Pew Research finds conservatives desire more propaganda; whereas liberals want more reality in media

[Billo_Really]

A Pew Research study has found conservatives increasingly want more propaganda and hype in the media they watch, whereas liberals gravitate to more reality based news.

Why Conservatives Opt for Propaganda Over Reality

Pew researchers gave respondents a list of 36 popular media sources and asked how much they trusted each one. Some were liberal, like The Daily Show or ThinkProgress. Some were conservative, like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Most of them are fairly straightforward news organizations with no overt political agenda, like NPR, various network news, CNN, and the New York Times.

The findings were astounding. Out of the 36 news sources, consistent liberals trusted 28, a mix of liberal and mainstream news sources. Mostly, liberal respondents generally agreed, holding out a little more skepticism for overtly ideological sources like Daily Kos or ThinkProgress, but not actually distrustingthem, either. The only news sources liberals didn’t trust, generally, are overtly right-wing ones, such as Fox News, the Blaze, Breitbart, or Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Conservatives, on the other hand, saw betrayers and liars around every corner. Consistent conservatives distrusted a whopping 24 out of 36 outlets and mostly conservative respondents distrusted 15 and were skeptical of quite a few more. The hostility wasn’t just to well-known liberal sources like MSNBC. Strong conservatives hated all the network news, CNN, NPR, and the major national outlets, except the Wall Street Journal. Respondents who are mostly conservative fared better, but were still hostile to the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as skeptical of mainstream organizations like CBS and NBC News.

My favorite study is the one that found people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

In a 2012 study, Fox News viewers rated the absolute lowest in ability to correctly answer questions on a quiz about recent news events. People who didn’t take in any news programs at all did better on the quizzes.

That's a killer!

 

[Rikurzhen]

My favorite study is the one that found people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I think this thread is propaganda.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Incredible. For two weeks now here on USMB we Coloradoans have been getting democratic Senator Marc Udall's screeching harangues against his Republican challenger, Corey Gardner...who's about to kick Udall's ass. Not a word about Obama in any of Udall's propaganda, not a syllable. Just the lowlife left's standard saw: hate, hate, hate. They're as desperate as to polls would indicate.

Hey Billo, next time some DNC disciple fills your empty little head with nonsense like that heading this thread, consider the fact that probably 35%-40% of democrat voters, all those black urbanites and little brown slaves who work your bean fields in California and our potato fields in Colorado, aren't just functionally illiterate, they're absolutely completely illiterate. They have to be led through the election process like blind people led across a busy intersection. When you and the other useful idiots start harping about how intellectual is the left, try and remember what I've said here...that is if you can read this.

 

[SmedlyButler]

A Pew Research study has found conservatives increasingly want more propaganda and hype in the media they watch, whereas liberals gravitate to more reality based news.

Why Conservatives Opt for Propaganda Over Reality

Pew researchers gave respondents a list of 36 popular media sources and asked how much they trusted each one. Some were liberal, like The Daily Show or ThinkProgress. Some were conservative, like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Most of them are fairly straightforward news organizations with no overt political agenda, like NPR, various network news, CNN, and the New York Times.

The findings were astounding. Out of the 36 news sources, consistent liberals trusted 28, a mix of liberal and mainstream news sources. Mostly, liberal respondents generally agreed, holding out a little more skepticism for overtly ideological sources like Daily Kos or ThinkProgress, but not actually distrustingthem, either. The only news sources liberals didn’t trust, generally, are overtly right-wing ones, such as Fox News, the Blaze, Breitbart, or Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Conservatives, on the other hand, saw betrayers and liars around every corner. Consistent conservatives distrusted a whopping 24 out of 36 outlets and mostly conservative respondents distrusted 15 and were skeptical of quite a few more. The hostility wasn’t just to well-known liberal sources like MSNBC. Strong conservatives hated all the network news, CNN, NPR, and the major national outlets, except the Wall Street Journal. Respondents who are mostly conservative fared better, but were still hostile to the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as skeptical of mainstream organizations like CBS and NBC News.

My favorite study is the one that found people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

In a 2012 study, Fox News viewers rated the absolute lowest in ability to correctly answer questions on a quiz about recent news events. People who didn’t take in any news programs at all did better on the quizzes.

That's a killer!

By definition conservatives have a natural resistance to societal change. To the far right of the conservative spectrum the last few decades has seen the character of society change so fast in so many ways it must seem the world is spinning out of control. It's not hard to understand why they choose media that tells them their negative, even fearful reaction to accelerating change is reality based even if that means accepting crazy conspiracy scenarios like the birthers or Obama as a secret Muslim.

From the Cambridge Dictionary;

conservative-conservative, adjective (SOCIAL)
› tending to emphasize the importance of preserving traditional cultural and religious values, and to oppose change, esp. sudden change
liberal - liberal, adjective (SOCIAL)
› allowing many different types of beliefs or behavior

And from "Science Daily" an explanation of how even the most outlandish interpretations of daily events can be accepted so readily by a certain demographic.

Confirmation bias
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Wow, the Irony is really thick.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And from "Science Daily" an explanation of how even the most outlandish interpretations of daily events can be accepted so readily by a certain demographic.

You mean outlandish interpretations like:

-Race is only a social construction.
-Black education dysfunction is caused only by poverty.
-Minimum wage laws don't create job losses or reduce job creation.
-There is a Republican War on Women.
-There is a racial wage disparity.
-Women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same job.
-There was a Clinton Surplus.
-Solar/Wind power can completely replace fossil fuel power for electric power generation.

 

[Billo_Really]

By definition conservatives have a natural resistance to societal change. To the far right of the conservative spectrum the last few decades has seen the character of society change so fast in so many ways it must seem the world is spinning out of control. It's not hard to understand why they choose media that tells them their negative, even fearful reaction to accelerating change is reality based even if that means accepting crazy conspiracy scenarios like the birthers or Obama as a secret Muslim.

From the Cambridge Dictionary;

conservative-conservative, adjective (SOCIAL)
› tending to emphasize the importance of preserving traditional cultural and religious values, and to oppose change, esp. sudden change
liberal - liberal, adjective (SOCIAL)
› allowing many different types of beliefs or behavior

And from "Science Daily" an explanation of how even the most outlandish interpretations of daily events can be accepted so readily by a certain demographic.

Confirmation bias
"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

That's very true! Being aware of ones own predispositions, is half the battle.

 

[Billo_Really]

You mean outlandish interpretations like:

-Race is only a social construction.
-Black education dysfunction is caused only by poverty.
-Minimum wage laws don't create job losses or reduce job creation.
-There is a Republican War on Women.
-There is a racial wage disparity.
-Women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same job.
-There was a Clinton Surplus.
-Solar/Wind power can completely replace fossil fuel power for electric power generation.

Things that can be proven (or logically deduced), like the Clinton Surplus, Solar/Wind and Minimum wage laws, cannot possibly qualify as "outlandish interpretations".

An "outlandish interpretation" would be the argument against climate change. That's like arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wow, the Irony is really thick.

 

[Billo_Really]

Incredible. For two weeks now here on USMB we Coloradoans have been getting democratic Senator Marc Udall's screeching harangues against his Republican challenger, Corey Gardner...who's about to kick Udall's ass. Not a word about Obama in any of Udall's propaganda, not a syllable. Just the lowlife left's standard saw: hate, hate, hate. They're as desperate as to polls would indicate.

Hey Billo, next time some DNC disciple fills your empty little head with nonsense like that heading this thread, consider the fact that probably 35%-40% of democrat voters, all those black urbanites and little brown slaves who work your bean fields in California and our potato fields in Colorado, aren't just functionally illiterate, they're absolutely completely illiterate. They have to be led through the election process like blind people led across a busy intersection. When you and the other useful idiots start harping about how intellectual is the left, try and remember what I've said here...that is if you can read this.

I'm not a Democrat.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You mean outlandish interpretations like:

-Race is only a social construction.
-Black education dysfunction is caused only by poverty.
-Minimum wage laws don't create job losses or reduce job creation.
-There is a Republican War on Women.
-There is a racial wage disparity.
-Women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same job.
-There was a Clinton Surplus.
-Solar/Wind power can completely replace fossil fuel power for electric power generation.

Things that can be proven (or logically deduced), like the Clinton Surplus, Solar/Wind and Minimum wage laws, cannot possibly qualify as "outlandish interpretations".

Go to the US Treasury website.

On the day of his inauguration, January 20, 1993, the National Debt stood at $4,188,092,107,183.60.

Here are the figures on this date for his remaining years in office.

January 20, 1994 = $4,500,676,535,249.79
January 20, 1995 = $4,796,537,934,595.60
January 20, 1996 = $4,988,397,941,589.45
January 20, 1997 = $5,309,774,506,681.99
January 20, 1998 = $5,495,525,658,807.45
January 20, 1999 = $5,623,807,213,463.02
January 20, 2000 = $5,706,174,969,873.86
January 20, 2001 = $5,727,776,738,304.64

Every single year of Clinton's Presidency saw an increase in the National Debt of the nation. So where is the Clinton Surplus? A surplus would be detected by a REDUCTION in the National Debt of the nation.

 

[Billo_Really]

I think this thread is propaganda.

And why is that?

Care to explain that one in more detail?

 

[Billo_Really]

Go to the US Treasury website.

On the day of his inauguration, January 20, 1993, the National Debt stood at $4,188,092,107,183.60.

Here are the figures on this date for his remaining years in office.

January 20, 1994 = $4,500,676,535,249.79
January 20, 1995 = $4,796,537,934,595.60
January 20, 1996 = $4,988,397,941,589.45
January 20, 1997 = $5,309,774,506,681.99
January 20, 1998 = $5,495,525,658,807.45
January 20, 1999 = $5,623,807,213,463.02
January 20, 2000 = $5,706,174,969,873.86
January 20, 2001 = $5,727,776,738,304.64

Every single year of Clinton's Presidency saw an increase in the National Debt of the nation. So where is the Clinton Surplus? A surplus would be detected by a REDUCTION in the National Debt of the nation.

I got a "C" in Economics 101, so my expertise might be a little stretching in this area, but the way I see it, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

...the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt.
A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

According to the CBO, there was a budget surplus from Slick Willie.

"...historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office"

 

[Billo_Really]

Care to explain this phenomena of the "crowding out" effect, resulting in reduced employment numbers, because I just don't see it? 70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending. It doesn't care whether its a "public" dollar, or a "private" dollar that is being spent, all it cares about is that spending occurs.

If I am a worker, it doesn't matter if I'm working on a public contract or a private one, I am still collecting a paycheck. And in turn, I am spending that paycheck on rent, food, transportation, entertainment, etc, thus putting money back into the system. How is that a reduction in the economy?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Go to the US Treasury website.

On the day of his inauguration, January 20, 1993, the National Debt stood at $4,188,092,107,183.60.

Here are the figures on this date for his remaining years in office.

January 20, 1994 = $4,500,676,535,249.79
January 20, 1995 = $4,796,537,934,595.60
January 20, 1996 = $4,988,397,941,589.45
January 20, 1997 = $5,309,774,506,681.99
January 20, 1998 = $5,495,525,658,807.45
January 20, 1999 = $5,623,807,213,463.02
January 20, 2000 = $5,706,174,969,873.86
January 20, 2001 = $5,727,776,738,304.64

Every single year of Clinton's Presidency saw an increase in the National Debt of the nation. So where is the Clinton Surplus? A surplus would be detected by a REDUCTION in the National Debt of the nation.

I got a "C" in Economics 101, so my expertise might be a little stretching in this area, but the way I see it, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

...the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt.
A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

According to the CBO, there was a budget surplus from Slick Willie.

"...historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office"

You understand that the CBO MUST conduct a study under the terms/condition imposed on it by the official who ordered the study.

Now look at those total debt figures. You can use the Treasury link and confirm the numbers as authentic if you wish to. Now look at the explanation you quoted to me, here, I'll highlight the pertinent part:

So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. ​

The Total Debt increased every year. The ONLY way to increase the Total Debt is to have a deficit.

That CBO report was created under special conditions to create the appearance of a surplus, EXACTLY the way that the CBO was instructed to double count revenues intended for Medicare and then allocate them to ObamaCare and also instructed to count 10 years of revenue and only 7 years of expenses in order to conclude that ObamaCare was going to save money.

You don't have to accept my explanation, you can verify the numbers I provided by using the Treasury website. Official US Government data doesn't lie, that's the job of Liberal Media, to carry the water for Democrats.