Is FoxNews going to exposed?

[DavidS]

I mean, it's kind of like Clay Aiken being gay. Most people kind of know it already, but no one's really admitting it. 86% of their viewers believe McCain won the debate?? Come on! I wouldn't have such a problem with Fox News if they outright admitted they were biased, but this is just terrible.

No other poll is even close. Not even MSNBC's polls show Obama with any kind of lead like that.

This is just atrocious that they call themselves "fair and balanced" at the same time have that kind of poll.

 

[Silence]

well I wouldn't be surprised if 86% of of THEIR viewers did think McCain won.... it's mostly right wing cons nutters that actually watch fox for anything other than American Idol and House.

 

[Sailor Man]

The CNN online poll has Obama winning 79% to 17%. I'm guessing that y'all think they're fair and balanced, huh?

 

[DiveCon]

come on, its a text poll
i wish they would stop doing them
although i know someone that tried to vote multiple times(the person confesed this to me) and they paid dearly for it because they got tons and tons of replies through the next day that their vote had already been counted
but again, its still just a text poll and has no validity what so ever

 

[DiveCon]

The CNN online poll has Obama winning 79% to 17%. I'm guessing that y'all think they're fair and balanced, huh?

exactly
i highly doubt that that many of their viewers ACTAULLY thought that

 

[Stoner]

I wouldn't have such a problem with Fox News if they outright admitted they were biased, but this is just terrible.

Yeah, almost as bias and terrible as making up a story with forged documents in a desperate attempt to sway voters.

 

[DavidS]

Yeah, almost as bias and terrible as making up a story with forged documents in a desperate attempt to sway voters.

huh? Are you still here? How's the weather board treating you? Stormchaser make his predictions for the winter yet?

 

[DiveCon]

huh? Are you still here? How's the weather board treating you? Stormchaser make his predictions for the winter yet?

uh, did you not understand the reference?

 

[DavidS]

uh, did you not understand the reference?

Guess not.

 

[DiveCon]

Guess not.

dan rather

 

[Article 15]

uh, did you not understand the reference?

lol ...

That reference.

It reminds me of one of our mutual acquantainces ... GhOsTeR

 

[DiveCon]

lol ...

That reference.

It reminds me of one of our mutual acquantainces ... GhOsTeR

lol
do you see him anymore

 

[Article 15]

lol
do you see him anymore

Nah.

He's hasn't really been around when I lurk that board.

But jeez ... if there was even a whiff of conversation about media bias in a thread you could bet your ass he'd appear and bring up Dan Rather.

 

[DiveCon]

Nah.

He's hasn't really been around when I lurk that board.

But jeez ... if there was even a whiff of conversation about media bias in a thread you could bet your ass he'd appear and bring up Dan Rather.

its still a valid point


i dont even lurk over there anymore
there is SO much more to the internet than that one board
always confused me why so many would retread and kiss ass to get let back in there

 

[Epsilon Delta]

There's actually a pretty good article on this:

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.

Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”

[...]

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

For the entire study of seven polls the total sample was 9,611 respondents, and for the in-depth analysis for the polls conducted June through September the sample was 3,334 respondents.

I'd recommend it, it has a chart with the major news channels and the propensity of 'mis perceptions':

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War - World Public Opinion

 

[DiveCon]

There's actually a pretty good article on this:



I'd recommend it, it has a chart with the major news channels and the propensity of 'mis perceptions':

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War - World Public Opinion

ah yes, the report that uses lies as facts calls the truth tellers liars

 

[N4mddissent]

How would you answer some of these questions, DiveCon? btw thanks for the rep earlier

Q6: Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that
Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?

Q5: Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

Q11. Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US going to war with
Iraq, do you think:
3/03
The majority of people favor it
The majority of people oppose it
Views are evenly balanced
(No answer)

 

[DiveCon]

How would you answer some of these questions, DiveCon? btw thanks for the rep earlier

on Q6, there were ties to Al Qaeda front companies that got money via the oil for food scandal

on Q5, we did find small amounts of WMD that Sadaam was NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE, but no, we didnt find the STOCPILES that were expected

on Q11, i really dont care what the "world" thinks
i know it was the right thing to do, only it would have been better had we done it back in 1991, when we had 500k troops there already, and his army was in shambles


as to the rep, you deserved it

 

[N4mddissent]

Thanks again, but I have to point out how I feel differently about these questions.

On the first question, I think any links that you are describing are tenuous, but certainly not able to be classified as "Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization? " I think the second question is generally understood to refer to WMD discoveries that posed a threat or helped validate that particular justification for the invasion. But even if that is allowed to pass as ambiguous, I think the last question is one you know the answer to. I recognize that your opinion is that you don't care, but I believe you are informed enough to know the correct answer.

Now your statement was that the study used lies and then called the honest answers wrong. I think the correct answer to the first question is no. Especially since Bush has since stated there were no ties linking Al Qaeda to Saddam. People somehow got the misperception that not only were there ties, but that they worked closely together (As if Bin Laden, a fundamentalist nutjob would ever work with someone in the secular Baathist party). The generally agreed upon view is that WMD's were not found, a few 10 year old buried and forgotten shells aside. This is not even challenged by the administration. And of course, world opinion was not in our favor concerning the invasion of Iraq. So what do you see as the lies?

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks again, but I have to point out how I feel differently about these questions.

On the first question, I think any links that you are describing are tenuous, but certainly not able to be classified as "Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization? " I think the second question is generally understood to refer to WMD discoveries that posed a threat or helped validate that particular justification for the invasion. But even if that is allowed to pass as ambiguous, I think the last question is one you know the answer to. I recognize that your opinion is that you don't care, but I believe you are informed enough to know the correct answer.

Now your statement was that the study used lies and then called the honest answers wrong. I think the correct answer to the first question is no. Especially since Bush has since stated there were no ties linking Al Qaeda to Saddam. People somehow got the misperception that not only were there ties, but that they worked closely together (As if Bin Laden, a fundamentalist nutjob would ever work with someone in the secular Baathist party). The generally agreed upon view is that WMD's were not found, a few 10 year old buried and forgotten shells aside. This is not even challenged by the administration. And of course, world opinion was not in our favor concerning the invasion of Iraq. So what do you see as the lies?

i'm too tired to give this the reply it deserves
if i remember, i'll try after i get some sleep