Fox news credibility hits 'record low'

[idb]

People who denigrate older folks who happen to be viewers of FOX News, seem to forget that maybe their own parents could just maybe FOX News watchers.

Also the fact that as people age, except for the terminally stupid, they realize the folly of their Democrat/liberal idiocy and eventually got their brains together and become Republicans.

So, let them gloat, for now. One day, they wake up and realize that the government - i. e. Obama) does not pay their grocery bills, their mortgage (provided they don't live in subsidized housing), their car payments, their gas bill filling the tanks of such cars, the education of their children, their cell phones and the debt they pile up at street corner drug dealers and local liquor stores and stores that still sell tobacco products.

Even now, an honest look in the mirror would shut up a lot of freeloaders, if only they had any decency and honesty, they would realize that placing their faith in government (Obama) instead of themselves, is chasing a false and deceitful dream that will eventually end up in disappointment.

But as people get older, they usually get wiser.

I hope that people who debase, denigrate, besmirch and bash old folks never reach the age that they are so disrespectful about.

So as dementia begins to set in, people are more likely to become republicans.

I actually agree with that. Bravo.

That witicism might work in a conversation, but given that message boards operate with the writen, not spoken word, it falls flat.

I see what you did there.

 

[tjvh]

Fox News' credibility has fallen 9 percent since three years ago, according to new Public Policy Polling (PPP) results released on Wednesday.

The annual poll asks participants to rate their trust in multiple networks including Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, Comedy Central, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News. According to PPP's press release:

Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we've been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not.

Fox News' Credibility At 'Record Low': PPP Poll

Awwwww.... Fox News got a liberal down again?

 

[MarcATL]

It was CBS, one of the "Librul Meedya," that gave us the Rush Limbaugh TV Show

FLASHBACK: When Rush Limbaugh's Hate Was Televised | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[Samson]

Good question, and it would seem, as you suggest, that no they don't want to be informed; they want to be entertained. That is after all why FNC leads in ratings -- entertainment.
Not sure why a larger or smaller audience would render a larger or smaller proportion of misinformed... a larger or smaller aggregate number yes, but proportion does not follow.

In any case, the question of who a viewer "trusts" is an emotional one. As such it should (and does) follow the ratings, since both of them are asking about the viewers' emotional attachments. With the FNC audience ratings going down, the trust factor goes down with it (more likely, vice versa; trust leads ratings). These are two sides of the same coin.

However, emotional attachments don't tell us anything about informational value. That's what the polls about the misinformed do, and that's where Fox brings up the rear.

Just the fact that posts in threads like this (on both sides) are as emotionally based as they are ("kicking serious ass in the ratings") tells us that the Fox attachment is one of emotion.
It is after all what they sell. There's no intrinsic reason to get emotionally attached to a TV news channel; we don't see people getting emotional about CNN or ABC or slavishly following their ratings up and down. Fox viewers, unlike the rest, have made a particularly emotional investment, due directly to how it presents itself. It saturates the broadcast day, particularly the broadcast night, a/k/a "prime time", when the largest audience is available.

That's the basic difference between the Fox approach and the conventional approach; Fox emphasizes entertainment over information. And that probably goes a long way to explaining the informational gap.

I believe ALL of what you have eloquently expressed is true (does anyone want to be bored?).

However, During the Superbowl CBS advertised repeatedly that they had higher rankings than any other network (outside cable). As far as misinformation as a function of news quality, there is almost no difference among the networks: ABC, NBC, CBS.

And I see no reason to suspect FNC has a monoploy on viewers that wish to be entertained rather than accurately informed. If the TOTAL VOLUME of misinformation is being generated by FNC, CBS, ABC, and NBC, the contribution of FNC is not the majority share. Indeed, they may have a higher % misinformed, but the other guys combine to misinform a much larger audience and number of voters.

That's a solid rational thought for the most part, but I still disagree about the proportion thing. If ABC has a misinform number of (arbitrary numbers) 25% and CBS has one of 35%, that doesn't add up to 60%. It adds up to 30. Now it's true that taking an aggregate number of the alphabets-plus-CNN adds up to a much bigger share than Fox, and therefore the aggregate number of misinformed (all other factors being equal) will be higher. But the percentage doesn't change with that, and it certainly doesn't increase on the basis of a larger baseline.

The % misinformed viewers of FNC = misinformed FNC/TOTAL FNC viewers.


TOTAL FNC viewers <<< TOTAL viewers of networks, thus I would EXPECT there to be more misinformed viewers at FNC. Fewer total members of the total population will skew the results.

For example:

If FNC has two viewers, and one is black, then we could say 50% of FNC viewers are black

If ABC has ten (10) viewers and 4 are black, then we could say 40% of ABC viewers are black.

Because 50%> 40% does not mean FNC has more black viewers.

 

[Pogo]

I believe ALL of what you have eloquently expressed is true (does anyone want to be bored?).

However, During the Superbowl CBS advertised repeatedly that they had higher rankings than any other network (outside cable). As far as misinformation as a function of news quality, there is almost no difference among the networks: ABC, NBC, CBS.

And I see no reason to suspect FNC has a monoploy on viewers that wish to be entertained rather than accurately informed. If the TOTAL VOLUME of misinformation is being generated by FNC, CBS, ABC, and NBC, the contribution of FNC is not the majority share. Indeed, they may have a higher % misinformed, but the other guys combine to misinform a much larger audience and number of voters.

That's a solid rational thought for the most part, but I still disagree about the proportion thing. If ABC has a misinform number of (arbitrary numbers) 25% and CBS has one of 35%, that doesn't add up to 60%. It adds up to 30. Now it's true that taking an aggregate number of the alphabets-plus-CNN adds up to a much bigger share than Fox, and therefore the aggregate number of misinformed (all other factors being equal) will be higher. But the percentage doesn't change with that, and it certainly doesn't increase on the basis of a larger baseline.

The % misinformed viewers of FNC = misinformed FNC/TOTAL FNC viewers.


TOTAL FNC viewers <<< TOTAL viewers of networks, thus I would EXPECT there to be more misinformed viewers at FNC. Fewer total members of the total population will skew the results.

For example:

If FNC has two viewers, and one is black, then we could say 50% of FNC viewers are black

If ABC has ten (10) viewers and 4 are black, then we could say 40% of ABC viewers are black.

Because 50%> 40% does not mean FNC has more black viewers.

Sure, this makes sense. But originally you had said:
"Of course, I would expect the larger the audience, then the larger the porportion of misinformed (FNC), but why would NPR have both the smallest audience and smallest misinformed?"

That suggests that the higher the base audience is, the more proportion of that audience is misinformed, as if their increasing numbers alone cause the misinformation (rather than the channel's content). That's what it still looks like.

 

[Samson]

That's a solid rational thought for the most part, but I still disagree about the proportion thing. If ABC has a misinform number of (arbitrary numbers) 25% and CBS has one of 35%, that doesn't add up to 60%. It adds up to 30. Now it's true that taking an aggregate number of the alphabets-plus-CNN adds up to a much bigger share than Fox, and therefore the aggregate number of misinformed (all other factors being equal) will be higher. But the percentage doesn't change with that, and it certainly doesn't increase on the basis of a larger baseline.

The % misinformed viewers of FNC = misinformed FNC/TOTAL FNC viewers.


TOTAL FNC viewers <<< TOTAL viewers of networks, thus I would EXPECT there to be more misinformed viewers at FNC. Fewer total members of the total population will skew the results.

For example:

If FNC has two viewers, and one is black, then we could say 50% of FNC viewers are black

If ABC has ten (10) viewers and 4 are black, then we could say 40% of ABC viewers are black.

Because 50%> 40% does not mean FNC has more black viewers.

Sure, this makes sense. But originally you had said:
"Of course, I would expect the larger the audience, then the larger the porportion of misinformed (FNC), but why would NPR have both the smallest audience and smallest misinformed?"

That suggests that the higher the base audience is, the more proportion of that audience is misinformed, as if their increasing numbers alone cause the misinformation (rather than the channel's content). That's what it still looks like.

Yes, the fact that a network with a small audience, also has the most informed proportion of viewership suggests only that being informed is not popular. FNC has no monopoly on this universal fact.

IMHO this is really the only solid conclusion one can make based on the data you have kindly offered.

However, this comes as no surprise. The fact that Joe-Six Pack would not be the most informed voter was recognised at the founding of the new "democracy." Women in particular, were largely uneducated (through no fault of their own, but because of societal 18th century standards), and thus were not allowed to vote. The Electorial College was invented as a safety net between the ignorant masses and the longer term interests of the nation.

Nor is it terribly surprising that television would adopt many of the sensational jounalistic techniques that have been used since the invention of the printing press.

 

[Pogo]

The % misinformed viewers of FNC = misinformed FNC/TOTAL FNC viewers.


TOTAL FNC viewers <<< TOTAL viewers of networks, thus I would EXPECT there to be more misinformed viewers at FNC. Fewer total members of the total population will skew the results.

For example:

If FNC has two viewers, and one is black, then we could say 50% of FNC viewers are black

If ABC has ten (10) viewers and 4 are black, then we could say 40% of ABC viewers are black.

Because 50%> 40% does not mean FNC has more black viewers.

Sure, this makes sense. But originally you had said:
"Of course, I would expect the larger the audience, then the larger the porportion of misinformed (FNC), but why would NPR have both the smallest audience and smallest misinformed?"

That suggests that the higher the base audience is, the more proportion of that audience is misinformed, as if their increasing numbers alone cause the misinformation (rather than the channel's content). That's what it still looks like.

Yes, the fact that a network with a small audience, also has the most informed proportion of viewership suggests only that being informed is not popular. FNC has no monopoly on this universal fact.

IMHO this is really the only solid conclusion one can make based on the data you have kindly offered.

However, this comes as no surprise. The fact that Joe-Six Pack would not be the most informed voter was recognised at the founding of the new "democracy." Women in particular, were largely uneducated (through no fault of their own, but because of societal 18th century standards), and thus were not allowed to vote. The Electorial College was invented as a safety net between the ignorant masses and the longer term interests of the nation.

Nor is it terribly surprising that television would adopt many of the sensational jounalistic techniques that have been used since the invention of the printing press.

Amen to that, especially the end part. The TV screen as a medium is inherently anathema to intelligent discourse. It doesn't like nuance. It likes visceral visual pathos and drama. It's not going to do any better with dry facts without an icing of emotional candy on it, than a doughnut is going to taste good without a whole lot of sugar in it. Indeed they have the same function-- a quick rush of little nutritional value and a good deal of potential damage.

I'd have to say both print and radio are superior media to the boob tube. You can still mislead or lie with either one, but at least you still have the capability to use nuance and depth effectively, so they're less limited in scope.

 

[Samson]

Sure, this makes sense. But originally you had said:
"Of course, I would expect the larger the audience, then the larger the porportion of misinformed (FNC), but why would NPR have both the smallest audience and smallest misinformed?"

That suggests that the higher the base audience is, the more proportion of that audience is misinformed, as if their increasing numbers alone cause the misinformation (rather than the channel's content). That's what it still looks like.

Yes, the fact that a network with a small audience, also has the most informed proportion of viewership suggests only that being informed is not popular. FNC has no monopoly on this universal fact.

IMHO this is really the only solid conclusion one can make based on the data you have kindly offered.

However, this comes as no surprise. The fact that Joe-Six Pack would not be the most informed voter was recognised at the founding of the new "democracy." Women in particular, were largely uneducated (through no fault of their own, but because of societal 18th century standards), and thus were not allowed to vote. The Electorial College was invented as a safety net between the ignorant masses and the longer term interests of the nation.

Nor is it terribly surprising that television would adopt many of the sensational jounalistic techniques that have been used since the invention of the printing press.

Amen to that, especially the end part. The TV screen as a medium is inherently anathema to intelligent discourse. It doesn't like nuance. It likes visceral visual pathos and drama. It's not going to do any better with dry facts without an icing of emotional candy on it, than a doughnut is going to taste good without a whole lot of sugar in it. Indeed they have the same function-- a quick rush of little nutritional value and a good deal of potential damage.

And with that, it hardly seems fair to target FNC more than any other source of electronic fluff, including the newest version of misinformation channeling, the internets, which partisan groups are only beginnging to use.

Frankly the future seems to be very clear: technology will make access to misinformation much easier, and rational informed decisions will be less likely as the informed members of the public become a smaller and smaller porpotion of the aggregate: This has nothing to do with FNC, but more to do with human nature.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, the fact that a network with a small audience, also has the most informed proportion of viewership suggests only that being informed is not popular. FNC has no monopoly on this universal fact.

IMHO this is really the only solid conclusion one can make based on the data you have kindly offered.

However, this comes as no surprise. The fact that Joe-Six Pack would not be the most informed voter was recognised at the founding of the new "democracy." Women in particular, were largely uneducated (through no fault of their own, but because of societal 18th century standards), and thus were not allowed to vote. The Electorial College was invented as a safety net between the ignorant masses and the longer term interests of the nation.

Nor is it terribly surprising that television would adopt many of the sensational jounalistic techniques that have been used since the invention of the printing press.

Amen to that, especially the end part. The TV screen as a medium is inherently anathema to intelligent discourse. It doesn't like nuance. It likes visceral visual pathos and drama. It's not going to do any better with dry facts without an icing of emotional candy on it, than a doughnut is going to taste good without a whole lot of sugar in it. Indeed they have the same function-- a quick rush of little nutritional value and a good deal of potential damage.

And with that, it hardly seems fair to target FNC more than any other source of electronic fluff, including the newest version of misinformation channeling, the internets, which partisan groups are only beginnging to use.

Frankly the future seems to be very clear: technology will make access to misinformation much easier, and rational informed decisions will be less likely as the informed members of the public become a smaller and smaller porpotion of the aggregate: This has nothing to do with FNC, but more to do with human nature.

I would hold that what's in bold has already started and is well entrenched. It's obviously all around us.

Television is inherently flawed in informational capability as we've said; FNC's part in all this (and the thread topic) FWIW is its how it compares with its TV colleagues. IOW if you're a TV outlet, you can either do a bad job or a worse job, and if you prefer the latter, the medium will give you a lot of help. Fox I believe takes full advantage of this, since it is, as we established at the start, more interested in entertainment (and thereby, ratings) than in objective information.

"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?" -- Roger Ailes

A solution to the Middle East's problems doesn't sell nearly as well as a solution to the Middle East's problems that features drama and fear and conspiracy and ominous warnings, and that's what Ailes' Fox specializes in. It might be wishful thinking to conclude that its declining credibility reflects a public waking up to those tactics. But I'll keep pointing those tactics out until it isn't.