Fantastic Historical Accuracy of Fox!

[The_Hammer]

Showcasing a photo of the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates for the Illinois senate seat!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/fox-news-lincoln-douglas_n_99331.html

It's amazing that Fredrick Douglas (not Stephen Douglas the fellow Lincoln actually debated) could even run, considering he was technically a fugitive slave.

 

[AllieBaba]

At least it was an unintentional mistake, rather than fake news, wittholding news, using non-existent sources and intentionally distorting the story.

 

[jillian]

Showcasing a photo of the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates for the Illinois senate seat!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/fox-news-lincoln-douglas_n_99331.html

It's amazing that Fredrick Douglas (not Stephen Douglas the fellow Lincoln actually debated) could even run, considering he was technically a fugitive slave.

I'm shocked. lol...

 

[The_Hammer]

At least it was an unintentional mistake, rather than fake news, wittholding news, using non-existent sources and intentionally distorting the story.

You mean what they normally do?

 

[AllieBaba]

I mean like ABC, CNN, BBC and the New York Times usually do. Lib journalists are generally proud of the way they can distort the news.

 

[The_Hammer]

I mean like ABC, CNN, BBC and the New York Times usually do. Lib journalists are generally proud of the way they can distort the news.

Please provide an example that wasn't repeated by other stations and is unique to one of them. My biggest bit with fox was O'reillys Malmedy massacre bit where he mixed up the slaughter of our troops with us somehow killing axis.

 

[Larkinn]

At least it was an unintentional mistake, rather than fake news, wittholding news, using non-existent sources and intentionally distorting the story.

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=677684&postcount=5

We all know how much you care about fake news, eh?

 

[hjmick]

Showcasing a photo of the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates for the Illinois senate seat!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/fox-news-lincoln-douglas_n_99331.html

It's amazing that Fredrick Douglas (not Stephen Douglas the fellow Lincoln actually debated) could even run, considering he was technically a fugitive slave.

Okay, that's funny.

 

[Alpha1]

Yeah...it was pretty funny....
and the play on Lincoln(Hillary)-Douglas(a black Obama) was pretty clever...

Obviously over the heads of those on MSNBC....

 

[Dogger]

I mean like ABC, CNN, BBC and the New York Times usually do. Lib journalists are generally proud of the way they can distort the news.

You faith in Faux News explains so much.

Americans who receive most of their news from Fox are more likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq War. Americans who receive their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to do so.

The report surveyed three common misperceptions about the Iraq War: 1) belief in links between Iraq and al-Qaeda; 2) belief that WMD were found in Iraq; and, 3) belief that world public opinion approved of the US war with Iraq.

Those who relied on Fox News were "were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three."

See If You Watch Fox, You're Probably Incapable of Understanding This, starting at Adobe page 14 (page 12 of Report).

The survey proves that Fox viewers are badly informed. It doesn't explain whether they watch Fox because they are stupid, or whether they became stupid from watching Fox.

 

[Detmurds]

Not on FOX,.....anything else SUCKS!

 

[Gunny]

You faith in Faux News explains so much.

Americans who receive most of their news from Fox are more likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq War. Americans who receive their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to do so.

The report surveyed three common misperceptions about the Iraq War: 1) belief in links between Iraq and al-Qaeda; 2) belief that WMD were found in Iraq; and, 3) belief that world public opinion approved of the US war with Iraq.

Those who relied on Fox News were "were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three."

See If You Watch Fox, You're Probably Incapable of Understanding This, starting at Adobe page 14 (page 12 of Report).

The survey proves that Fox viewers are badly informed. It doesn't explain whether they watch Fox because they are stupid, or whether they became stupid from watching Fox.

Tell me, does being stupid from or for watching Fox News make you more or less stupid than using an obviously liberal source to support your argument? I didn't have to get past the board of directors.

Get real.

Fox News is just another media outlet. What if you watch Fox AND listen to NPR? And the BBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC?

OBTW ... PBS and NPR are leftwing cesspools. I just like to keep my enemies "closer."

 

[Alpha1]

You faith in Faux News explains so much.

Americans who receive most of their news from Fox are more likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq War. Americans who receive their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to do so.

The report surveyed three common misperceptions about the Iraq War: 1) belief in links between Iraq and al-Qaeda; 2) belief that WMD were found in Iraq; and, 3) belief that world public opinion approved of the US war with Iraq.

Those who relied on Fox News were "were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three."

See If You Watch Fox, You're Probably Incapable of Understanding This, starting at Adobe page 14 (page 12 of Report).

The survey proves that Fox viewers are badly informed. It doesn't explain whether they watch Fox because they are stupid, or whether they became stupid from watching Fox.

You can't possibly believe your own bullshit can you?

Ask anyone about anything concerning TV and you will get the very same results....Ask people if they drive white cars and watch the Fox network and you will the same results you have for your biased nonsense....

Fox routinely gets a 9.2 share of viewers
CBS gets about 7.2 share
ABC gets about 4.4 share

So most of the people that drive white cars will also watch FOX
and the next will watch CBS
etc....

So drink your Koolade and eat your own bullshit but don't try to peddle it off and the rest of us...

 

[onedomino]

Tell me, does being stupid from or for watching Fox News make you more or less stupid than using an obviously liberal source to support your argument? I didn't have to get past the board of directors.

Get real.

Fox News is just another media outlet. What if you watch Fox AND listen to NPR? And the BBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC?

OBTW ... PBS and NPR are leftwing cesspools. I just like to keep my enemies "closer."

Yes, the media we pay for with tax dollars is comparatively Left. The British are in the same jam with the BBC. They also cannot depend on their publicly financed media for objectivity. At some level, the Right has only itself to blame. Why are they not running PBS/NPR?

How many people obtain news only from PBS/NPR? Would not almost all who obtain news from these sources be also influenced by other outlets? How was opinion affected by the other sources? Do people who only get their news from PBS/NPR really exist? It is more likely that only people who are tied-up, and cannot reach the radio, listen to NPR for more time than it takes to lunge at the tuning control.

Absent from the report is any context regarding both the availability of the news outlets and the number of people watching. While 97 percent of PBS/NPR news consumers realizing there was no Iraq 911 link is commendable, how many people does that equal? The population of Lake Woebegone?

 

[Dogger]

Tell me, does being stupid from or for watching Fox News make you more or less stupid than using an obviously liberal source to support your argument? I didn't have to get past the board of directors.

I see. It's a liberal source and can't be trusted because it has directors from the University of Maryland, Americans Talk Issues Foundation, Columbia University, Commonwealth Club, US Naval War College, Brookings Institution, Georgetown University, Public Agenda Foundation, Stanford University, and Northwestern University.

If only these discredited institutions had the objectivity and trustworthiness of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

EDIT: I predicted that "If You Watch Fox, You're Probably Incapable of Understanding This". Thanks for proving me right, gunny.

 

[AllieBaba]

Fox hasn't been proven to be biased, as BBC has (multiple times) and NPR, and CNN and the New York Times.

If you know something we don't, please let us know. Otherwise, it's just sour grapes to say, "Fox makes people stupid and everybody who watches Fox is stupid, and it doesn't matter what anybody says, they're just BAD!"

 

[Dogger]

After providing solid evidence that the viewers of Faux News are badly informed, I pondered "whether they watch Fox because they are stupid, or whether they became stupid from watching Fox." The subsequent attacks from Fox viewers had the predictable and hilarious effect of supporting my underlying assumption that Fox viewers are stupid. There's no point explaining why the attacks were funny, though, because ""irony is wasted on the stupid".

Allow me to explain the academic process to the defenders of Faux News. Before an academic study is published, it is circulated and critiqued by other academics. When the authors of the report put their names and academic institutions on it, they put their individual and institutional reputations behind it as well. After it is published, those who disagree with its methodology or conclusions often publish responses or criticisms. In this manner, knowledge is developed and intelligently debated.

Now let me explain how the process works among children on the playground. See if it looks familiar. Gunny and allie don't like what the report says, so they call the authors names like "liberal" and "biased", without any understanding of the irony of using such labels in defense of Murdoch and Ailes. Alpha1 cites ratings as though popularity proves Fox is accurate; I guess WWF becomes a real sport if it beats soccer or tennis in the ratings.

If you have a reason to think this report is wrong, back it up. Challenge the data, or the methodology, or the conclusions. Your unsupported opinion hasn't mattered to anyone else since you were a child. If you really think simple contradiction constitutes genuine debate, then understand that your beliefs rest on nothing more than your blind refusal to think about alternative ideas.