Warning: watching Fox News will make you stupid
 

How's that for an inflammatory headline? ;)

For the record, I'm sure it's not entirely true. :p

The article is a couple months old but still interesting.


Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war
By FRANK DAVIES
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

- U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

- There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

- People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

"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," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm

Fellow greek, and occasional GC poster Steve Hofstetter actually wrote a great article about Fox news this past week on his website.. definately worth reading..

www.observationalhumor.com

I love Steve. what happen to his idiot of the week website. That site is hilarious.

ETA: It's Jerkoftheweek.com, not idiotoftheweek.com.

I guess I'm in the 20% group, then, because I watch Fox News regularly and know the truth on all three of the "misperceptions" mentioned.

I for one am not suprised by the numbers, nor the belief in "facts" that some of the watchers hold to.

After all there is a growing number of Americans that don't believe in evolution.

As well there is a shock number of people that believe that the tabliod newspapers and magazine are credible newssources.

Where did you get this from?

If this is true, they're in the minority.

Actually CNN world report this last Sunday.... sorry I've been pretty sick so I'll Ive been able to do is lie in front of a TV and veg.

I'll try and find the reference with numbers.....

-edit-

Okay they were rehashing and older New York Times article...... but still 28%! WTF:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/index.html

Believe It, or Not
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
Friday, August 15, 2003 Posted: 9:49 AM EDT (1349 GMT)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith. Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea.

Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in this column, go to www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)

The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll.

My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of Episcopalians has dropped almost in half.

The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.

Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way:

"God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice."

The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world.

Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).

Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.

I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. And I don't pretend to know why America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world. But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society.

But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.

Nicholas D. Kristof is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times.

Good thing I only watch Fox News when I'm trying to fall asleep. My roommate and I are strictly CNN girls!!!

I'm Catholic, and I believe in the Virgin Birth. I also believe in evolution. I don't think that the two beliefs have to be mutually exclusive. It seems as if the writer of the op-ed article thinks that they do.

Yeah everybody, this guy knows about credible newssources.

-Rudey

I still believe Canada is a great source for Strip bars ;)

DZRose! I could quote you all through this thread! 100% in agreement!

Headlines and news rags like this should be identified as what they are IMHO, EDITORIALS PRESENTED AS NEWS! Anyone can write anything they want and screw with the numbers to SAY anything they want. Too bad FOX is a voice that they want killed.
There ARE people in this world who actually think about things and follow their beliefs BECAUSE they believe......NOT just because it's "popular" at the moment. Let's face it-Liberalism is the "cool" Hollywood attitude. Want to be a rebel-real anti establishment? Watch FOX.

The previous statement was an emotional outburst due to pressure brought on by wisdom teeth extraction and a BOYFRIEND (who she really likes) brought home for a "visit".:eek: It in no way reflects the way justamom may feel tomorrow.

I think the numbers are probably quite accurate -- but I think the article is twisting around the information. They presented it as "People who watch Fox news are more inclined to support the war." In reality it's more like, "People who support the war are more inclined to watch Fox News."

It would be interesting to see if Fox had substantially more reports supporting these myths than, say, the newspapers -- I'm not sure the number would be THAT far apart (the major difference that I noticed this spring was that Fox and some of the major news networks would say things like "The WMDs have been found" whereas the newspapers would refer to them as "Barrels supposedly containing WMDs". I think the difference is that conservatives would tend to believe reports that support their viewpoint (example: "The WMDs have been found") whereas liberals will tend to say, "Okay, let's wait until tomorrow and see if they actually contain anything dangerous." The liberals were waiting for the follow-up report, which came a few days later and said "So actually, there weren't any WMDs in those barrels." The conservatives were not.

I do think that Fox News had a MAJOR problem with reporting things too soon before they had even been confirmed and then NOT reporting much when these "findings" were denounced -- but this is a problem all over the TV news, not just at Fox. The newspapers and magazines didn't have as much of a problem with this because they have time to edit articles when what's assumed to be true is proved false. Not so much with TV.

Now go take care of those wisdom teeth. :)

To add to this..

Has anyone else also notice growing trend of newspapers who actually put opinion pieces on the FRONT PAGE of the newspaper?? I don't know about you, but I'd like to read NEWS on the front page.

sugar and spice-"People who watch Fox news are more inclined to support the war." In reality it's more like, "People who support the war are more inclined to watch Fox News

I think that's a good description. You could probably substitute
"vote Republican" as well. It's funny how the tiniest example of semantics can change the interpretation!
I need to read the thread on wisdom teeth. It's the third day and son said it STILL hurts. He has to drive back tomorrow. Hope asprin can get him through.

kappaloo-Has anyone else also notice growing trend of newspapers who actually put opinion pieces on the FRONT PAGE of the newspaper?? I don't know about you, but I'd like to read NEWS on the front page.

YES!!! Our little paper is guilty of this. Pretty dismal.

Hey that's one reason I don't read the National Post or the Sun....

But Rob, the front page of the Sun is normally a huge picture plus headlines. :p

As much as I love bashing the Post/Sun (and I do)... I even noticed the Toronto Star doing this!!! The only major newpaper I haven't caught is the Globe&Mail - though I'm thinking that's probably just because I don't read it often.

Is this really a group that is "growing"? Who? and Why?

Yes.... true..... but look at what picture they run along with the headline and taglines in comparision to the other papers.

Take for example the yesterday

- The Sun main headline dealt with the huge pot bust up in Barrie, and how it was being treated as a joke by the public (I don't know were this opinion comes from mind you).

- The Globe, The Star, & The Post all dealt with who was in the running for the new conservative party, and the meeting between Bush and Martin.

The Sun (which has become more conservative over the years for some reason) in chosing to run their headline and photo is in effect seeting up the opinion article which follows on the next page once you open the paper.

Two excellent points.

As I've mentioned several times, the president of Fox News, Roger Ailes (also a fellow Ohio U. Bobcat) was Richard Nixon's media advisor. It at least somewhat stands to reason that people who "want" to hear a more "conservative" view that backs the present administration would turn to Fox.

To carry the thought forward, and as a comment on the second point, reporters, editors and managers with that point of view are probably quicker to report those stories that are likely to support the administration or other conservative entities.

In theory, of course, ideology should have nothing to do with reporting and all coverage should be unbiased. People have accused media of having a "liberal" bias for years.

It is my opinion that Fox, while claiming "ballanced" coverage, has gone much farther in supporting an agenda than any other major electronic media. The history of print is something else, but that is because print has never been "controlled" like true broadcast was (a government institution granted or revoked your license to exist). Fox NewsChannel (and CNN) does not have that regulation, because they are cable -- not onair -- media and have never been regulated to the extent of the over the air media.

I remember switching channels during the Bush Gore fiasco.
Judy Woodruff (CNN) had the biggest sneer on her face and just the way she would phrase things as well as her vocal inflections-made obvious where she stood politically. THAT was the point where I lost all respect for CNN. Her job was to report and decipher the information, NOT add attitude to the facts.
The same type of situation exist on FOX. "Attitude" on BOTH of the
stations is very real. So, since there is freedom of choice, I will go with FOX since it more closely reflects MY attitude. I don't think that makes me stupid. It just means I'm exercising my freedom of choice. Prior to FOX-there was NO CHOICE!

Just as long as you are aware of the extreme bias of FOX, which DeltAlum is correct in pointing out. I don't know but FOX has not made an effort to correct any reporting errors that it has made, while at least the other majors have.

..... but yes I agree with you about CNN too..... the bent of their stories leaves a little to be desired (and don't get me started on Lou Dobbs).

What ever happened to the concept of the impartial press? and what's up with the self censorship?

I don't think there ever was impartial press - there just was a lack of reporting on controversial issues in the past. Wilson and FDR's infirmities (as well as FDR's extramarital affairs), JFK's personal life; none of this made it out in the media, and there wasn't as much of a onus on ratings. If you want to look at the print media, there's been a bias/sensationalism kick since the days of Hearst.

Things haven't necessarily gotten worse, just magnified. There's more competition between TV news networks than ever, and each of them is trying to capture a constant audience.

I like what justamom said - flip between MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews and the others, and just go with what's more palatable to you.

I definitely agree. I think that while all of the major TV news networks have some kind of slant in one direction or another, Fox is the only one that is plagued with a substantial number of rumors that the company higher-ups demand that news items be slanted a certain way. I think the other networks just tend to attract workers who agree with their "slant" -- like justamom was saying about CNN -- and are less aggressive than Fox in regards to an "agenda."

I feel like Fox has been moving increasingly more to the right...it just keeps getting worse

I watch C-SPAN

There was a thread "Where do you get your news?". I need to go back and look at it, because I really do agree that the slant on all the channels is getting out of hand. I do NOT like the way FOX is reporting on the war for example. If I want a particular "spin" I want to CHOOSE it-not be fed it if that makes sense. On Lou Dobbs-DITTO! Paula Zahn-LOVED her on FOX, but never watch her anymore since she went to CNN. I thought she was one who did ask the hard questions, but her slant has changed.

I'm getting pretty fond of Greta Van Susteren. She's entertaining and has varied opinions but her issues are more sensational than political.

C-Span is just so dry. I try to watch, but end up turning the channel. I guess a good percentage of us LIKE to be entertained and there in lies the problem. Straight forward reporting doesn't always result in high ratings and ad dollars. It's like the Communist Manifesto in a way-keep the people entertained and the issues won't be closely examined. So, in a way, I and people like me are a big part of the problem. No matter WHAT the choice- conservative or liberal-we like to be entertained.

enlightenment06 -Thank you! I tried to send you a PM, but your box was full! You were RIGHT!

It occurred to me that there might be some confusion about "FOX" and that many on cable or satellite might receive two "FOX" program sources.

FOX NewsChannel is the entity with the "conservative" bent. It is the one that has total news/talk programming 24/7. It can only be seen on cable and/or Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS). Because it is NOT a traditional TV service, it does not have the government oversight that an "on air" TV station does.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has control of the "public airways," which does not include cable. (Although it can use some influence because it has some regulatory powers over "common carrier" land lines, etc.)

You may also receive a FOX TV station in your area which may or may not have any news at all -- but rather has The Simpsons and lots of reruns of Steinfeld, etc. Those are Fox Affiliates and are local TV station that happen to be carried on cable or satellite. Some are owned by FOX and some by other groups and owners. If you don't have cable or satellite, you probably can't get FOX NewsChannel.

Bottom line is that since FOX NewsChannel is not an over the air service, it doesn't even have to pretend to be "fair." Nor does CNN for that matter, which is the same type of case.

I don't think either make you "stupid," although at times both make me "crazy."

This has probably either helped -- of deepened the confusion.

Hmm...justamom you're right that C-SPAN isn't necessarily for those with short attention spans. Sometimes I just leave it on and pay attention when I want to.

I still watch Fox, MSNBC, and CNN too, but usually only when it comes to politics. I find that looking at a number of different news sources of various media helps me to get a better idea of how I want to shape my views. BBC is also good too.

I'm not for the censorship of any channel, including Fox and the rest. I just think it's a shame that in our country the popular television news outlets are so biased. It seems like everyone has their own commentator these days instead of reporters.

Does anyone watch BET news?

I watch BBC for global news (I got hooked on it living abroad). For pure facts, I read the NYTimes.

C-SPAN is probably the least biased, but gosh! It can be very boring.

The NYTimes used to be good until their greatest left for other publishers. So sad.

-Rudey

Or, make you mad...
 

Brit Hume Honor Triggers Protest
Is Fox News Channel "fair and balanced," as its motto claims?
By Peter Johnson
USA TODAY

Or is that slogan a clever marketing line designed to hide Fox News political tilt to the right?

And with its success - by far, it's the No. 1-rated cable news channel - have journalists failed to challenge Fox News on its boast?

These questions have been raised before. But now, a well-known journalist may reignite the discussion: Geneva Overholser, former ombudsman of The Washington Post, has resigned from the board of the National Press Foundation because it plans to honor Fox News anchor Brit Hume at its annual dinner in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19. Past recipients of the group's Sol Taishoff award include TV newscasters David Brinkley, Dan Rather, John Chancellor, Jane Pauley, Barbara Walters and Nina Totenberg.

Hume, the ABC White House correspondent who joined Fox in 1996 and anchors a nightly newscast, doesn't deserve the award because he and Fox practice "ideologically connected journalism," Overholser says. "Fox wants to do news from a certain viewpoint, but it wants to claim that it is 'fair and balanced,' " she says. "That is inaccurate and unfair to other media who engage in a quest, perhaps an imperfect quest, for objectivity."

She says groups such as the foundation, before lauding Fox or its lead news anchor, should debate whether the way Fox reports news is good for journalism.

Someday, Overholser says, "I think we will look back on these years and think, 'Why didn't we have a discussion so that the public could benefit from a change in journalism that Fox is very successfully bringing about?' "

Ed Fouhy, chairman of the four-person committee that unanimously voted to give Hume the award, rejects Overholser's argument. "Brit is an excellent journalist," says Fouhy, who at one time was Hume's boss at ABC. "I admire him and his journalism."

Says Fox's Irena Briganti: "Brit Hume is a journalist of tremendous accomplishment, distinction and credibility. We are proud he is being recognized."

Overholser, the former editor of The Des Moines Register who now runs the University of Missouri's Washington journalism program, quietly resigned from the board of the foundation three weeks ago. "I would welcome a discussion about whether objectivity really exists, which media seem the least fair and balanced, whether objectivity is desirable, whether it wouldn't be better to have a more European-like model - in which media were straightforwardly ideologically aligned," she wrote in an e-mail to fellow board members. "All of those could be helpful to American journalism. "And I can applaud Fox for all sorts of things, but being deceptively ideologically aligned - being hypocritical about it - far from contributing to such discussions, makes them impossible to have. (Fox News president Roger) Ailes has constructed the perfect trap: you question him, and the finger of accusation comes back at the questioner. One can marvel at his cleverness. But one should not confer journalistic laurels upon it."

sour grapes

Like there's never been a tilt with the other networks

Let's dissect all the other slogans and see what we come up with to match our thinking.
I watch this station a LOT, and they usually have the opposing view represented. Britt Hume IS excellent and when he reports, I decide!;)
Marketing is marketing and I'll agree, it has pulled conservatives AND liberals out of the woodwork.

Fair and balanced?

It's like Pepsi when they say "You've got the right one baby."

Geeeeee, how can I REALLY be SURE I got the right one? hmmmm

Maybe I just LIKE Pepsi better than Coke.

edited for trouble with s'es! HAHA- it's was true! There were too many!