[Patranus]

Actually, more like 60%. Let's see:

Only 39% of the American public believe in the theory of Evolution:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

But a full 95% of Americans believe either in God or a higher power:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/go...od-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans

So am I surprised that the public puts their faith in Fox news? Yawn.

You might want to take another look at that gallup poll.

 

[shira]

You might want to take another look at that gallup poll.

Oh, you mean the part that says "Belief [in Evolution] drops to 24% among frequent church attenders"?

Or was there something else you had in mind?

 

[Mani]

Doesn't surprise me, probably the same 49% who voted for Bush twice.

lol, nice

 

[sportage]

Are people really that fucked up in he US?

Do you really need to ask?

 

[Pens1566]

Link?

Its been posted numerous times here before and I'm not doing your work for you since you're an intellectually dishonest fuck that won't acknowledge it anyway.

 

[HumblePie]

Link?

Well, I'm not sure of the 60% statistic but when you get an almost potential President saying crap like this on shows like O'Reilly, is it any wonder?

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...r-fox-says-iraq-was-behind-911_100303085.html

Then you get idiots like Glenn Beck who says he's now angry at families of victims of 9/11 because all they do is "whine and cry" despite all the country has done for them. Seriously?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Well, I'm not sure of the 60% statistic but when you get an almost potential President saying crap like this on shows like O'Reilly, is it any wonder?

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...r-fox-says-iraq-was-behind-911_100303085.html

Then you get idiots like Glenn Beck who says he's now angry at families of victims of 9/11 because all they do is "whine and cry" despite all the country has done for them. Seriously?

So you lied about the statistic and we're supposed to believe you when you say people like OReilly and Beck are idiots? I guess it doesn't matter if you post lies because the ends of discrediting conservatives justifies the means.

 

[kage69]

Sounds like someone is chaffing at Faux's well-deserved image of blatant contempt for journalism and is trying to salvage things a bit.

Most trusted name in news? Maybe for morons with short-term memories. Faux's unique corporate/political opinion machine nature aside, I fail to see how anyone with a modicum of free thought can equate trust with a business that engages in the kind of news manipulation/omission that Faux does a fairly regular basis.

You can trust them to mislabel scandal-smacked Repubs as Dems maybe.. or to feed the public fake footage of event turnout...or to act as a mouthpiece for political parties...

Trust them to deliver objective, factual, newsworthy content? Not so much.


And a big hearty thank you to werepossum for referring to Glenn Beck as a "thorough journalist," I needed that kind of humor this morning. I hope Stossel doesn't frequent these forums, he may come looking for you after putting him in the same category as that coke-fried drama boy.

 

[Red Dawn]

So you lied about the statistic and we're supposed to believe you when you say people like OReilly and Beck are idiots? I guess it doesn't matter if you post lies because the ends of discrediting conservatives justifies the means.

What he should have said is that people who trust O'Rielly and Beck are idiots.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Step back, Jack ....

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

Eighty percent (80%) of Fox Viewers had at least one of three misconceptions regarding Iraq as compared with seventy-seven percent (77%) of PBS/NPR followers who had none of the misconceptions.

The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news .... Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.

Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions."

From the report:

Looking just at Republicans, the average rate for the three key misperceptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however the average rate was 54% while for Republicans who get their news from PBS-NPR the average rate is 32% ....

Among those with a bachelor’s degree or more, the average rate of misperceptions was 27%. However among those who get their news from print media the average rate was 20%, while among those who get their news from PBS-NPR the average rate was 10%.

What is realllly interesting in the report (IIRC) is when they cross-tab Con-Dim Fox viewers the level of misperceptions was essentially the same --- pretty much confirming Fox bias!!!



I'd say that qualifies as a spanking.





--

 

[Fear No Evil]

What he should have said is that people who trust O'Rielly and Beck are idiots.

So who do YOU trust? Let me guess, nobody.. They all suck right?

 

[Red Dawn]

So who do YOU trust? Let me guess, nobody.. They all suck right?

Well most News Commentators do suck, whether it be Beck, Insanity and ORielly from FOX or Oblabberman and Maddow from MSNBC . I even think Rick Sanchez from CNN is crappy as he has an agenda like the rest of the assholes I mentioned and that agenda is not being objective.

So you're right, I don't trust them and those that do are fools IMO.

 

[Mani]

So who do YOU trust? Let me guess, nobody.. They all suck right?

The problem is that you think news personalities are to be trusted in the first place. Every one of them has a bias. Seeing them for what they are, getting your info from multiple sources and applying a BS detector is the way to go. The problem is that people - conservatives especially it seems - put all their faith in one or two individuals who tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The problem is that you think news personalities are to be trusted in the first place. Every one of them has a bias. Seeing them for what they are, getting your info from multiple sources and applying a BS detector is the way to go. The problem is that people - conservatives especially it seems - put all their faith in one or two individuals who tell them what they want to hear.

The problem is that people, liberals especially it seems, are just too dumb to understand the news so they have to listen to it 10 times with 10 different people and they still don't get it. So they just vote whomever speaks well and they ignore the issues.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Well most News Commentators do suck, whether it be Beck, Insanity and ORielly from FOX or Oblabberman and Maddow from MSNBC . I even think Rick Sanchez from CNN is crappy as he has an agenda like the rest of the assholes I mentioned and that agenda is not being objective.

So you're right, I don't trust them and those that do are fools IMO.

You didn't answer my question. Who do YOU trust for your news?

 

[soccerballtux]

This may make some heads explode. A Public Policy Polling poll of 1,151 voters finds Fox News is the most trusted (49%) and least distrusted (37%) television news channel. CNN scored second a full ten points behind, while ABC fared worst with only 31% trusting them and 46% not trusting them. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

Dean Debnam, president of the Democrat PPP polling institute, added his own spin, saying "A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news. But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.” Hey, sometimes you do a poll and the results embarrass you, pal.

CNN didn't even report on the Climate Research Unit hacking, proof that global warming is a scam and religious cult.

Yeah, I can't imagine why people trust Fox more.

 

[Red Dawn]

You didn't answer my question. Who do YOU trust for your news?

The main Online News sites like CNN, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press.

 

[kage69]

Every one of them has a bias.

I'd say the major problem here is that people just want to explain Faux away as having the same kind of bias any other outlet has. It's a cop out.

And it's entirely false. CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc may all share a certain level of bias, but Faux is a fundamentally different critter in how it operates and thus, not the same at all.
While other outlets obviously operate with a corporatist agenda, they at least make an attempt at journalism. Politics are more important to Faux than money or journalistic principles, and they have shown this time and time again in spades.

 

[Red Dawn]

CNN didn't even report on the Climate Research Unit hacking, proof that global warming is a scam and religious cult.

Yeah, I can't imagine why people trust Fox more.

That's funny, I read about it on CNN's News site.

 

[kage69]

CNN didn't even report on the Climate Research Unit hacking, proof that global warming is a scam and religious cult.

Yeah, I can't imagine why people trust Fox more.

Hint: your own convictions do not factual news make.

But grats, you're living proof that people turn to sources which confirm their own preconceived notions.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The main Online News sites like CNN, BBC, Reuters, Associated Press.

I just clicked on 10 links off the Fox News main page. 7 of them were AP stories. Does Fox change key words in the articles? Add 0's to numbers and such?

Your response was very predictable.. although I am surprised you did throw CNN in there.. maybe to make it seem more believable. I seriously doubt you are reading the BBC pages very often.. but it certainly makes you sound more informed than the rest of us.

 

[Fear No Evil]

That's funny, I read about it on CNN's News site.

The problem was it happened 3 months ago and you just read about it today.. :sneaky:

 

[PJABBER]

I'd say the major problem here is that people just want to explain Faux away as having the same kind of bias any other outlet has. It's a cop out.

And it's entirely false. CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc may all share a certain level of bias, but Faux is a fundamentally different critter in how it operates and thus, not the same at all.
While other outlets obviously operate with a corporatist agenda, they at least make an attempt at journalism. Politics are more important to Faux than money or journalistic principles, and they have shown this time and time again in spades.

I believe the real differences lie in the amount of bias that permeates not only the opinion shows (MSNBC - Olbermann, Maddow; Fox - Hannity, Beck) but what each channel puts out as straight news.

Even though I find cable and broadcast news too light in content, I channel surf because I like to hear many sides before coming to my own opinion.

I have been impressed lately by CNN's effort to be a straight news reporter - they have to do something as their ratings have tanked so badly.

Fox News generally is pretty straight on the news stories. They do report what is happening and leave the opinion for the evening opinion shows. Same with Fox Financial News. You might be a Marxist and say that news about finance is going to be inherently biased toward capitalism because they don't criticize the economic system, just parts of it, but everyone else just sees it as pretty staid.

By far the most egregious abuse of the public trust is the highly left biased MSNBC. They don't even try to hide it. Every single anchor, every single reporter, every single attempt to report a story is spun left.

The vitriol of MSNBC is starting to get on the nerves of even those MSNBC managers and editors who agree with the "progressive" agenda. Even a traditional Democrat like Chris Matthews is embarrassed by much of what is said there.

Olbermann's rants and name calling, David Shuster's fake "reporting," Maddows's smarminess, all are starting to grate, especially recently with the mounting electoral losses and the over reactions being expressed by these on-air personalities.

Attack journalism? David Shuster just received a reprimand from his bosses at MSNBC for personally attacking the O'Keefe character he was supposed to be covering -

MSNBC may be obsessed with the four men arrested for trying to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s telephones, but the network says reporter David Shuster crossed the line when he attacked one of them via Twitter.

Just before leaving for New Orleans to cover the story, Shuster used a Twitter message to tell conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe — one of the four men arrested by the FBI — that he’s “not a journalist,” that he “intended to tap phones” and that he “will go to prison.”

“The comments were inappropriate,” an MSNBC spokesperson told POLITICO Thursday. “We have talked to David about them.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32165.html#ixzz0dwU6Cpo2​

At 3P today Shuster conducted what was one of the worst "interviews" I have ever seen. He basically harangued Andrew Breitbart for the duration, talking over him for almost the entire segment. Shuster could have as easily been a spurned out of wedlock mother on Jerry Springer protesting that the kid is legit. He then had a talking head from Media Matters on and basically let him cut on Breitbart and Fox News without interruption. I found it a completely disgraceful display of bias "journalism." But not atypical for MSNBC.
​

Extremism is repulsive to the ordinary viewer, and bias is only appealing to those who have the same level of marginal interest in getting to the truth. The ratings reflect that.