Travis Higuet said:
Is there any data to back up this claim about Fox viewers limited attention span?
Well, there's this...
...Fox News and others have shortened stories to be quickly digested... -Forbes Magazine ([link]http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2012/01/25/is-social-media-shortening-our-attention-span/[/link])
...But there's also the numerous self-contradictions Fox News is responsible for, which
might cause a reflective soul to wonder if their news source was doing a particularly good job. Identified here ([link]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_1_n_684467.html[/link]) and elsewhere. In light of that, assuming a short attention span (and thus failure to recognize the internal contradictions) is the cause of not holding a news channel accountable is actually one of the more generous interpretations.
It seems like a pretty generalized throwaway insult.
Actually, it's a rather specific criticism. If I wanted to get insulting, I would probably add something about how people who rely on Fox News for information appear as a whole to know less about current events than people who watch no news at all.
As has been suggested by certain studies. ([link]http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220020?frontpage[/link])
Is everybody who disagrees with you an idiot?
No, and nothing I said here implies as much, though I maintain the right to reserve judgments on individual idiocy on a case-by-case basis.
The fact that you disagree with Fox's perspective on current events doesn't make them liars.
No, but the fact that they've been unable to enter Canada specifically because Canada's radio act forbids broadcasting of "false or misleading news" is a pretty good hint. As is the link I posted about their case establishing their right to lie or distort information during news broadcasts.
As far as
specific lies, there's Sean Hannity's claim that the "Cash for Clunkers" program would allow someone to buy a car from a junkyard and have the government pay them $4,500 for it, ([link]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/22/sean-hannity/hannity-claims-loophole-cash-clunkers-program-woul/[/link]), Bill O'Reilly's claim that the poverty rate hasn't budged since 1965 in spite of "trillions spent" ([link]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/29/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-says-poverty-hasnt-budged-1965-despit/[/link]), Glenn Beck's claim that Labor union president Andy Stern was "the most frequent visitor" at the White House ([link]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/[/link])...
So, in short, no, my opinion doesn't make them liars; the fact that they lie makes them liars. And their legal maneuverings strongly suggest both an awareness of their tendency to lie and an intention to continue to do so.
For the purposes of this argument, I'm not saying that they are right, I'm just saying that a person isn't necessarily a moron simply because they interpret political/economic reality differently than you. I have to constantly remind myself of this fact as I watch people protesting cuts in benefits and handouts. Instinctively I want to scream at the TV about how basic math points to economic catastrophe if these self centered lazy little piles of dung can't find a way to survive without having all their needs provided for by others, just like every other generation has done before them. But I don't, I stop myself and force myself to see that they are simply interpreting the circumstances differently than me. I still think they are wrong of course, but I force myself to not see them as subhuman fucktards selfishly dragging down the greatest nation in all of human history. You should try it. It's hard trust me. Just keep repeating to yourself, disagreeing with me, is not inherently stupid.
In a broad sense, you're right- not necessarily about me or my viewpoint, but about people and political views in general. It is very easy to get into a mindset where those who oppose you, especially politically, aren't just seeing things from a different perspective, but actively stupid and/or evil.
The thing is, aside from whatever one might think of the accuracy of Fox News or the targets of its ire (or the fact that Fox News could indeed be said to have "targets"), Fox
actively feeds into that mindset. It has helped to create a landscape where if one chooses, one only has to listen to news flavored to the beliefs one already holds. And fostered the notion that reality isn't as important as opinion, the truth is open to interpretation, and repetition is more important than accuracy.
And that's poison. Not just to its viewers, but to democracy as a whole. I don't ignore a news article from, say, the
Wall Street Journal just because it trends to the right, or even because it's now part of the Murdoch media empire. Regardless of that, the WSJ has a certain reputation for integrity and responsibility. Fox News doesn't. It feeds an atmosphere where if you don't enjoy hearing about something you can accuse the source of bias and promptly ignore it. The studies about how informed Fox viewers are suggest that many of them are doing just that, and my encounters with people who insist on watching Fox News (and
only Fox News) reinforce that suggestion.
In a country with some degree of democratic representation (pardon me:
I KNOW WE'RE IN A REPUBLIC, AND WE DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY, YOU ONE GUY IN THE BACK- GET YOUR POINTER OFF THE REPLY BUTTON AND SHUT UP), opinions, for better or worse, matter. Informed or uninformed, a vote has the same weight. An opinion
should be backed up by an understanding of reality, and we should stop suggesting that reality is determined by the loudest voice. We can't put gravity to a vote. Not all opinions
are equally valid, and while gathering a large number of mis-informed people can give a point of view power, it doesn't make it any more correct.
