Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

[Tim_Buoy]

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.

this a hundred times
its just like the bill for healthcare for 9/11 first responders thats bieng held up in fucking senate by republicans that the only major news that covered it was aljazira (not sure if i spelled that right)

 

[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

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/

Oh jesus holy goddamn god - the climategate scandal was a trumped up controversy over a misreading of some standard analytical practices that has been reviewed by no less than SIX different, independent oversight boards on different occasions, and the involved scientists have been exonerated of all wrongdoing - and their methods found sound.

http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

quotes of note:

The contents of the emails were spun in a brilliant exercise of selective quotation. Out of context, phrases can be twisted to mean any number of things ? especially if they were written as private correspondence with colleagues, rather than with public communication in mind. Think about all the emails you have sent in the past decade. Chances are, if someone tried hard enough, they could make a few sentences you had written sound like evidence of malpractice, regardless of your real actions or intentions.

Consequently, a mathematical ?trick? (clever calculation) to efficiently analyse data was reframed as a conspiracy to ?trick? (deceive) the public into believing the world was warming. Researchers discussed how to statistically isolate and ?hide the decline? in problematic tree ring data that was no longer measuring what it used to, but this quote was immediately twisted to claim that the decline was in global temperatures: the world is cooling and scientists are hiding it from us!

Other accusations were based not on selective misquotation but on a misunderstanding of the way science works. When the researchers discussed what they felt were substandard papers that should not be published, many champions of the stolen emails shouted accusations that scientists were censoring their critics, as if all studies, no matter how weak their arguments, had a fundamental right to be published. Another email, in which a researcher privately expressed a desire to punch a notorious climate change denier, was twisted into an accusation that the scientists threatened people who disagreed with them. How was it a threat if the action was never intended to materialize, and if the supposed target was never aware of it?

Even if, for the sake of argument, all science conducted by the CRU was fraudulent, our understanding of global warming would not change. The CRU runs a global temperature dataset, but so do at least six other universities and government agencies around the world, and their independent conclusions are virtually identical. The evidence for human-caused climate change is not a house of cards that will collapse as soon as one piece is taken away. It?s more like a mountain: scrape a couple of pebbles off the top, but the mountain is still there. For respected newspapers and media outlets to ignore the many independent lines of evidence for this phenomenon in favour of a more interesting and controversial story was blatantly irresponsible, and almost no retractions or apologies have been published since.

Before long, the investigations into the contents of the stolen emails were completed, and one [http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf] by one [http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf], they [http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf] came [http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf] back [http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP] clear [http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf]. Six independent investigations reached basically the same conclusion: despite some reasonable concerns about data archival and sharing at CRU, the scientists had shown integrity and honesty. No science had been falsified, manipulated, exaggerated, or fudged. Despite all the media hullabaloo, ?climategate? hadn?t actually changed anything.

Sadly, by the time the investigations were complete, the media hullabaloo had died down to a trickle. Climategate was old news, and although most newspapers published stories on the exonerations, they were generally brief, buried deep in the paper, and filled with quotes from PR spokespeople that insisted the investigations were ?whitewashed?. In fact, Scott Mandia, a meteorology professor, found that media outlets devoted five to eleven times more stories to the accusations against the scientists than they devoted to the resulting exonerations of the scientists.

Fraud is a criminal charge, and should be treated as such. Climate scientists, just like anyone else, have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They shouldn?t have to endure this endless harassment of being publicly labelled as frauds without evidence. However, the injustice doesn?t end there. This hate campaign is a dangerous distraction from the consequences of global climate change, a problem that becomes more difficult to solve with every year we delay. The potential consequences are much more severe, and the time we have left to successfully address it is much shorter, than the vast majority of the public realizes. Unfortunately, powerful forces are at work to keep it that way. This little tussle about the integrity of a few researchers could have consequences millennia from now ? if we let it.

-m

 

[mr_rubino]

You realize the same could be said by a Republican about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. It's difference of opinion. Fox is Anti-Obama, everywhere else is Pro-Obama (or it certainly seems that way). This "study" is nothing more than bias meant to spite those who work for the company, and who dare to offer a differing opinion to that of the extremely left-wing dems that run the administration. Quite frankly whatever new service you listen to will have a biased opinion because news is reported on by people. And those people who wright the reports add their bias and opinion to the piece. You say Fox can't be trusted. I say MSNBC can't be either.

So the collected data is just "opinion" and thus just as credible as anything you yourself could say, and the study is not wrong, or unscientific, or filled with loaded questions and unknowables, but "biased".
*shrug* Whatever. I don't even blink when I hear this rightie get-out-of-jail-free card get played anymore. Yeah, fight the power, man. Stand up for the little guys who dare to "offer a differing opinion" in... news. Two wrongs and all that.
(Did you read that post? MSNBC and CNN make you stupid too, just apparently not as much.)

 

[sageoftruth]

It's called Yellow Journalism, slanting stories for your own benefit. Been happening since early 1900's.

Faux News belongs to the Elephants, Clinton News Network belongs to the Donkeys. And the only true unbiased news 50% of what you see and 0% of what you hear.

Woah, CNN is the extremist liberal network? From what I've seen of CNN there's not much of a gap between far right and left in that case.

Oh yeah. CNN used to be on all the time at work on lunch break. My co-workers and I had fun noting all the things that happened on it that made us facepalm. I've stayed clear of Fox, but I assume it would have had the same effect.

 

[mr_rubino]

Wait, is Industry Analyst Ryan Quickbender fighting with the users? This is... surreal.

 

[crepesack]

One of the most important things statisticians learn is that "Correlation is not causation"

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the station seems to attract ultraconservatives who are convinced that the Right wing can not falter.

THIS! Right here is truth!

The so-called "facts" that the respondents were questioned on are controversial matters. Matters where opinion is strong. I would also venture to guess that the questions were not worded as clearly as they were presented in the conclusion.

To say that they disagree on some of these matters makes them stupid is lazy statistics. It would be much the same as if you said that believing in God makes you stupid because God doesn't exist.

And of course the people who watch Fox News are going to share the opinions of the newscast. I'm a conservative, so I stay away from the more liberal news sources (MSNBC or up here in the Great White North, the CBC). Of course, I stay away from Fox too but that's another matter.

In short, this study isn't worth the paper it's printed on. At best, it shows a correlation in how your choice of news media informs your opinion, but that's much the same as saying "New study proves people who look up on a clear day believe the sky is blue."

Two conclusions: Watching fox makes you stupid or Stupid people watch Fox.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Wait, is Industry Analyst Ryan Quickbender fighting with the users? This is... surreal.

>.>

Maaaaaybe.

I usually hang out on R&P. But threads like this one frustrate me, and I couldn't pass up resonding.

-m

(cashbags)

 

[Terminate421]

Why is it that people hate the republicans when a democrat is in the oval office? (BTW before someone beats me, I'm mixed on my party, Republican and Libretarian.)

 

[ReverendJ]

Yeah, all media sources are inherently tainted these days.

BUT.

If you follow the assorted links through the pages to find the actual poll, the issues aren't with proving 'truth,' they're concerned with the disconnect between perception and reality. For example, it doesn't ask if health care reform is going to $#&@ the deficit. It asks what most economists agree on. It's a subtle distinction, but it's there. The reality, whatever you may believe on the subject of health care reform, is that most economists agree that it'll be ok. That is a fact that you can test public knowledge against. What they surveys found was that public knowledge of current events wasn't factual, and this tended to fall along party lines. Was CNN touting the nonexistent links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? It's not a matter of political philosophy, it's a matter of dispersing information that simply isn't true. And we all know who that is.

It's all B.S., but some is more ripe than others.

EDIT: YOU CAN ALL GO READ THE QUESTIONNAIRES YOURSELVES IF YOU THINK THEY WERE BIASED. Again, this isn't about opinion, it's about FACTS YOU CAN TEST AGAINST.

 

[SnowCold]

Correction: Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Conservative.

Seriously, what's with the american left and having you head up your ass?

 

[mr_rubino]

Why is it that people hate the republicans when a democrat is in the oval office? (BTW before someone beats me, I'm mixed on my party, Republican and Libretarian.)

Some people also hate Republicans when Republicans are in office.
Also, that's not mixed parties. That's one party and its delusional cousin. I'll let you mull over which is which. *escapes into the night in a puff of smoke*

EDIT: You may as well ask why people complain about Democrats ruining the world whenever Republicans control the oval office, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Simplest answer: Because that's politics.

 

[Faladorian]

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.

You know if they hadn't already branded themselves as politicians many would probably assume that they are, in fact, comedians. The abundance of human stupidity is very disheartening, especially when the people saying these stupid things are the people in charge.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's called Yellow Journalism, slanting stories for your own benefit. Been happening since early 1900's.

Faux News belongs to the Elephants, Clinton News Network belongs to the Donkeys. And the only true unbiased news is 50% of what you see and 0% of what you hear.

mmmm...False Equivalency. Pretending there's a left-wing equivalent to Fox never gets old.

 

[mr_rubino]

It's called Yellow Journalism, slanting stories for your own benefit. Been happening since early 1900's.

Faux News belongs to the Elephants, Clinton News Network belongs to the Donkeys. And the only true unbiased news is 50% of what you see and 0% of what you hear.

mmmm...False Equivalency. Pretending there's a left-wing equivalent to Fox never gets old.

And it changes over time. ^_^

Correction: Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Conservative.

Seriously, what's with the american left and having you head up your ass?

I just did my own study... like right now. Here's its title:
Study Confirms Conservatives Don't Know the Difference Between Conservative Views and Just Stuff They're Told Are Conservative Views.
(Hint as to the content: "smaller government" and "reasonable spending" have to be adhered to no matter how awesome the politician seems.)

 

[NEDM]

?91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs - As of August 2010, the stimulus bill was estimated to have created 3.3 million jobs.

Please read into those 3.3 million jobs some more. I'll give you a hint what those jobs were... they happen every 10 years, they tally data on population in the united states, and it starts with cen and ends with sus.

Honestly though, I love living in a society where we can sit around and stuff like this is our biggest concern. Either way..... life ain't too bad.

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

You realize the same could be said by a Republican about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. It's difference of opinion. Fox is Anti-Obama, everywhere else is Pro-Obama (or it certainly seems that way). This "study" is nothing more than bias meant to spite those who work for the company, and who dare to offer a differing opinion to that of the extremely left-wing dems that run the administration. Quite frankly whatever new service you listen to will have a biased opinion because news is reported on by people. And those people who wright the reports add their bias and opinion to the piece. You say Fox can't be trusted. I say MSNBC can't be either.

So the collected data is just "opinion" and thus just as credible as anything you yourself could say, and the study is not wrong, or unscientific, or filled with loaded questions and unknowables, but "biased".
*shrug* Whatever. I don't even blink when I hear this rightie get-out-of-jail-free card get played anymore. Yeah, fight the power, man. Stand up for the little guys who dare to "offer a differing opinion" in... news. Two wrongs and all that.
(Did you read that post? MSNBC and CNN make you stupid too, just apparently not as much.)

Obvious troll is obvious. I suggest you try harder next time my good sir. However feel free to come back when you would like to actually support what you say with an actual argument, and I will gladly engage in the art of debate with you.

 

[mr_rubino]

You realize the same could be said by a Republican about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. It's difference of opinion. Fox is Anti-Obama, everywhere else is Pro-Obama (or it certainly seems that way). This "study" is nothing more than bias meant to spite those who work for the company, and who dare to offer a differing opinion to that of the extremely left-wing dems that run the administration. Quite frankly whatever new service you listen to will have a biased opinion because news is reported on by people. And those people who wright the reports add their bias and opinion to the piece. You say Fox can't be trusted. I say MSNBC can't be either.

So the collected data is just "opinion" and thus just as credible as anything you yourself could say, and the study is not wrong, or unscientific, or filled with loaded questions and unknowables, but "biased".
*shrug* Whatever. I don't even blink when I hear this rightie get-out-of-jail-free card get played anymore. Yeah, fight the power, man. Stand up for the little guys who dare to "offer a differing opinion" in... news. Two wrongs and all that.
(Did you read that post? MSNBC and CNN make you stupid too, just apparently not as much.)

Obvious troll is obvious. I suggest you try harder next time my good sir. However feel free to come back when you would like to actually support what you say with an actual argument, and I will gladly engage in the art of debate with you.

That's about what I expected. You didn't read my post before replying, either.
To simplify: Your post said nothing. I can't debate someone who avoids making arguments. It's a contradiction in terms. "Bias bias bias!" is not the same as "This is wrong because..." I pointed out multiple ways you could have attacked the study instead of saying "Wrong cuz I disagree."

Please don't reply to me again unless you read and understand my posts. "Rabble rabble liberal media" might work on FreeRepublic and the IMDb, but it doesn't get you far here.

 

[Orekoya]

Obvious troll is obvious. I suggest you try harder next time my good sir. However feel free to come back when you would like to actually support what you say with an actual argument, and I will gladly engage in the art of debate with you.

Facts are just perceptions, perceptions are just opinions, and opinions can be wrong. The only that's right is confidence!

 

[thethingthatlurks]

1. Intelligence is NOT connected to preconceptions based on information. Was Isaac Newton an idiot for believing that diseases were caused by miasma?

2. Those things are mostly opinions, the long term economic consequences of a stimulus package are unpredictable. You're probably left wing politically, you're assuming subjective opinions are objectively wrong because you don't like the source and you're assuming that the viewers are stupid when in fact they've been misled for the same reason.

3. Climate change is happening yes. No, no we don't know why or for how long.

4. Not having to think is what makes you stupid, this rule applies as much for leftards as arch-conservatives. You want to hear some real stupidity? Go to a university and listen to what student bodies think about socialism, communism and general policy. Oh if only it were that simple.

1) Obviously, because it is wrong. Yes, I would call dear Sir Isaac and idiot (to his face I might add) if I had had the chance. Same goes for Einstein being a bit stubborn when it came to accepting quantum theory btw. Ignorance is never an excuse.

2) Wrong, there are clear projections vis-a-vis the economic implications of the various programs, which so far appear to be true. Actually, 6 of those 9 are facts, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

3) Wrong, we (that is my colleagues, I am not a climate scientist) know why it is happening, how it is happening, and since when it has been happening.

4) Before you criticize college students for their ideas, remember that they are far smarter than the average citizen, yourself included.

Back on topic: *sigh* Fox and idiots. A marriage made solely to traumatize all of us smarty college edumacated folk, or so it seems. Do yourself a favor and don't watch it.

 

[skitzo van]

This is why I don't watch the news. Every station fucks up its own stories beyond belief to get people to fight for their cause. I think this is what George Carlin meant when he said to teach kids to question things.