Fox News Viewers Again found to be the most misinformed.

Nope.
I said CBO projections stood in for "most economists", which is what they actually used in the study.
While a number of you have asserted that they are the same the reality is no one has yet shown that those two are the same.

And no Joe, when you ask a question like:
Since January 2009 have your Federal income taxes:
Gone up, stayed the same, gone down...

When they really mean YOUR TAX RATE, then it is a poorly worded study, because if I was taking the survey I'd have answered YES and I would have been put in the misinformed catagory even though my taxes DID go up.

Or the question that used the term "Climate Change" as if there was some unambiguous meaning to that choice of words.

The bottom line is the study appears to suck on many levels.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are grasping as straws again..trying to defend the indefensible just like you did with the witch who was not a witch.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The bottom line, this is one survey conducted by one of the best universities in the nation. They know much better than you how to conduct a survey and intrepret the results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice appeal to authority.

Except it isn't done by the University, it's done by a small group called WorldOpinionOrg, which is funded by (among others) Tides Foundation (which is partailly funded by George Soros) which is clearly NOT unbiased as it recently called for a boycott of Glenn Beck's sponsors.

http://www.examiner.com/sf-in-san-francisco/glenn-beck-slams-tides-foundation-george-soros

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arguments that the body of scientist referred to in the study (the CBO and several others) do in fact represent "most scientists" have been presented to you, and you have not dealt with them, or provided evidence and argument otherwise.

But you have abandoned your original completely mistaken objections to the study's results, which is progress.

Are you claiming that Fox News viewers are much more likely to have been given big raises in the past year?

If Fox News viewers are less likely than other people to be familiar with the meanings of common phrases used in the public discourse, or their meanings in the discourse of scientists in the public arena, that reinforces the conclusions regarding their state of misinformed ignorance.

 

Assertions are not arguments.

The tax rates for 09 and 10 are essentially unchanged, but since a LOT of tax breaks had expired at the end of 09, for many people, they were likely paying more income taxes in Nov of 10, when these questions were asked, since the breaks were not put back until December. If you include people who got just a modest increase in pay, then yes probably MOST, in Nov of 10, had more taken out of their paycheck then they did in 09. The POINT though is the question does NOT yield the correct answer in many cases, including my own, yet you continue to defend it.

Actually, Global Warming is the much more common phrase. The term "climate change" is far less clear as to what the issue is. Yes I know that some people now use it, but that doesn't mean that the term has a clear meaning. Which is why when asking poll questions to a small sample of people one has to make sure your questions are understood.

 

You seem to be confused about the workings of withholding, and misled about the prevalence of substantial pay raises in 2009.

The point is that you are claiming the question would be answered differently by Fox News viewers than by other people, on average, for some legitimate reason. What is that reason? The reason for the difference, not the reasons for the answers, is the matter at hand.

So you agree that people who watch Fox News have more trouble understanding simple questions, because they don't know what people are talking about when they say things like "climate change".

 

Nothing to do with withholdings. Fox viewers though might simply be more aware that this large group of tax breaks had expired in 09 and at the time the question was asked, were expecting to pay higher taxes, then add in anyone who got a raise, and voila.

Not at all, what I'm saying is the answer to the question is random, so the fact that one group answers more than another means nothing.

No, the question isn't simple, in fact the question has little meaning.

 

If the correct answers are "random", we need a pretty good explanation for the consistent and non-random differences between the answers we get from Fox viewers and those we get from everyone else.

The obvious one is ignorance on the viewer's part, aggravated by deception on the part of Fox - which has been documented elsewhere.

Then how would most people in November be noticing the nominal absence of a tax break in August that was re-ratified in December ( the delay caused by partisan Republican political maneuvering, btw) ?

 

lol, It is not an appeal. It is a fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You know, one of those peskly little things that keep getting in the way of your arguements.

Grab on hard because one of those pesky little facts are going to bite you again. The study was conducted by the University of Maryland. Even Fox News admits to that little fact.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecu...s-fox-news-viewers-most-misinformed-on-issues

You are way out there on a branch by yourself claiming that the study was not done by the University of Maryland. Another typical right wing whacko tactic, need a fact - make one up.

http://www.pipa.org/

And this is not the first time a University of Maryland study found Fox News viewers to be the most misinformed. This is a continuation of a historical pattern. Fox News viewers were found to be the most misinformed in 2003.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

You are desperate now, quoting beck as a legitimate source. Additionally there are lots of individuals and foundations that donate money to various colleges and universities for a wide variety of projects. That does not mean the projects are tainted or biased in any way. I have to laugh when you right wingers pull out the old George Soros boogie man. According the the right wing whackos, George Soros is under every rock and behind every coroner...that guy gets around

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

By the way, Beck's tirades against the Tide Foundation or any other group is not an indication of wrong doing. In fact is is probably an indication to the contrary.

You have consistently failed to prove that there was anything wrong with the survey or the results. You have made a lot of unsubstanciated claims, but proved nothing. You have made up "facts" and failed to provide proofs of any of your many claims. In fact, you have made stuff up as a subsitute for fact.

 

Very true, so why don't you start making some fact based arguements instead of assertions?

 

Arthur, I thought your last post was several posts ago.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2666833&postcount=34

 

Inexplicable: Or, What's the Grand Prize?

I've been trying not to make a fuss about this, mostly because I think it's hilarious. I mean, as I sits and I thinks, and I tries to figger out jus' what them kids o'er a' FOX News were tryin' t'do, 'nothin' makes any kinda sense.

Or, briefly, I cannot explain how or why; I can only report that it happened:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

FOX News, December 22, 2010
(via Regret the Error)​

____________________

Notes:

Silverman, Craig. "Elie Wiesel, 'Holocaust Winner'". Regret the Error. December 22, 2010. RegretTheError.com. December 24, 2010. http://www.regrettheerror.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/wiesel.jpg

 

I think is is good example of how careless Fox is with the truth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-dubs-elie-wiesel-holocaust-winner-2010-12

 

Wicked Hints

At least your link suggests a plausible explanation: badly combining Nobel Prize winner and Holocaust survivor. The wicked part of me expects to learn that FOX is employing illegal immigrants to do their chyrons, crawls, and other broadcast graphics.

The rest of me just shrugs, wonders if someone was on something, or what the hell happened if that's what happened.

 

Pesky little details, joe, how about this from your citation?;

Yes, your favorite left wing news .orgs, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, viewers, rate even higher at being misinformed then the FOX new viewers.

Now aren't NPR and PBS government sponsored, and supported?

Yes, joe, now what is the measure of what is the truth that was used to decide where the misinformation lie?

The Government? Yes joe and just how often have has the government been caught spinning the truth, or just plain down right lying......

 

Typical buffalo roam, lifting something out of context and then making sweeping and false generalizations.

The bottom line of the study was that Fox viewers were found yet again to be the most misinformed. That has nothing to do with liberalism (liberalism in your lexicon means anyone who disagrees with limbaugh, beck, levin, et al).

As for deciding what is truth and what is a lie is pretty simple. You compare the answer to a verifiable fact. I presume you took tests in elementary school. Two plus two still equals four . . . unless of course you are Fox News or rush limabugh.

 

@ Buffalo Roam on funding:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More at http://www.knightcomm.org/rethink-public-media/the-challenge/​

It would be interesting to see a comparison of corporate political campaign contributors financing Fox News. BTW, PBS has a superb website: http://www.pbs.org/

As for how well the public investment in public broadcasting is paying off, there is evidence to show that we're not doing too badly- right behind the Limbaugh (!) audience. I suspect it's liberals like me who monitor and wonder at such demagogues that enter into data like what's below. CNN viewers took quite a beating here:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Further information here: Pew Research Center report: Ideological News Sources: Who Watches and Why​

 

And there are university professors that openly embrace socialism and communism; ever take a few liberal arts classes on a campus before ?

This "study" could very well be more biased than some Fox News commentators.
If Fox news deliberately lied about news items, say like Dan Rather did, they would surely suffer a worse fate then he did.
The simple fact of the matter is Fox News reports on matters that some people in the left wing don't want people to hear or know about.

 

Are any of the authors of this study known to be communist sympathizers? Can you cite some names and quotes?

Like what? Like how the state government of Hawaii somehow spent the last several decades scamming the rest of the US into believing Barack Obama was born there instead of Kenya, so that when he finally matured as a healthy adult, he could be elected US president?

 

I didn't say they were, I'm just saying that university campuses and colleges liberal arts courses tend to have a higher proportion of leftist (professors) than the norm. Seeing how this "study" biasedly focused on Fox News and not other news media outlets, it's very possible this is a politically biased study.

Fox News wasn't the only news media outlet covering that story.....and if you even watched Fox on that story, even they usually covered it skeptically.