New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Sunstone]

It's OK - I understand your affection for the study. It dovetails nicely with your personal beliefs.

And I'm sure your distaste for the survey dovetails nicely with your own personal beliefs. Point? If you have one?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't celebrate about that surge Revoltingest, I think he's talking about the teabaggers.

I'll take any chance to celebrate...even a false one.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree to disagree with Revoltingest and Kathryn!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Real facts? Talk about what the unemployment numbers have been doing, or how the consumer price index was effected. Talk about how different schools of economics interpret those figures. Hell, just say 'Chicago school economists think X, Keynesian economists think y, and astrologers think z' Really any discussion that involves something *other* than ad populi and appeal to authority is better than talking about what most economists believe.

Well sure. But to lump "Chicago economists" and Keynesian economists with astrologers is, at best, an oversimplification. Call my original claim an appeal to authority if you wish, but the reality is that I'd rather ask a doctor a health care question than listen to a Fox "news" "expert" rant and lie about it. Which is what this thread is all about.

It's to counter the the old narrowly-focused-argument-where-he-clings-to-the-desperate-hope-for-some-kind-of-insignificant-win-to-make-up-for-Obama's-failure-&-feel-elite-again.

WTF? Revolting, sometimes I honestly can't tell whether you're trying to make a legitimate point, troll, or just be an evil clown.

We had a surge? I never saw it....but, woo hoo!

A surge of LINOs? Uh, yeah.

Oh yeah - I always get my zeros mixed up when it gets beyond two or three of them. That's MY nation that has 30,000,000.

It's cool. I wish our populations were about equal!

 

[Sunstone]

Instead of calling this thread, "New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed", maybe I should have called it, "Revoltingest spends entire thread attacking Sunstone, and/or trying to change the subject, instead of dealing with study."

 

[cynic2005]

From "New Study Confirms Fox News Makes Your Stupid":

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence...​

Just to tell you off the bat (as someone who will be conducting research). This study proves absolutely nothing (by scientific standards) because it is quasi-experimental (not an experiment). It consists of polling and therefore carries little, if any, weight. And, I say this as someone who personally hates Fox news.

Because people were not randomly selected from the general population, this study lacks external validity, or generalizability. Of course, it is actually rare to get an actual, randomly selected sample. But, this is where replication comes in.

There is no control group in this survey. There is no baseline comparison that we can make that allows us to determine whether or not watching a news show as the independent variable (watching Fox news would be a value or level of the independent variable), actually has an affect on the dependent variable (knowledge of current events). It is possible that watching Fox news might actually increase knowledge, in comparison to watching Comedy Central, or vice versa.

To provide scientific evidence of whether or not Fox news causes viewers to be misinformed, you would have to design an experiment. This would involve randomly selecting people from the general population (viewers or non-viewers), have them watch Fox news for a certain period of time (e.g., 20 hours for one week), then implement a test that would assess how accurate their knowledge is on various current events. You would need a control group who are assigned to a control condition (e.g., watching Comedy central).

After collection of the data, you would need to statistically analyze it using a Independent Samples t test to figure out if there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., that there is a high probability that any difference is not due to random chance) in comparison with the control group. If there is only a slight difference, It is unlikely that the hypothesis is correct. There must be a statistically significant difference in order for researchers to say that the hypothesis (that watching Fox news causes people to be misinformed) may be correct. You're not supposed to use the word "prove," or say that a hypothesis is correct. Testing for the hypothesis leads to a greater possibility of confirmation bias. You're actually supposed to test for the null hypothesis, or the opposite of what your hypothesis is. So saying that something is true, just because a study seems to suggest it, is scientific negligence.

This experimental study would have to be replicated numerous times in order to establish scientific evidence of causality. One simple study (and especially a survey) cannot establish proof of anything. A survey can only establish correlation. With correlation, the direction of causality is not clear. A can cause B, or B can cause A. Fox news can cause misinformation, or misinformed people might be drawn to watching Fox news (perhaps because, it reconfirms their preconceived biases).

 

[Sunstone]

Just to tell you off the bat (as someone who will be conducting research). This study proves absolutely nothing (by scientific standards) because it is quasi-experimental (not an experiment). It is a poll and carries little, if any, weight.

To provide scientific evidence of whether or not Fox news causes viewers to be misinformed, you have to design an experiment that establishes causality. This would involve randomly selecting people from the general population (viewers or non-viewers), have them watch Fox news for a certain period of time (e.g., 20 hours for one week), then implement a test that would assess how accurate their knowledge is on various current events. You would need a control group who are assigned to a control condition (e.g., watching Comedy central).
After collection of the data, you would need to statistically analyze it using a Independent Samples t test to figure out if there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., that there is a high probability that any difference is not due to random chance).

This study would have to be replicated numerous times in order to establish scientific evidence of causality. One simple study (i.e., this survey) cannot establish proof of anything. It cannot establish proof of causality, which the interpreters claim, but only correlation. With correlation, that the direction of causality cannot be established. A can cause B, or B can cause A. Fox news can cause misinformation, or misinformed people might be drawn to watching Fox news.

True enough. This study is just one brick in the wall.

 

[Revoltingest]

WTF? Revolting, sometimes I honestly can't tell whether you're trying to make a legitimate point, troll, or just be an evil clown.

Were it easy to tell, then I would've failed.

 

[Alceste]

Just to tell you off the bat (as someone who will be conducting research). This study proves absolutely nothing (by scientific standards) because it is quasi-experimental (not an experiment). It consists of polling and therefore carries little, if any, weight. And, I say this as someone who personally hates Fox news.

Because people were not randomly selected from the general population, this study lacks external validity, or generalizability. Of course, it is actually rare to get an actual, randomly selected sample. But, this is where replication comes in.

There is no control group in this survey. There is no baseline comparison that we can make that allows us to determine whether or not watching a news show as the independent variable (watching Fox news would be a value or level of the independent variable), actually has an affect on the dependent variable (knowledge of current events). It is possible that watching Fox news might actually increase knowledge, in comparison to watching Comedy Central, or vice versa.

To provide scientific evidence of whether or not Fox news causes viewers to be misinformed, you would have to design an experiment. This would involve randomly selecting people from the general population (viewers or non-viewers), have them watch Fox news for a certain period of time (e.g., 20 hours for one week), then implement a test that would assess how accurate their knowledge is on various current events. You would need a control group who are assigned to a control condition (e.g., watching Comedy central).

After collection of the data, you would need to statistically analyze it using a Independent Samples t test to figure out if there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., that there is a high probability that any difference is not due to random chance) in comparison with the control group. If there is only a slight difference, It is unlikely that the hypothesis is correct. There must be a statistically significant difference in order for researchers to say that the hypothesis (that watching Fox news causes people to be misinformed) may be correct. You're not supposed to use the word "prove," or say that a hypothesis is correct. Testing for the hypothesis leads to a greater possibility of confirmation bias. You're actually supposed to test for the null hypothesis, or the opposite of what your hypothesis is. So saying that something is true, just because a study seems to suggest it, is scientific negligence.

This experimental study would have to be replicated numerous times in order to establish scientific evidence of causality. One simple study (and especially a survey) cannot establish proof of anything. A survey can only establish correlation. With correlation, the direction of causality is not clear. A can cause B, or B can cause A. Fox news can cause misinformation, or misinformed people might be drawn to watching Fox news (perhaps because, it reconfirms their preconceived biases).

Behold, meaningful criticism.:clap

 

[Requia]

Just to tell you off the bat (as someone who will be conducting research). This study proves absolutely nothing (by scientific standards) because it is quasi-experimental (not an experiment). It consists of polling and therefore carries little, if any, weight. And, I say this as someone who personally hates Fox news.

Because people were not randomly selected from the general population, this study lacks external validity, or generalizability. Of course, it is actually rare to get an actual, randomly selected sample. But, this is where replication comes in.

There is no control group in this survey. There is no baseline comparison that we can make that allows us to determine whether or not watching a news show as the independent variable (watching Fox news would be a value or level of the independent variable), actually has an affect on the dependent variable (knowledge of current events). It is possible that watching Fox news might actually increase knowledge, in comparison to watching Comedy Central, or vice versa.

To provide scientific evidence of whether or not Fox news causes viewers to be misinformed, you would have to design an experiment. This would involve randomly selecting people from the general population (viewers or non-viewers), have them watch Fox news for a certain period of time (e.g., 20 hours for one week), then implement a test that would assess how accurate their knowledge is on various current events. You would need a control group who are assigned to a control condition (e.g., watching Comedy central).

After collection of the data, you would need to statistically analyze it using a Independent Samples t test to figure out if there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., that there is a high probability that any difference is not due to random chance) in comparison with the control group. If there is only a slight difference, It is unlikely that the hypothesis is correct. There must be a statistically significant difference in order for researchers to say that the hypothesis (that watching Fox news causes people to be misinformed) may be correct. You're not supposed to use the word "prove," or say that a hypothesis is correct. Testing for the hypothesis leads to a greater possibility of confirmation bias. You're actually supposed to test for the null hypothesis, or the opposite of what your hypothesis is. So saying that something is true, just because a study seems to suggest it, is scientific negligence.

This experimental study would have to be replicated numerous times in order to establish scientific evidence of causality. One simple study (and especially a survey) cannot establish proof of anything. A survey can only establish correlation. With correlation, the direction of causality is not clear. A can cause B, or B can cause A. Fox news can cause misinformation, or misinformed people might be drawn to watching Fox news (perhaps because, it reconfirms their preconceived biases).

Your thought experiment has rather severe flaws in it. If the question is 'are fox news viewers more misinformed than viewers of other media' then randomly assigning people to watch Fox News is counterproductive, one of the ways that FNC viewers may become misinformed is if people with poor critical thinking skills are more likely choose to watch FNC. Were that the case your experiment could show that FNC viewers are not less informed (because the average critical thinking skills have been raised significantly via random assignment).

Control groups and random assignment tends to work well if the question is 'how do I change people.' They are counterproductive if the question is 'what are people already like'. But maybe you're asking the first question and I read you all wrong.

Even if you are trying to ask the other question, random assignment could also cause problems via selection bias, liberals assigned to watch FNC would be more likely to seek out information from opposing sources when FNC challenges their view of the world, potentially even leading the experiment to result in FNC viewers (or really, viewers of any heavily biased media source) showing up as more informed than more neutral sources, despite that never happening in the real world because that same selection bias would lead to them not watching the source that disagrees with their worldview at all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I believe we give the TV shows way too much credit for any affected change. I believe this can be boiled down to what kind of person enjoys watching what kind of TV show.

Sunstone may get his jollies watching Rachel Maddow and the information he is watching may in fact be correct. I, on the other hand may watch the same show and not enjoy it as much as Sunstone does. The thing is, after having a few beers with Sunstone and watching Rachel on TV, I seriously doubt that either of us where affected all that much.

On the flip side, if we decided to watch FOX, the only difference would be, one of us would laugh more than the other one. We both would pay attention however because the women of FOX are smokin hot.

TV shows are a very small variable in being correctly informed.

 

[Kathryn]

And I'm sure your distaste for the survey dovetails nicely with your own personal beliefs. Point? If you have one?

My point (which I do have - and always have by the way) is that personal bias is evidenced by disdain, the referenced material (AlterNet), sarcasm, and personal attacks. And that's OK - it's not like any of us are getting paid to post on this forum. In other words, the bar is set pretty low around here - and if one chooses to be casual, sarcastic, humourous, silly, flippant, or serious, scholarly, and objective - well, it's all good. It comes with the territory.

That's ENTERTAINMENT!

The only sources I referenced were the study itself, AlterNet's website, and the website of the organization who produced the study. Those sources - YOUR sources - were sufficient to discredit the seriousness, quality, and credibility of the "study."

I've tried to keep my comments out of the "personal attack arena" and instead focus on the study itself and the topic at hand.

That's my choice - my style, if you will. I realize it's no mandate, and I don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

Carry on!

 

[Alceste]

Just to tell you off the bat (as someone who will be conducting research). This study proves absolutely nothing (by scientific standards) because it is quasi-experimental (not an experiment). It consists of polling and therefore carries little, if any, weight. And, I say this as someone who personally hates Fox news.

Because people were not randomly selected from the general population, this study lacks external validity, or generalizability. Of course, it is actually rare to get an actual, randomly selected sample. But, this is where replication comes in.

There is no control group in this survey. There is no baseline comparison that we can make that allows us to determine whether or not watching a news show as the independent variable (watching Fox news would be a value or level of the independent variable), actually has an affect on the dependent variable (knowledge of current events). It is possible that watching Fox news might actually increase knowledge, in comparison to watching Comedy Central, or vice versa.

To provide scientific evidence of whether or not Fox news causes viewers to be misinformed, you would have to design an experiment. This would involve randomly selecting people from the general population (viewers or non-viewers), have them watch Fox news for a certain period of time (e.g., 20 hours for one week), then implement a test that would assess how accurate their knowledge is on various current events. You would need a control group who are assigned to a control condition (e.g., watching Comedy central).

After collection of the data, you would need to statistically analyze it using a Independent Samples t test to figure out if there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., that there is a high probability that any difference is not due to random chance) in comparison with the control group. If there is only a slight difference, It is unlikely that the hypothesis is correct. There must be a statistically significant difference in order for researchers to say that the hypothesis (that watching Fox news causes people to be misinformed) may be correct. You're not supposed to use the word "prove," or say that a hypothesis is correct. Testing for the hypothesis leads to a greater possibility of confirmation bias. You're actually supposed to test for the null hypothesis, or the opposite of what your hypothesis is. So saying that something is true, just because a study seems to suggest it, is scientific negligence.

This experimental study would have to be replicated numerous times in order to establish scientific evidence of causality. One simple study (and especially a survey) cannot establish proof of anything. A survey can only establish correlation. With correlation, the direction of causality is not clear. A can cause B, or B can cause A. Fox news can cause misinformation, or misinformed people might be drawn to watching Fox news (perhaps because, it reconfirms their preconceived biases).

By the way, I meant to ask, why do you say the participants were not randomly selected?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's worth remembering that many studies have found Fox News misinforms its viewers. Here's a 2003 U. of Maryland study on how news sources affected whether or not Americans were informed on key questions about the invasion of Iraq: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

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....—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.
...
When asked whether the US has found “clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization,” among the combined sample for the three-month period 49% said that such evidence had been found. This misperception was substantially higher among those who get their news primarily from Fox—67%. Once again the NPR-PBS audience was the lowest at 16%.

Here are some specific cases of Fox News distortion and unprofessionalism cited by the Columbia Journalism Review:
Fox Memo Leaked! Tells Us Nothing We Didn't Already Know! : Columbia Journalism Review
The Grievance Culture At Fox News : Columbia Journalism Review
Fox News Fans Flames : Columbia Journalism Review

The Pew Research Center concluded the following about Fox News based on its data in 2005:

Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air. ... In the degree to which journalists are allowed to offer their own opinions, Fox stands out. Across the programs studied, nearly seven out of ten stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters -- the highest of any outlet studied by far.... Those findings seem to challenge Fox's promotional marketing, particularly its slogan, "We Report. You Decide."
...
Some observers might argue that opinions clearly offered as such are more honest than a slant subtly embedded in the sound bites selected or questions asked. But that was not the case here. Given the live formats on cable, the opinions of reporters and anchors are often embedded in questions or thrown in as asides. Only occasionally were they labeled as commentary.

Then of course we have the fact that Fox News was banned in the UK after an investigation showing it does not meet journalistic and objectivity standards.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then of course we have the fact that Fox News was banned in the UK after an investigation showing it does not meet journalistic and objectivity standards.

Your linked article doesn't say that Fox was banned....only Med TV.

Here is an interesting read about bias in news....
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

"The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found."

"Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist."

The above underlining is mine.

 

[Sunstone]

My point (which I do have - and always have by the way) is that personal bias is evidenced by disdain, the referenced material (AlterNet), sarcasm, and personal attacks. And that's OK - it's not like any of us are getting paid to post on this forum. In other words, the bar is set pretty low around here - and if one chooses to be casual, sarcastic, humourous, silly, flippant, or serious, scholarly, and objective - well, it's all good. It comes with the territory.

That's ENTERTAINMENT!

The only sources I referenced were the study itself, AlterNet's website, and the website of the organization who produced the study. Those sources - YOUR sources - were sufficient to discredit the seriousness, quality, and credibility of the "study."

I've tried to keep my comments out of the "personal attack arena" and instead focus on the study itself and the topic at hand.

That's my choice - my style, if you will. I realize it's no mandate, and I don't expect everyone else to follow suit.

Carry on!

It's fascinating how you make everything personal. But even so, putting a personal spin on things has not prevented you from committing a logical fallacy. Can you identify your own remedial mistake?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's fascinating how you make everything personal. But even so, putting a personal spin on things has not prevented you from committing a logical fallacy. Can you identify your own remedial mistake?

Those in glass houses....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your linked article doesn't say that Fox was banned....only Med TV.

For the record, Fox News is not allowed to air by UK TV broadcasters, it's only available in the UK by satellite because it does not meet their rules for impartiality. See here and here.

Mark Thompson, the BBC's director general, said British broadcasters should be free to launch an equivalent to Fox News in the UK because existing rules to guarantee impartiality in television were becoming outdated in the era of the internet.

And:

His opinions echo recent comments by BBC Director General Mark Thompson, who has argued that British broadcasters should be free to launch an equivalent to America’s right-wing Fox news channel.

​

Here is an interesting read about bias in news....
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

"The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found."

"Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist."

The above underlining is mine.

Conclusion: while misinforming its viewers on a range of topics, Fox News managed to have one centrist news program.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, Fox News is not allowed to air by UK TV broadcasters, it's only available in the UK by satellite because it does not meet their rules for impartiality. See here and here.

Again, no mention that Fox News is banned. One might infer that, but it doesn't say so.
I'm glad the US gov't doesn't have such power.

Conclusion: while misinforming its viewers on a range of topics, Fox News managed to have one centrist news program.

One person's "misinforming" is another's news. Foxers just fail to see misinformation from their sources.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, no mention that Fox News is banned. One might infer that, but it doesn't say so.
I'm glad the US gov't doesn't have such power.

I'm sorry you're right, I am a bit confused because apparently there was no decision to "ban" Fox News per se. There have just been many rulings by Ofcom against Fox News segments airing on the Sky satellite network, for impartiality violations, such as untrue statements or not giving opponents a chance to defend themselves (3 times in one year for example). Apparently there's a debate in the UK whether or not to enforce the rules against biased, opinionated news channels such as Fox News.

One person's "misinforming" is another's news. Foxers just fail to see misinformation from their sources.

Yes and no. It's not all relative. If you criticize someone and you do not extend an invitation to appear on the show so they have an opportunity to defend themselves, that's a failure to be objective and impartial, no matter how you tilt your head at it. If you cover a war between countries, and every few minutes you have a montage of patriotic songs, American flags, etc. etc. that's not news, it's propaganda. If you interview one meteorologist who doubts global warming and you can never seem to locate one of the thousands of highly qualified scientists who accept global warming, you aren't presenting a realistic picture. Period. Simple practices of calm impartiality should be expected from a "straight" news source, no matter what your political beliefs -- unless you're a nihilist and you don't believe objective truth exists, or something.