-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
copacetic
King of the Hippies
*faints*
Guantanamo
Expert Member
I would never have guessed that, anyone see The Daily Shows episode on the 16th? Shows who Fox is targeting (Republican middle America) and how they carefully leave out what they don't need to know. IMHO the filibuster ont the first responders bill over tax cuts is disgusting, goes to show what the Republicans true priorities are.
daveza
Honorary Master
Tell me this isn't true.
genetic
Honorary Master
I would never take Fox or CNN news as 100% fact (infact you probably can't do that with any network). You get more accurate and in depth news from European networks and Aljazera on world wide and American issues than you'd get from the States.
Rosaudio
First Officer
True.
Aljazeera is an excellent news channel with very interesting reports and documentaries
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Watching an episode of the Simpsons will really put you at ease about how seriously the Fox channel takes itself. 
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
I do like the fact that opening the AlJazeera web site you will find articles of interest not covered at all in Western sources. It is a nice source on the other side of the world.
But remember that all news channels and sources have their inherent bias.
Nom Chompsky
High Tory
Interesting to do a poll in the UK to the same effect, especially when the BBC admits to not talk about 'sensitive subjects'.
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
Oh noes, the world is going to end!
Fox News, spreads some tall tales (Shock and Awe), and Republicans are most likely to believe this, reading in between the lines, it seems an attempt to demonstrate Republicans are generally speaking, dumber than Dems.
Reminds me of Wizards "Smart enough to be a liberal?"
Smart enought to be a libertarian?
Conservatives are dumber - and smarter - than liberals.
Democrats are fond of declaring that those who vote Republican are on the shorter end of the bus. One line of argument goes that Grand Old Partiers are just not bright enough to figure out what's best for the nation, or even themselves. Another insinuates that they lack the faculties to deal with nuanced issues and therefore hold fast to absolutes: ALL fetuses are full people; ALL taxes go to gay crack-addicted single moms on welfare. Indeed, some studies have supported such a simple correlation between political views and intelligence, but new research soon to be published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences paints a more muddied-and interesting-red and blue picture of IQ.
Sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier compared college students' self-professed political views to their SAT and ACT scores (which are imperfect but useful measures of cognitive ability.) First, he did find a general trend that social conservatives (those who wanted to ban abortion and gay marriage) weren't as gifted as students with a more progressive take on gender roles. But he found the exact opposite pattern with anti-regulation attitudes: The conservatives/libertarians (yay guns boo taxes) appeared to be smarter than their commie compatriots. Kemmelmeier found this crossover "particularly surprising" and says, "It highlights (yet again) that ‘conservatism' is not necessarily a coherent construct, but that you have to distinguish at minimum social conservatism and economic conservatism (libertarianism). If you think about it: Jerry Falwell and Milton Freedman are worlds apart."
Kemmelmeier found another pattern in his data, one supporting the previously-suggested idea that holding unpopular political views demands more cognitive resources ("context theory"). Those with the strongest beliefs, either way red or way blue, are smarter than the wishy washy centrists too confused to stake their own ground. (All of these findings only applied to verbal intelligence. Math skills had no correlation with conservatism.) "I expected to find in some ways more of the same-old, that primarily more liberal views are linked to higher ability levels," Kemmelmeier says. "But, boy, this would be very wrong-at least as a general conclusion."
Wishy, washy centrists... (Half socialist, half capitalist, I.E. welfarists etc.) are the dumber ones according to this study.
What makes "liberals" smarter in your study touted in your sig is ONLY social liberty. The study does not mention public/business liberty, I.E liberty in all spheres (Not just social issues such as gay rights and abortion), which is where a libertarian is much more logically consistant, more extreme, and in general, according to one study, more intelligent.
I guess when the OP is about insulting all members of a party, by generalising them all out once, then insults such as this one are permitted?
Ey? Just might have to change that good ol sig of yours?
Reminds me of Wizards "Smart enough to be a liberal?"
Smart enought to be a libertarian?
Conservatives are dumber - and smarter - than liberals.
Democrats are fond of declaring that those who vote Republican are on the shorter end of the bus. One line of argument goes that Grand Old Partiers are just not bright enough to figure out what's best for the nation, or even themselves. Another insinuates that they lack the faculties to deal with nuanced issues and therefore hold fast to absolutes: ALL fetuses are full people; ALL taxes go to gay crack-addicted single moms on welfare. Indeed, some studies have supported such a simple correlation between political views and intelligence, but new research soon to be published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences paints a more muddied-and interesting-red and blue picture of IQ.
Sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier compared college students' self-professed political views to their SAT and ACT scores (which are imperfect but useful measures of cognitive ability.) First, he did find a general trend that social conservatives (those who wanted to ban abortion and gay marriage) weren't as gifted as students with a more progressive take on gender roles. But he found the exact opposite pattern with anti-regulation attitudes: The conservatives/libertarians (yay guns boo taxes) appeared to be smarter than their commie compatriots. Kemmelmeier found this crossover "particularly surprising" and says, "It highlights (yet again) that ‘conservatism' is not necessarily a coherent construct, but that you have to distinguish at minimum social conservatism and economic conservatism (libertarianism). If you think about it: Jerry Falwell and Milton Freedman are worlds apart."
Kemmelmeier found another pattern in his data, one supporting the previously-suggested idea that holding unpopular political views demands more cognitive resources ("context theory"). Those with the strongest beliefs, either way red or way blue, are smarter than the wishy washy centrists too confused to stake their own ground. (All of these findings only applied to verbal intelligence. Math skills had no correlation with conservatism.) "I expected to find in some ways more of the same-old, that primarily more liberal views are linked to higher ability levels," Kemmelmeier says. "But, boy, this would be very wrong-at least as a general conclusion."
Wishy, washy centrists... (Half socialist, half capitalist, I.E. welfarists etc.) are the dumber ones according to this study.
What makes "liberals" smarter in your study touted in your sig is ONLY social liberty. The study does not mention public/business liberty, I.E liberty in all spheres (Not just social issues such as gay rights and abortion), which is where a libertarian is much more logically consistant, more extreme, and in general, according to one study, more intelligent.
I guess when the OP is about insulting all members of a party, by generalising them all out once, then insults such as this one are permitted?
Ey? Just might have to change that good ol sig of yours?
Last edited:
Last edited:
I wonder which South African News Agency has the dumbest viewers/readers , my bet is SABS compared to E-TV/News24. I for one buy both the Afrikaans and English Newspapers because they almost always focus on different aspects and views of South Africa. I think what we can safely conclude from this is that anyone who whole hearthly believes 1 news channel/paper can't be very bright.
Skewe Beeld, Flapport, almal dieselfde Naspers twak wat ons eet as warme broodjies.
Ah well, all news networks claim they are 'neutral', but infact everyone is biased. Some more than others. I consider Fox and Naspers for example more biased. And Al Jazera and the BBC to be slightly less biased. But they all claim to have no bias.
And define, 'misinformed'. Misinformed according to who. According to those Fox viewers, the other people are misinformed!
And Al Jazera and the BBC to be slightly less biased. But they all claim to have no bias.
What makes me uneasy about Aljazeera is that their ME reporting is so biased and wildly inaccurate. If they can be so wrong about an area I know a bit about, what does this say about their accuracy in reporting on subjects I am ignorant of. I have to trust them and rely on my built-in BS detector.
I have heard (on Aljazeera – an episode of ‘Empire’) in a debate with the head of French TV, past head of BBC and others that the BBC was probably the most unbiased. Significantly, no-one argued (and they were all interested parties).
The ideal mix if one had the time or inclination for determining truth would be:
Aljazeera and Russia Today (and maybe China TV) for a balance to Western reporting.
BBC and CNN for mainstream Western views.
Fox and Sky for a window on what the conservatives are up to.
If they all reported on the same event, the truth could probably be discerned.
Fazda
Honorary Master
Well well, well, so Fox tends to bend the news............. Seeing as I have been barred from saying anything to two of the Fox fanbois, I'll just have to say....Why am I not surprised?
An analysis of Aljazeera...
When interviewing people that don’t necessarily toe the pro-Arab line they are continually interrupted by the biased Aljazeera mob when they get on an uncomfortable track that Aljazeera don’t want their viewers to hear. Analyse the sound bites the Israeli’s use (if they have time to think of them). They strive to construct their sound bites in an integrated fashion so that they can’t be quoted out of context or their quotes used without including damning material. Aljazeera has always started the hostile interviewing. And they are so blatant that I feel insulted. If I am to have the wool pulled over my eyes, it should be done with some finesse. I am pissed-off at all of them for their bias. Even the Aljazeera ‘Listening Post’ (a media program) which I considered the most balanced, exhibited bias. I particularly disliked the guy who did ‘Inside Iraq’. Typical Arab, strident and arrogant.
Remember in all this, money matters. It is the deep pocket of Sheikh Hamad al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, which got the Aljazeera Arabic channel going 10 years ago. Once more, it is he who is bankrolling Aljazeera International......
How can you expect Aljazeera English to be unbiased when al Thani (ruler of Qatar) also owns Aljazeera Arabic – an extremely anti-Israel station run by spittle-flecked, Quran clutching, doggerel-spouting bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics? I would imagine some anti-Israel bias would creep in, bleeding over from the Arabic channel.
One does not have to wait to verify the statement: "Aljazeera International pursues no domestic agenda." The reason lies in geopolitics. A small player in the Arabian Peninsula compared to its neighbour, the mighty Saudi Arabia, Qatar does not have an agenda to pursue regionally or internationally (I don’t think).
The only parallel to rival the Qatar-financed Aljazeera International would be the government of Norway funding a 24-hour television news channel out of its own hydrocarbon wealth, and allowing the management total editorial control. Since such a prospect is not on the cards for traditional Arab TV, the arrival of Aljazeera English on the global broadcasting scene deserves to be welcomed.
Aljazeera’s ‘green’ credentials are also dodgy. Consider - Hamad al Thani bankrolls Aljazeera. It’s not unreasonable to assume that much of his wealth is due to oil. Aljazeera staff stand to lose their jobs if Hamad al Thani takes financial strain. It could be said that the welfare of Aljazeera depends on the financial welfare of Hamad al Thani which depends on oil. Aljazeera cannot be unbiased about alternative fuels. They will always be pro-fossil fuels. Be cautious of any ‘green’ agenda they may push. It may be BS.
When interviewing people that don’t necessarily toe the pro-Arab line they are continually interrupted by the biased Aljazeera mob when they get on an uncomfortable track that Aljazeera don’t want their viewers to hear. Analyse the sound bites the Israeli’s use (if they have time to think of them). They strive to construct their sound bites in an integrated fashion so that they can’t be quoted out of context or their quotes used without including damning material. Aljazeera has always started the hostile interviewing. And they are so blatant that I feel insulted. If I am to have the wool pulled over my eyes, it should be done with some finesse. I am pissed-off at all of them for their bias. Even the Aljazeera ‘Listening Post’ (a media program) which I considered the most balanced, exhibited bias. I particularly disliked the guy who did ‘Inside Iraq’. Typical Arab, strident and arrogant.
Remember in all this, money matters. It is the deep pocket of Sheikh Hamad al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, which got the Aljazeera Arabic channel going 10 years ago. Once more, it is he who is bankrolling Aljazeera International......
Yeah, right!
How can you expect Aljazeera English to be unbiased when al Thani (ruler of Qatar) also owns Aljazeera Arabic – an extremely anti-Israel station run by spittle-flecked, Quran clutching, doggerel-spouting bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics? I would imagine some anti-Israel bias would creep in, bleeding over from the Arabic channel.
One does not have to wait to verify the statement: "Aljazeera International pursues no domestic agenda." The reason lies in geopolitics. A small player in the Arabian Peninsula compared to its neighbour, the mighty Saudi Arabia, Qatar does not have an agenda to pursue regionally or internationally (I don’t think).
The only parallel to rival the Qatar-financed Aljazeera International would be the government of Norway funding a 24-hour television news channel out of its own hydrocarbon wealth, and allowing the management total editorial control. Since such a prospect is not on the cards for traditional Arab TV, the arrival of Aljazeera English on the global broadcasting scene deserves to be welcomed.
Aljazeera’s ‘green’ credentials are also dodgy. Consider - Hamad al Thani bankrolls Aljazeera. It’s not unreasonable to assume that much of his wealth is due to oil. Aljazeera staff stand to lose their jobs if Hamad al Thani takes financial strain. It could be said that the welfare of Aljazeera depends on the financial welfare of Hamad al Thani which depends on oil. Aljazeera cannot be unbiased about alternative fuels. They will always be pro-fossil fuels. Be cautious of any ‘green’ agenda they may push. It may be BS.
Fazda
Honorary Master
On a similar vein to the Aljazeera ownership, I enjoyed the way Jon Stewart showed up Fox 's weird logic back in August.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html