Scientific Survey Shows Voters Across the Political Spectrum Are Ideologically Deluded

Duh...

He was a gay Kenyan coke whore community HATE HOAX organizer BEFORE she ran for Senate and called Michelle "Michael" twice on camera....
Sure................

FJOh1ZIUUAQd_Nq


Jr. is coming back, I promise.
 
You mean like this one?

Among questions in which the wrong answers accorded with partisan agendas, an average of 57% of answers were liberally misinformed, while 28% were conservatively misinformed. In other words, voters were twice as likely to believe certain progressive myths than conservative ones.
Take the tornado question. It's really a poor question because first off, the Fujita scale we use today was only developed in the late 1970's. There is evidence prior to this, tornado's were reported as stronger than they actually were.

Tornadoes and climate change – Markowski Research Group

"That said, the U.S. historical tornado record has grave limitations that make its use for establishing tornado trends dubious. The record is derived solely from unsolicited eyewitness reports and post-event damage surveys, both of which suffer from representativeness errors and other unnatural biases."
 
Take the tornado question. It's really a poor question because first off, the Fujita scale we use today was only developed in the late 1970's. There is evidence prior to this, tornado's were reported as stronger than they actually were.

Tornadoes and climate change – Markowski Research Group

"That said, the U.S. historical tornado record has grave limitations that make its use for establishing tornado trends dubious. The record is derived solely from unsolicited eyewitness reports and post-event damage surveys, both of which suffer from representativeness errors and other unnatural biases."
Any question can be questioned. I assume they based their questions on mainstream knowledge.
 
Article shows what we already know. That liberals are generally way more misinformed than the right.






It's interesting tht Trump voters hadthe lowest incidence of believing FALSE stuff

told ya, libs

:)
 
Even facts can be mis-perceived and misinterpreted. Every time one of the leftists here makes a list of all of Trump's atrocities, every one of them is bogus. It is either factually incorrect or a wildly distorted interpretation of a harmless reality.

My most frightening thought is that the elections of Joe Biden and John Fetterman were not flukes. That's what the people really want. It makes me glad that I'm 73 years old and don't pay much in taxes. Otherwise it would drive me crazy.
no, it is not what the people want

elections are being stolen

philadelphia is very corrupt... that city is the home of Kermit Gosnell, by the way

and all the govt freaks who allowed him to literally get away with murder.

need I say more?
 
Lol. No site is 100% non partisan. It is common practice to demonize any source that does not put you in a good light.4

And that is complete bullshit. Figures never lie, but liars often figure. That site is in no way non partisan.

I read your article and it's interesting how these figures are being manipulated to show the conservative media in a much better light than they deserve.
 
And that is complete bullshit. Figures never lie, but liars often figure. That site is in no way non partisan.

I read your article and it's interesting how these figures are being manipulated to show the conservative media in a much better light than they deserve.
In my mind, you are proving my link right.
 
The article is completely one sided and biased, which is typical of this website.


"In conclusion, while it is true that all the facts listed on JF are validated or peer-reviewed in some way, JF does not attempt to report a balanced view of the totality of information, they do not include information that disagrees with their preferred conclusions, and they present facts (especially time series) selectively in such a way that those very facts seem to support the opposite of what the full data really support. Based on not presenting research and facts from both sides, we score this 6/10. Our last criteria are political affiliation which looks at a combination of ownership, funding, and the general tone of the information. We rate Just Facts 6/10 right for political affiliation based on ownership bias and demonstrated bias on the sister site. When added up, this website scores 3.5 Right, which falls within the Right-Center category."
What is the bias of “media bias fact-check”?
 
So if you believe Michelle Obama is a man, what does that "scientific survey" say?

What if you think these photos show Jimmy Carter's NSA Zbigniew talking to Col Tim Osman CIA Asset before he became "Osama?"



R.3801f479dd38820524696750247a7e69


BAGAIMANA MEMBUNUH BIN LADEN MENGGUNAKAN PHOTOSHOP | ApanamaDotcom.....



He never became osama you drooling idiot
 
Their bias is the reliability and honesty in the media.
Who fact checks the fact checkers? They made opinions in their summations.. how do we ensure those aren’t biased?

Better question: why don’t fact checkers just check facts. They always try to frame narratives, and come to some elaborate conclusion from their multiple facts/assumptions for nonparticipating voters who just want a headline to tell them what to do. Thus, they become mere MSM sources.
 
You mean like this one?

Among questions in which the wrong answers accorded with partisan agendas, an average of 57% of answers were liberally misinformed, while 28% were conservatively misinformed. In other words, voters were twice as likely to believe certain progressive myths than conservative ones.

Regardless of the source, a quick read of this site would substaniate this claim. Leftists are wildly misinformed and fully indoctrinated. They will defend their teachings at all costs and beyond all reason. Exactly the same thing happens in countries like N. Korea because they know if they can get to kids early, they will follow and believe anything for the rest of their lives.
 
The article is completely one sided and biased, which is typical of this website.


"In conclusion, while it is true that all the facts listed on JF are validated or peer-reviewed in some way, JF does not attempt to report a balanced view of the totality of information, they do not include information that disagrees with their preferred conclusions, and they present facts (especially time series) selectively in such a way that those very facts seem to support the opposite of what the full data really support. Based on not presenting research and facts from both sides, we score this 6/10. Our last criteria are political affiliation which looks at a combination of ownership, funding, and the general tone of the information. We rate Just Facts 6/10 right for political affiliation based on ownership bias and demonstrated bias on the sister site. When added up, this website scores 3.5 Right, which falls within the Right-Center category."
So I found a media fact check site that doesn't agree with yours. Now what?

 

Forum List

Back
Top