Fox News and the people who watch it.

[spuwho]

Just as an aside, the average fox viewer is a low information end user who has the least accurate view of the world events going on around them, according to study after study.  And since 2004, really, there hasn't been any 'dissent' scientifically.  Just denial.

At the time the AFV were all contending that the economy was just fine, talk about mortgage risk was 'anti patriotic', there was no torture, there was no domestic illegal surveillance,  there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, pelosi was going to get arrested because someone graffiti painted the capitol steps, the gays couldn't be christians, and of course, that climate change was a 'hoax'.

You know, whatever the drivel of the era was.  And they jumped to the attorney's aid in hijacking any thread talking about actually planning for the consequences of climate change.

I certainly don't want to hijack this thread into other worlds, but please provide links to what describes an average Fox News demographic that supports your premise. I will gladly read it.

Also if one took your logic and said all average gays represent a certain demographic I would challenge that as well and would ask the same question of relevance.

Typing one in stereo is a bummer when you find out its yourself that shares the same issue.

[spuwho]

Thank you. I will look up the Fairleigh Dickinson study and read it.

I will post my feedback under seperate cover.

[NotNow]

Amazing.  I was referring to your habit of discounting the opinions of others by lumping them into subjective groups.  A tactic that has been overused since forever yet remains effective and thus popular. 

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/

http://io9.com/the-9-most-influential-works-of-scientific-racism-rank-1575543279

I'm not laughing now. 

I would like to see an argument stand on its merits, rather than the denigration of those with opposing views.

[NotNow]

I am not involved in the "climate change" debate. 

"You yourself were very belligerent (and wrong) on the subject of both weapons of Mass Destruction and Torture during that time.  You called me many names and i made personal attacks against the posters who didn't agree with you (and the other people who were also correct) "


I was not wrong.  I insisted that there was yellow cake uranium in Iraq and there was.  As you know, that is the fact.  I get belligerent when you insult those in the military.  You insulted both my personal friends and military members in general.  You made wrongful accusations of war crimes and many, many other misguided and immoral statements.  I do believe I called you a "coward" or "cowardly".  I stand by my statements on what you called "torture".  You continue to lack perspective and understanding of the procedures and requirements of that time and place as well as the military in general.

So yeah, I am trying to stay away from such exchanges.  The examples that you cite were from what, 2008? 

I read most of the talking points opinions you put here, name calling and all, and I manage to remain quiet most of the time.  I am endeavoring to continue to do so, as your own statements usually say more about you than I ever could.

[Jameson]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/09/study-claims-fox-news-viewers-average-iq-80/

'Study' Claims Fox News Viewers Have Average IQ of 80

This is dated December 4th — last Tuesday — but it's just getting around now.  I'll reproduce the whole news release on the next page, but here's the basic story.

The results of a 4 year study show that Americans who obtain their news from Fox News channel have an average IQ of 80, which represents a 20 point deficit when compared to the U.S. national average of 100. IQ, or intelligence quotient, is the international standard of assessing intelligence.

Researchers at The Intelligence Institute, a conservative non-profit group, tested 5,000 people using a series of tests that measure everything from cognitive aptitude to common sense and found that people who identified themselves as Fox News viewers and 'conservative' had, on average, significantly lower intelligent quotients. Fox Viewers represented 2,650 members of the test group.

The press release has a name — "P. Nichols" — and a phone number attached, so I called. I got a call back from a 202 area code. Okay, Washington, D.C. Not clear why the press release is datelined "Birmingham Alabama" but okay. Oddly, the phone number turns out to be a free Google Voice number.

The caller identified himself as P. Nichols but didn't give a full first name. He was happy to be interviewed about the study, however. I'd identified myself as the Science Editor at PJ Media; my first question was where I could find a copy of the study.

He laughed a little and said "it's a real study, done with standard polling techniques, but the study was funded by a Republican PAC, and I'm tied up in so many contracts and things that I can't possibly show you the actual study."

He went on to describe the methodology. "This Republican group had a particular result in mind, and we helped them find it. The way they put it was that they needed to separate the 'TEA Party' types from the Republican Party. 'If your hand has cancer, you want to cut off the hand before it kills you,' was their explanation of the motivation."

The study, he said, was a four-year study with more than 5000 subjects. "We didn't look at areas with educated populations, or in cities. In fact, we had trouble finding people in those categories who watched Fox News. Instead, we looked for uneducated, rural people — the people who actually believe that women's bodies will prevent conception by rape. Those sorts of people."

Interestingly, he also said the motivation for the study was the election results this year. Hmm.

Now, I'd Googled for the "Intelligence Institute" — all I found was a guy in Sydney, Australia, who does business intelligence consulting (and whose email I suspect will be a real horror by tomorrow). So I asked about that. "Oh, that's a pseudonym," Nichols said. "The people who funded this study wanted these results to come out, and the news release organization wouldn't accept this unless we gave an organization name."

The description of the population they selected struck me odd: rural, un-educated — wouldn't that be selecting for people with lower IQ? He disagreed, but said, "The sample was selected with a goal in mind."

I finished the interview by asking some summary questions. Were the results going to be published? "No, can't publish the results, I wouldn't risk the funding groups' lawyers." And the funding source was confidential? "Yes, I can't identify the source of the funding."

I pointed out that this added up to a not very convincing story — the population selection was, by his own admission, made with a predetermined outcome in mind, and he couldn't identify the source, or the source of funding, and they were releasing it using an admittedly made-up institution as the supposed source. He agreed. He said, "The funding source wants these results out. They'd rather have people not believe it's real than be identified."

So there you have it. A four-year study sparked by the outcome of the recent election, from an institution that's admittedly a fake, from a company that won't identify itself, supposedly funded by a Republican PAC trying to "cut off" the Tea Party like a cancer, using a sample that was chosen with a particular result in mind, with a contact number that's an anonymous free Google Voice number.

By the way, the link for "further information on this study" actually points to a Huffington Post story about last years' Fairleigh Dickinson University study.  You might recall that study was widely criticized for confusing "well-informed" with "agrees with the legacy media."  It would be interesting to call them and see what they have to say. I think it's fair to say I'm skeptical. The whole news release follows on the next page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html

[coredumped]

Just a quick note, in the 1st chart there, MSNBC and CNN scored the same which is what I've been saying for months on this forum. Fox is as far right as CNN is left, and MSNBC can't really be taken seriously as a news source.

[NotNow]

I am not involved in the "climate change" debate. 

"You yourself were very belligerent (and wrong) on the subject of both weapons of Mass Destruction and Torture during that time.  You called me many names and i made personal attacks against the posters who didn't agree with you (and the other people who were also correct) "


I was not wrong.  I insisted that there was yellow cake uranium in Iraq and there was.  As you know, that is the fact.  I get belligerent when you insult those in the military.  You insulted both my personal friends and military members in general.  You made wrongful accusations of war crimes and many, many other misguided and immoral statements.  I do believe I called you a "coward" or "cowardly".  I stand by my statements on what you called "torture".  You continue to lack perspective and understanding of the procedures and requirements of that time and place as well as the military in general.

So yeah, I am trying to stay away from such exchanges.  The examples that you cite were from what, 2008? 

I read most of the talking points opinions you put here, name calling and all, and I manage to remain quiet most of the time.  I am endeavoring to continue to do so, as your own statements usually say more about you than I ever could.

do I really need to dig up your old posts?  Because this is about you again isn't it?

Anyways, thanks for engaging in the same kind of behavior that riverside gator used to prevent people from discussing climate change.  Apparently nothing ever teaches you any better.

Attack others.  It is what you do.  When your arguments hold no water.

[jaxnative]

The study, he said, was a four-year study with more than 5000 subjects. "We didn't look at areas with educated populations, or in cities. In fact, we had trouble finding people in those categories who watched Fox News. Instead, we looked for uneducated, rural people — the people who actually believe that women's bodies will prevent conception by rape. Those sorts of people."

Kind of like the same MO of the hacks who seek out the fringe groups or individuals at Tea Party events and then post them trying to insinuate equivalence with the whole movement.  I guess a lot of low IQer's don't pick that up.

[finehoe]

This incident demonstrates how FOX is simply the propaganda arm of the Republican Party:

Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that "the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew." In tracking how and when the bill purportedly "grew," Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods. However, all of the sources and cost figures Scott cited, as well as the accompanying on-screen text, were also contained in a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center. One on-screen graphic during the segment even repeated a typo from the GOP document, further confirming that Scott was simply reading from a Republican press release.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/02/10/fox-passes-off-gop-press-release-as-its-own-res/147384

[spuwho]

Press release "news" is wrong on any network, Fox or otherwise.

Many trade rags share the same problem where press releases get printed as news.

Lazy journalism is born through lack of competition. News doesn't generate income like a reality show does. Now that news divisions are run by executives from the entertainment side, it's about ratings. Ratings are created by generating conflict or the perception of.

Just like selling "Brady vs. Manning" for the NFL, "Durant vs LeBron" in the NBA, news pushes "Boehner vs Obama".

Top new anchors don't care about what they read on the prompter, they look for career burnishing "exclusives". Many of which have very little new worthiness. Do we really need to know on the news why J Lo can't stay married? Is It news? No. Is It ratings worthy? Yes.

Brian Williams is going to interview Snowden in Russia. Yet NBC News couldn't find its way out of a WH press conference if their life depended on it.

It's easy to pick on one (Fox) but systemically they all have serious issues.

[finehoe]

It's easy to pick on one (Fox) but systemically they all have serious issues.

It's certainly true that the 21st century American "news" media is an embarrassment,  but few stoop to the level of blatant propaganda that FOX does.

[spuwho]

It's easy to pick on one (Fox) but systemically they all have serious issues.

It's certainly true that the 21st century American "news" media is an embarrassment,  but few stoop to the level of blatant propaganda that FOX does.

It was either Media Matters or Media Watch that discovered that the talking points for an NBC profile on presidential candidates was emailed to them from a white house staffer.

The whole Benghazi thing where CBS relied on a non involved political hack.

And yep even Fox get a few in as well.

They ALL stoop in order to scoop. Unfortunately it's not news but something else.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

It's easy to pick on one (Fox) but systemically they all have serious issues.

It's certainly true that the 21st century American "news" media is an embarrassment,  but few stoop to the level of blatant propaganda that FOX does.

I disagree.  One side takes it at face value, while the other rips it apart.  It doesn't matter what it is or where it originated. 

I still don't understand how so many seemingly intelligent people consider either of them a 'news' station.