Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

[orangeapples]

It seems the only news source that is remotely reliable is the one that I pay attention to: The Onion.

I'm dutch i don't really know what fox news but judging from the other comments, i'm probably supposed to hate it.

Well Fox News is super slanted to one side, where that side can do no wrong and everything wrong is the fault of the other side. CNN is the same but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

for us to get any real news information we have to watch both and make a guess at what is accurate. We just don't have the time to watch 2 news broadcasts telling us completely misleading information.

 

[TheNewDemoman]

Heh, everyone pretends Fox is the only heavily biased news station out there. And the liberals, are so un-biased and correct.

Seriously, MSNBC is liberal but everyone loves to hate on Fox, don't get me wrong both sides are stupid. You need balance.

The right wants people to keep there money, from the guy that works his ass off, to the Paris Hilton. The left wants to give everyone stuff, from the guy that either can't find a job, or the diabled guy, to the dude that sits in his house never looks for a job and sits and eats cheetos on his government pay check, because he is technically "unemployed".

Everyone has a bias, whether they admit or not.

 

[Matt_LRR]

False and False.

Job gains directly tracable to the stimulus package have already been measured and reported, and yes, they are gains. Long term, that could, theoretically change, but considering the US is coming out of a recession, not going into one, It's unlikely to suddenly result in massive job losses directly attributable to the stimulus package. Long and short, The Stim. Pack. worked, if not quite as effectively as everyone hoped.

Regarding climate change, We know it's happening, we know pretty much exactly how long it's been happening, and we know with a very high degree of certainty what causes it. Anything else you've heard is spin.

significant increases in temperature have been recorded since the dawn of the industrial age, with two of the hottest years in the historical record happening in the last decade, despite a reduction in the energy output of the sun. Climate change correlates almost perfectly with human activity, and while they haven't ruled out the fact that there might be some other conflating variable, or a simple coincidence going on - there is a not insignificant amount of evidence suggesting that it was caused by humans.


The fact of the matter is that almost none of those figures above are opinion or unquantifiable.

http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/15/climate-change-now-questioned-at-german-universities-professors-speaking-up/

It's still up for question it would seem, shame on those stupid university staff! Can't they understand that the general public (who oppose gay marriage) are smarter than them?

Sarcasm aside it's still being debated. It's still open for subjective discussion because we just don't know for sure. See, holding a contrary scientific opinion to the masses does not make you stupid or intelligent. All it means is that you find one line of debate more convincing.

And yes, the economic worth of a stimulus package is also questioned. There's worries of a 'double dip' effect when funding stops or when confidence in government funded organisations drops off. Again, opinions range on this and are the subject of legitimate political debate.

So in fact your first line should have read:

Maybe, maybe not and maybe, maybe not.

Huh.

Phrasing of the questions, man - you're trying to make a point that sidesteps the actual question and the fact it relates to.

1. Q: "Has the stimulus bill lost jobs?" A: No. To date, it has created jobs. Period. What it may or may not do in the future is irrelelvent.

2. Q: "Is climate change ocurring?" A: Unequivocally yes. Causes irrelevent to the question as asked.

So, no - my post started exactly as it should have. False (the effects of the stimulus bill are not opinion, and it has created jobs so far), and false (climate change is ocurring, we know how long it has been ocurring for, and we have general scientific consensus on why, with little (albiet some, nuanced) dissent). [but not nearly enough dissent to account for the num,ber of Fox viewers who claim it's not happening at all]).

-m

Edit: and if you're going to quote a source to prove a point, maybe find a credible one, that doesnt open with avreference to the 'AGW Religion' and note a single instance of dissent as 'crumbling consensus'.

 

[Lord Honk]

Seeing it black on white makes it just sadder

 

[KeyMaster45]

Yeah, I wouldn't take anything from that website as even marginally credible as a news source. One cursory glance at a few of their articles gives the impression that's definitely a very far left media outlet. To say their whole website gives off a vibe of hostility would be generous. Every other article seems to be either anti-war or bashing republicans. It sort of reads like Cracked...except they're not trying to be funny in their sensationalism.

This website is so biased it isn't funny. I mean good grief go look at some of the article headings from their front page. It's nothing but shameless right wing bashing coupled with a severe disdain for capitalism and just a hint of dislike for religion. Actually just take this website and think of the most stereotypical right wing nut-job; now imagine the polar opposite of that right wing nut-job and you've got AlterNet.

Their mission statement claims their unbiased and are out on some kind of crusade against corporate media or some BS to that effect, but their just as bad as what the claim to be fighting. They're not even making an effort to come off as unbiased, hell the Colbert Report is less biased than this and it's supposed to be making fun of Fox.

No, I won't take the time to read any of the articles because frankly their front page and their company 'about' page leads me to believe it's not worth my time. All news outlets like this do is build animosity between the populous. They come off no better than Fox as glorified news trolls and what scares me the most is that people listen and believe the crap that comes from either news source.

Disclaimer : I know and understand there are more news outlets than just Fox and AtlerNet. The two are compared because Fox is who they took aim at in the posted article from the OP and comparing two other news outlets that have nothing to do with this thread would be pointless and confusing. Furthermore, I am not trying to defend the actions/policies of either the Right Wing or the Left Wing that you disagree with; nor am I saying I am against the actions/policies of the Right Wing or the Left Wing that you agree with. If you are offended/disagree with what I have said about AlterNet then I am sorry; let us agree to disagree on our opinion of AlterNet and save ourselves much anger and stress by fighting over it. If you feel the need to debate with me over what I have said I would encourage you use the forum's private messaging system to avoid cluttering up the thread.

Clarification : The use of the word "you" in my disclaimer does not pertain specifically to the OP of this thread but instead is addressing anyone who might happen to read my post.

Phew, I think that covers all of my proverbial bases in the "unintentionally angering someone" department.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Nope, what I'm saying is that these opinions are all valid positions to hold. If you look at my next point on the list you'll see that I say 'not having to think makes you stupid'. You can't judge people on holding these opinions, even if they're unlikely. What you can judge them on is why they hold them. What this study omits is the frequency with which Fox News espouses these theories and how that differs from other American media.

In other words, we know people who watch Fox have similar opinions. We don't know how often Fox imparts this opinion or even whether this is the reason they believe these things.

They are not valid opinions, is my point. They are opinions held in direct opposition to fact, evidence, and rationality.

I may be of the opinion that homeopathy is a legitimate cure for any given ailment, but that opinion is not equally valid to the opinion that homeopathy is verifiable bullshit, because homeopathy actually is verifiably bullshit.

Where you are right, of course, is that not thinking is what makes you dumb. And I actually strongly dislike the title of this thread. These people aren't stupid per se, they're just misinformed. The stupidity only derives from an acceptance of this misinformation wholesale.

what we need is a control, to measure levels of misinformation in the general populace vs. fox viewers, and measures of the extent to which Fox propagates this misinformation.

I've seen a few of those over that last few years, and I can assure you the results are not favorable for viewers of Fox, or for Fox's Credibility, but I'm not in a position to go dredging those all up.

-m

 

[omicron1]

Since several of those "questions" are themselves of questionable accuracy (Climate change is an indisputable fact now? Well, global temperatures have been flat overall over the past 15 years [http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm], so that's at least questionable...), there are additional factors to consider (Example: Most of the people who watch Fox News are likely Republican to start with, so a correlation between Republican beliefs and Fox News watching does not imply causation), and several of these questions, as stated in the OP, are so vague as to be misdirecting in the opposite manner. (While Bush may have initiated the bailout, Obama was the principal public figure behind its enactment, and as such is associated therewith.)

Not to mention that certain answers to these questions, regardless of actual knowledge, are associated with specific political parties. It is somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction for a Democrat to assume Obama was born in the United States, and vice versa for a Republican, whether or not they have done the research.

Nor, for that matter, to mention that the questions asked above are, as best I can read it, targeted for this particular result. If the questions had been more along the lines of "Is the Tea Party racist in objective?" or "Can science explain the origin of the universe?", the resulting answers would surely tell a very different story.


In sum (and here I segue into my own opinions), this is yet another propagandistic liberal fluff piece designed to make democrats feel superior.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Since several of those "questions" are themselves of questionable accuracy (Climate change is an indisputable fact now? Well, global temperatures have been flat overall over the past 15 years [http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm], so that's at least questionable...), there are additional factors to consider (Example: Most of the people who watch Fox News are likely Republican to start with, so a correlation between Republican beliefs and Fox News watching does not imply causation), and several of these questions, as stated in the OP, are so vague as to be misdirecting in the opposite manner. (While Bush may have initiated the bailout, Obama was the principal public figure behind its enactment, and as such is associated therewith.)

Not to mention that certain answers to these questions, regardless of actual knowledge, are associated with specific political parties. It is somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction for a Democrat to assume Obama was born in the United States, and vice versa for a Republican, whether or not they have done the research.

Nor, for that matter, to mention that the questions asked above are, as best I can read it, targeted for this particular result. If the questions had been more along the lines of "Is the Tea Party racist in objective?" the resulting answers would surely tell a very different story.


In sum (and here I segue into my own opinions), this is yet another propagandistic liberal fluff piece designed to make democrats feel superior.

itp:

"Ideologically-based beliefs are ok even if they don't jive with reality."

-m

 

[Orekoya]

?60 percent believe climate change is not occurring - it is [http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/]

There's the problem with the use of that data in your link. This is guess work, at best. For a planet that's pushing the billions, any cyclical data on the scales of thousands doesn't cut it. It's not even based on air samples of that time period but on samples, taken from ice, that's been exposed to the current environment. We are a part of the experiment that we're testing and that alters the perception of the data we receive, beyond the acceptable levels of processing bias. To sum it up faster, most of that data holds no weight when it can't hold up to the rules of the scientific method. The truth is that we are observing what exists beyond our boundaries of understanding. Also that line at the top: "For 650,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line... until now" is just sad. That data is only 14% complete.

Think about that. Let's say we had data from someone who only experienced 14% of the day. Let's say, starting at 4 pm today. In that time the sun will set and the sky will radically change colors. The weather might change, it could even start raining or snowing. The temperature will definitely change. If they had only that data to study they will probably make some wild claims from so little data of 3 hours.

 

[FalloutJack]

This is no surprise to me, or my fervently-against-the-Republican-party father. I'm tempted to inform him about this, but I feel that I'll never hear the end of it if I do. And as for Obama... Seriously, the situation over where he was born is OVER, people. Get over it and welcome your President.

 

[Cormitt]

Maybe the real question in all of this, as someone not living in the US, is did you really need a study to prove this? Any mild amount of viewing of FAUX News (credit to Jamboxdotcom I love that and will use it going forward) will prove that out. Why the study? That's only going to inflame them justify their spreading of more obvious stupidity.

Anyone who's not intelligent enough to realize FAUX News broadcasts only is editorial content would probably have benefitted from the money spent on the study to get some serious professional help.

 

[dalek sec]

It?s not surprising. I think that as gamers, watching Fox News and other sources take cheap/uninformed shots at gaming/gaming culture, we have cultivated a distrust in most news sources.

This is pretty much how I feel about news sources after all their cheap and uninformed shots at gaming. I simpley don't trust them at all and it will alot of effort for them to earn back my trust.

 

[Matt_LRR]

?60 percent believe climate change is not occurring - it is [http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/]

There's the problem with the use of that data in your link. This is guess work, at best. For a planet that's pushing the billions, any cyclical data on the scales of thousands doesn't cut it. It's not even based on air samples of that time period but on samples, taken from ice, that's been exposed to the current environment. The truth is that we are observing what exists beyond our boundaries of understanding. We are a part of the experiment that we're testing and that alters the perception of the data we receive, beyond the acceptable levels of processing bias. To sum it up faster, most of that data holds no weight when it can't hold up to the rules of the scientific method. "For 650,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line... until now" is just sad: that data is only 14% complete and making any kind of claim off of it for any other field would be seen as foolish.

Well, any kind of claim other than "the concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than double what it has been at even it's maximum for the last 2/3 of a million years, oh and the temperature of the eatrh correlates strongly and positively with this increase."

You can clearly and easily claim that the climate of the earth is changing from what it has historically been (at least as far as we are abl;e to reconstruct history) - the evidence for that is clear.

You can debate whether or not it's man made. (though the HUGE spike in CO2 and the accompanying increase in global temperature correllate extremely tightly with human industry).

But you can't debate that what we're experiencing is an abnormal spike in global temperature. Maybe it's happened before, further back in history, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it happens once every million years and our number's just up, but it's happening, and it's potentially disaterous for the human race.

So, (and really the only point of this whole debate), denial of it's ocurrance is an acceptance of misinformation. You can interpret the data in different ways, or suggest that the data is incomplete, (though scientists typically don't with any significantly different conclusions), but to deny it is absurd.

-m

 

[CaptainKoala]

Source: http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

December 15, 2010: Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What?s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.

?91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
?72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
?72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
?60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
?49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
?63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
?56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
?38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
?63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

?91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
Well It certainly didn't make very many. And DEFINEATLY not a trillion dollars worth of jobs
?72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
How does giving every single person in the of the largest countries in the world free health care not cost you more than it makes.
?72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
Unemployment hasn't significantly changed since a year ago.
?60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
Conflicting evidince to say for sure, for example: the last two Winters have been the coldest in the past 100 years
?49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
The truth in this statement depends on where you live and how much you make.
?63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
It did have them, just hardly any.
?56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
He didn't do that, so 56 percent are wrong.
?38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
This is dumb too, Bush did TARP.
?63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
Of course he was born in the US, 63 percent of those voters are idiots.

 

[CaptainKoala]

?60 percent believe climate change is not occurring - it is [http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/]

There's the problem with the use of that data in your link. This is guess work, at best. For a planet that's pushing the billions, any cyclical data on the scales of thousands doesn't cut it. It's not even based on air samples of that time period but on samples, taken from ice, that's been exposed to the current environment. The truth is that we are observing what exists beyond our boundaries of understanding. We are a part of the experiment that we're testing and that alters the perception of the data we receive, beyond the acceptable levels of processing bias. To sum it up faster, most of that data holds no weight when it can't hold up to the rules of the scientific method. "For 650,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 has never been above this line... until now" is just sad: that data is only 14% complete and making any kind of claim off of it for any other field would be seen as foolish.

Well, any kind of claim other than "the concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than double what it has been at even it's maximum for the last 2/3 of a million years, oh and the temperature of the eatrh correlates strongly and positively with this increase."

You can clearly and easily claim that the climate of the earth is changing from what it has historically been (at least as far as we are abl;e to reconstruct history) - the evidence for that is clear.

You can debate whether or not it's man made. (though the HUGE spike in CO2 and the accompanying increase in global temperature correllate extremely tightly with human industry).

But you can't debate that what we're experiencing is an abnormal spike in global temperature. Maybe it's happened before, further back in history, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it happens once every million years and our number's just up, but it's happening, and it's potentially disaterous for the human race.

So, (and really the only point of this whole debate), denial of it's ocurrance is an acceptance of misinformation. You can interpret the data in different ways, or suggest that the data is incomplete, (though scientists typically don't with any significantly different conclusions), but to deny it is absurd.

-m

Scientist A: The data says global warming isn't happening.
Scientist B: Just change the numbers to make it look like it is happening, silly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
I'd post a ton more but I'm far too lazy.
Just Google 'Global warming hacked emails' if you want to be proven wrong.

EDIT: This is really good, too.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/15/climate-change-now-questioned-at-german-universities-professors-speaking-up/

 

[Orekoya]

Well, any kind of claim other than "the concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than double what it has been at even it's maximum for the last 2/3 of a million years, oh and the temperature of the eatrh correlates strongly and positively with this increase."

You can clearly and easily claim that the climate of the earth is changing from what it has historically been (at least as far as we are abl;e to reconstruct history) - the evidence for that is clear.

You can debate whether or not it's man made. (though the HUGE spike in CO2 and the accompanying increase in global temperature correllate extremely tightly with human industry).

But you can't debate that what we're experiencing is an abnormal spike in global temperature. Maybe it's happened before, further back in history, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it happens once every million years and our number's just up, but it's happening, and it's potentially disaterous for the human race.

So, (and really the only point of this whole debate), denial of it's ocurrance is an acceptance of misinformation. You can interpret the data in different ways, or suggest that the data is incomplete, (though scientists typically don't with any significantly different conclusions), but to deny it is absurd.

-m

Well that's why I included that edit earlier, I realized it didn't convey my point well enough. I was saying that our data is not complete enough to dictate that any change we observe is abnormal, man made, or harmful for the planet. We don't know enough of the past and certainly do not know the future.

As far as being potentially disastrous for the human race, well. It's not like this is the first time our planet has shaked off its pests like a bad case of fleas.

 

[Irridium]

Fox News makes you ignorant. Believing you're informed when you're ignorant makes you stupid.

You know the saddest part about America? That our most reliable news program is a satirist on a comedy network.

You know it's bad when I have to take our comedians more seriously than our politicians.

And the craziest thing of all is that "Stewart/Colbert 2012" is less a joke and more a proposal for the two most legitimately qualified of the potentially available candidates. I'd vote for them over a second term for Obama and I'd definitely choose them over anything the Republicans could shit out onto a ballot.

Didn't Colbert actually run for president once, then stopped running because people complained?

I think it happened around 2003 or so, not completely sure but I remember him saying something about it.

 

[Neverhoodian]

No surprise here. I've never taken anything Fox News has said seriously, particularly when it comes to social issues:

"Violent/raunchy TV shows are corrupting our children!"

Oh right, like the violent and raunchy TV shows YOUR NETWORK runs? Come back to me when you take Family Guy off the air, hypocrite.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Say it with me now: Correlation does not equal causation. This study does not prove that Fox News misinforms it's viewers. It just proves that a substantial amount of it's viewers are misinformed on some topics.