Fox News Makes You Stupid?

Fox News Makes You Stupid?

Brent Bozell
Townhall.com
Dec. 29, 2010

There is nothing the left believes in more robotically than the stupidity of conservatives. Otherwise, they would not be conservatives. When liberals get routed in an election, they do not question themselves. The first -- and for most, only -- verdict is that the American people were disastrously flooded by a tsunami of stupidity and misinformation.

So it's not surprising that left-wing bloggers would rejoice when they can write the headline "New Study Proves That Fox News Makes You Stupid." That's the Daily Kos headline. According to them, Fox News is "deliberately misinforming their viewers" to help Republicans, who "benefited from the ignorance Fox News helped to proliferate," as voters "based their decisions on demonstrably false information."

The liberal pranksters masquerading as pollsters at the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) are at it again. In a new survey, they claim that those who watched Fox News Channel on a daily basis were significantly more likely to believe in "misinformation." But how is that word defined? Look at the details and you will be floored by the misinformation -- coming from the pollsters themselves.

Here's Exhibit A: Fox viewers were more likely to believe "Among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, more think it will increase the deficit."

That is misinformation? This question is not about facts at all. It's about the opinions of economists looking into a crystal ball, and PIPA's "economists" estimate that herding 35 million uninsured Americans into a new federal entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit. This assertion by liberals that ObamaCare would cut deficits isn't technically a "lie" -- yet. It is merely a patently ridiculous claim that doesn't acknowledge the real world. But somehow, Fox News viewers are tagged as the "misinformed" dummies, because their opinions are grounded in logic.

Here's Exhibit B: Fox viewers were more likely to believe "Most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created a few jobs or caused job losses." Once again, this isn't about facts, but about economists and their estimation. The idea that there is "misinformation" afoot, and it's not about the incredibly nebulous and politicized notion of "saving or creating" jobs -- something so nebulous it can never be factually verified -- shows you the bias of the PIPA pollsters.

Let's go all the way back to the drawing board on this poll. Is it fair -- whether the pollsters are liberals or conservatives -- to expect the American people to identify correctly the estimates made by a panel of economists organized by news editors of The Wall Street Journal? In a random polling sample, how many memorizing Journal subscribers are you going to find?

There is a more serious polling problem here for PIPA. The poll was done from Nov. 6-15, 2010, with a sample size of 848 respondents, for a margin of error of 3.4 percent. Given that an average primetime audience of Fox News is 2.2 million out of a nation of more than 300 million people, that's 0.7 percent. Out of 848 poll respondents, 0.7 percent would give us total of about six Fox viewers. In their own polling breakdown, PIPA says 17 percent said they were almost-daily Fox viewers, or about 145 people. Even that is simply not high enough to test in a serious poll.

That is why this survey wasn't food for the national media, but scraps left for craven bloggers who know nothing about facts and care less about the truth.

Almost every piece of "misinformation" the PIPA people floated to measure how conservatives misunderstood Obama involved blatant spinning about Obama's role in the auto bailout or the TARP program, or how the "stimulus" included tax cuts, or even Obama's birth certificate.

They're not alone in trying to nail Fox. In August 2009, an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reported 72 percent of self-identified Fox News viewers believed the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79 percent believed it will lead to a government takeover, 69 percent thought it would use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75 percent believed that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.

Sadly for NBC, this "misinformation" is already coming true: On Christmas, The New York Times reported "death panels" are back in the ObamaCare regulations, and we knew by midsummer that states were funding abortions through ObamaCare.

These polls identify the real liberal fear: that someone will trust Fox News to tell them things the liberal media try to crush and bury.

This is such an old trick PIPA and those heralding this poll should be embarrassed. That PIPA poll is such shoddy work those pollsters should be fired - talk about rank amateurs. This is so obviously a purely political poll that I would be shocked if anyone other that the DailyKos and their ilk ran with it. I don't think even the mainstream media, liberal and deluded as they are, would touch such an obvious political hit piece with a 10 foot pole.

Brent is absolutely right, the real liberal fear here is that anyone might trust Fox News to get the other side of the story... the side the liberal media hope the people never learn about.

Sad isn't it?

Yet they're demonized day in and day out.

TexasBlue wrote:Yet they're demonized day in and day out.

Of course they are. Liberals cannot stand that they finally have not only competition in the media, but that people are learning about the very things they have been able to keep secret and unseen for so very, very long.

They are going to rail against conservative talk radio and FNC as though their very life depended on it, because it does. You are witnessing the death throes of liberal hegemony in the media.

I'm tellin' ya, I watch many of the regular TV network news and I find bias in each one at least once during the broadcast.

TexasBlue wrote:I'm tellin' ya, I watch many of the regular TV network news and I find bias in each one at least once during the broadcast.

As do I. I watch the broadcast network news at 6pm... and the Sunday broadcast network talk shows every week. I do this to stay on top of the mainstream take on the issues of the day. In every one, I see blatant bias toward the left on any story that deals with political issues. Not that this is a surprise, I've been dealing with these outlets for 3 decades.

Bozell has a news letter every day that points out blatant bias... with transcripts and everything.

TexasBlue wrote:Bozell has a news letter every day that points out blatant bias... with transcripts and everything.

Yeah, I know... I've actually had dealings with his organization for a client of mine a few years ago or so. And I've been a subscriber to his newsletters ever since.

Does the end always justify the means for you guys? Seems you never have a bad word to say about FNC. If I didn't know any better, I might believe you were suggesting they were a paragon of honesty and journalistic integrity. I've seen many videos where they have twisted and misrepresented the views of others.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Does the end always justify the means for you guys? Seems you never have a bad word to say about FNC.

Ok, I'll bite. Not enough blondes on there.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Does the end always justify the means for you guys? Seems you never have a bad word to say about FNC. If I didn't know any better, I might believe you were suggesting they were a paragon of honesty and journalistic integrity. I've seen many videos where they have twisted and misrepresented the views of others.

And yet we never hear the same criticism's about ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the many, many other liberal mainstream media outlets that are constantly twisting and even lying to the American people on a daily basis and that's just on the things they are willing to cover, there's a mountain of information that they routinely suppress by not covering it at all.

At least on Fox one can actually hear about both sides of an issue every day. And that is why this small cable news network (small relative to their liberal mainstream media counterparts), this narrow channel of information one doesn't hear in the liberal media, is under constant attack - and that is the ONLY reason they are under attack. It is the same reason conservative talk radio is under constant attack.

The liberal mainstream media has had a monopoly on the flow of news and information to the American people for better than half a century, and they are clearly angry that they no longer possess that monopoly - despite the fact that many more millions still turn to the mainstream media for their news than to Fox or talk radio. God forbid they should have some competition and that that competition should report things they would never tell the American people as it didn't comport with their liberal world view.

Matt, the next time you come here, you should watch each of the television network news all week and you'd see the bias or omissions by them. You'd see why some of us on the right despise the mainstream media here.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Does the end always justify the means for you guys? Seems you never have a bad word to say about FNC. If I didn't know any better, I might believe you were suggesting they were a paragon of honesty and journalistic integrity. I've seen many videos where they have twisted and misrepresented the views of others.

And yet we never hear the same criticism's about ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the many, many other liberal mainstream media outlets that are constantly twisting and even lying to the American people on a daily basis and that's just on the things they are willing to cover, there's a mountain of information that they routinely suppress by not covering it at all.

Uh-huh so the ends always justifies the means? I don't trust any side of the media. In fact 99% of the time I flat go out of my way to ignore it.

dblboggie wrote:At least on Fox one can actually hear about both sides of an issue every day.

uh-huh. fair and balanced indeed. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004. And lets not forget that the apparent "climategate" scandal was 90% fantasy created by Fox News.

Now watch this video and tell me that you think this is the right way to go about journalism.



Now, Fox did not feature in that video but they did pounce on the story like all the other right wing media drones.

Now, I'm not trying to get into another pointless discussion on climate change with you because my patience is now exhausted. My point here is about the rotten journalism at the core of the right wing media that you guys seem to think is acceptable because the left are doing it also?

TexasBlue wrote:Matt, the next time you come here, you should watch each of the television network news all week and you'd see the bias or omissions by them. You'd see why some of us on the right despise the mainstream media here.

When you say that Tex, this is what it seems to translate to "the liberals are in control of the media so I'm going to believe everything Fox tells me just to be petulant".

I would have hoped you two were old enough to take everything the media says (left and right) with a pinch of salt.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Does the end always justify the means for you guys? Seems you never have a bad word to say about FNC. If I didn't know any better, I might believe you were suggesting they were a paragon of honesty and journalistic integrity. I've seen many videos where they have twisted and misrepresented the views of others.

And yet we never hear the same criticism's about ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the many, many other liberal mainstream media outlets that are constantly twisting and even lying to the American people on a daily basis and that's just on the things they are willing to cover, there's a mountain of information that they routinely suppress by not covering it at all.

Uh-huh so the ends always justifies the means? I don't trust any side of the media. In fact 99% of the time I flat go out of my way to ignore it.

Did I ever say that? The answer is no. And where have I ever said I trusted any media at all? Or believed them? Watching or reading the news to gather information is only one step in the process of learning the actual facts on any given story or issue.

I think you are mistaking my exposing the actual reasons that Fox News is singled out (the liberal mainstream media's fight to silence conservative voices) for an endorsement of shoddy journalism. It is not.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:At least on Fox one can actually hear about both sides of an issue every day.

uh-huh. fair and balanced indeed. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004. And lets not forget that the apparent "climategate" scandal was 90% fantasy created by Fox News.

First of all, citing MediaMatters is not a credibility builder. MediaMatters is a George Soros funded far-left attack dog who's only mission is to go after conservative talk radio and Fox News - that's it, that's their sole purpose for existing.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Now watch this video and tell me that you think this is the right way to go about journalism.



Now, Fox did not feature in that video but they did pounce on the story like all the other right wing media drones.

Now, I'm not trying to get into another pointless discussion on climate change with you because my patience is now exhausted. My point here is about the rotten journalism at the core of the right wing media that you guys seem to think is acceptable because the left are doing it also?

But I never hear a peep about the rotten journalism at the core of the liberal mainstream media. Look, I've known what the media are, right and left, for decades. You forget that in my profession of communications I have had to deal with the media, to sell stories to the media, to create stories for the media, to get coverage on issues, individuals and organizations. I know better than anyone here, probably, just what goes on in the news room and in the news boardroom. I worked with everyone from the publisher on down in print media and the news director on down in electronic media. Sadly, the media have NEVER, in their entire history, been an accurate or complete accounting for the events and issues of the day. Anyone who has studied the history of media coverage will know this. So I am not so deluded as to take anything I see or hear in the media, right or left, as the gospel truth. Some do better than others, but none are flawless and all are aware of the business side of news and the need to draw an audience.

I just tire of this constant yammering about the evil Fox News, and conservative talk radio pundits, from the left, while they ignore their counterparts on the left, as though the mainstream media and liberal talk radio pundits were pure as the driven snow.

Tell ya what, let's just stipulate that ALL media, left and right, have an agenda to peddle and all of it should be taken with a grain of salt at the very least.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:When you say that Tex, this is what it seems to translate to "the liberals are in control of the media so I'm going to believe everything Fox tells me just to be petulant".

I would have hoped you two were old enough to take everything the media says (left and right) with a pinch of salt.

Most of the USA journalists are liberal or Democrat voters. This has been proven. This goes for television and newspaper journalists

My whole point in defending FNC is that it caters to the right and center-right. Because of that, the left goes hysterical when that channel exposes something that the others don't (or won't). I've seen numerous times when FNC exposed something and it was days before the rest of the media in this country finally reported it.... because it was something that damaged their goods so to speak.

dblboggie wrote:Did I ever say that?

You don't need to say it seeing as I keep hearing about the liberal agenda in the media, the fact that you acknowledge the lack of journalistic integrity but champion Fox anyway suggests that you believe it.

dblboggie wrote:But I never hear a peep about the rotten journalism at the core of the liberal mainstream media.

And the best you guys can ever do is post a right wing article as though the left wing article is entirely fabricated and the right wing article is entirely truthful. I'm saying that neither position is helpful.

dblboggie wrote:Tell ya what, let's just stipulate that ALL media, left and right, have an agenda to peddle and all of it should be taken with a grain of salt at the very least.

I have always said that but I never hear that from you or Tex. You fawn over opinion pieces of the right and accept them uncritically.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:When you say that Tex, this is what it seems to translate to "the liberals are in control of the media so I'm going to believe everything Fox tells me just to be petulant".

I would have hoped you two were old enough to take everything the media says (left and right) with a pinch of salt.

Most of the USA journalists are liberal or Democrat voters. This has been proven. This goes for television and newspaper journalists

My whole point in defending FNC is that it caters to the right and center-right. Because of that, the left goes hysterical when that channel exposes something that the others don't (or won't). I've seen numerous times when FNC exposed something and it was days before the rest of the media in this country finally reported it.... because it was something that damaged their goods so to speak.

Not really my point Tex. It is about how this perception of a liberal agenda/bias/conspiracy or whatever you want to call it leads you and dbl to accept everything Fox says without a second thought.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Did I ever say that?

You don't need to say it seeing as I keep hearing about the liberal agenda in the media, the fact that you acknowledge the lack of journalistic integrity but champion Fox anyway suggests that you believe it.

And where did you see me championing Fox? There is quite a difference between defending an outlet's right to exist (a right the rest of the mainstream media and liberals are trying to deny) and "championing" it. One mustn't confuse the two.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But I never hear a peep about the rotten journalism at the core of the liberal mainstream media.

And the best you guys can ever do is post a right wing article as though the left wing article is entirely fabricated and the right wing article is entirely truthful. I'm saying that neither position is helpful.

Well to be fair, Tex primarily posts opinion pieces, not articles. There is a difference. And here's another common misconception, that opinion pieces are automatically "wrong" or "not factual." And this position is held despite the fact that many of these pieces are written by experts on the topics they discuss and contain corroborating information within them.

Personally, I trust no media and do not take them at face value, but of the two, hard news articles and opinion pieces, I would rank the opinion pieces as more likely to be accurate.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Tell ya what, let's just stipulate that ALL media, left and right, have an agenda to peddle and all of it should be taken with a grain of salt at the very least.

I have always said that but I never hear that from you or Tex. You fawn over opinion pieces of the right and accept them uncritically.

I accept nothing uncritically. And as you have no possible way of proving that claim, it is not a claim rightfully made. You have no clue how much I've learned over the years of working with the media and government. I don't need an opinion piece in a paper to inform my thinking on the issues I debate. I have been debating these issues longer than some here have been alive. I have had a lot of time to critically examine the issues I debate. Don't mistake my endorsement of a particular point of view in an opinion piece as an acceptance of it without critical examination. I don't take positions on issues without examining all sides of it. And like I've said, I've had decades to examine much of what goes on in our government and our world.

You might wanna change this little tidbit.

dblboggie wrote:Well to be fair, Matt primarily posts opinion pieces, not articles.

TexasBlue wrote:You might wanna change this little tidbit.

dblboggie wrote:Well to be fair, Matt primarily posts opinion pieces, not articles.

Well, I did say primarily - not only. Of course I could be wrong, I haven't exactly kept a strict count of the ratio.

Oh. I thought you were referring to me when you said that since I post op-ed pieces.

TexasBlue wrote:Oh. I thought you were referring to me when you said that since I post op-ed pieces.

Aww crap... I did mean you.

I fixed it. Thanks.

dblboggie wrote:And where did you see me championing Fox? There is quite a difference between defending an outlet's right to exist (a right the rest of the mainstream media and liberals are trying to deny) and "championing" it. One mustn't confuse the two.

Well then you are confusing the two in assuming that my critical handling of Fox is some sort of attack on its right to exist. Bullshit in the media should always be challenged, but not by fawning over similar articles from the opposite end of the spectrum.

dblboggie wrote:And here's another common misconception, that opinion pieces are automatically "wrong" or "not factual." And this position is held despite the fact that many of these pieces are written by experts on the topics they discuss and contain corroborating information within them.

The clue is in the title "opinion". Such opinion pieces are rarely interested in facts. Their primary concern is appealing to the prejudices of the readership. That is poor journalism and it is lazy.

I also think it is a dangerous game to champion personalities rather than the arguments they are making. And even more dangerously in some cases, because they are never corrected, they are reproduced by equally lazy third rate journalists who orgasm over the content and never check it. They are also usually full of factual errors - by accident or design - and are never clarified or corrected. The "facts" within them are often selective and ignore data which is inconvenient to the opinion they wish to bludgeon us with. This is why this myth that 2010 was one of the coldest years in the last few decades keeps getting repeated by climate denialists who do not understand the science but orgasm at the headline. It is why people are increasingly not taking up innoculations because of the debunked idea that vaccines cause autism. It is why we keep hearing how Christians are being oppressed, but nobody can ever explain how. I apply that as much to Rush Limbaugh as I do to Michael Moore. I expect you will disagree, after all, Rush Limbaugh appeals to your prejudices and Michael Moore doesn't. I expect the same from cable2 for whom the opposite is true.

dblboggie wrote:Personally, I trust no media and do not take them at face value, but of the two, hard news articles and opinion pieces, I would rank the opinion pieces as more likely to be accurate.

And I the opposite for the reasons stated above. Whenever Tex posts an article about Europe, or Britain, I feel I spend more time pointing out the factual errors (which are there usually by design than accident in order to appeal to the prejudices of the American readership) than addressing the issues that the article is supposed to be about.

dblboggie wrote:I accept nothing uncritically.

Yet you have rarely, if ever, pointed out factual errors in the op-ed pieces that Tex posts. All we seem to get is "hey, great find. See what I mean about liberals wanting to <insert threat to American society of choice>? They're just a bunch of <anti-Americans/Commies/Socialists/Marxists/Islamists/anti capitalists/anti-west/pacifists>!"

dblboggie wrote:Don't mistake my endorsement of a particular point of view in an opinion piece as an acceptance of it without critical examination. I don't take positions on issues without examining all sides of it. And like I've said, I've had decades to examine much of what goes on in our government and our world.

That is the opinion I get from you. If you want my opinion to change then "show, don't tell".