Thread: Study says Fox News viewers know less about News than those who watch no news

Originally Posted by BTeamBomber

and less likely to leave the comfort of their own homes unless packing.

A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been robbed yet. I think it's prudent to carry a weapon...legally of course.

Originally Posted by Trinnity

Study says Fox News viewers know less about News than those who watch no news

That ^ doesn't even make any sense. ROFL-

You got somethin' against FOX News?

I would suggest that people who read the news in a newspaper or online are better informed than those who watch news on TV.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Who is this nerdy guy on MSNBC?
I think he has his own show.

Good to see the Harry Potter guy getting more work.

But the organization made a judgment last fall that taps into that credibility account. The decision was to take $1.8 million from the Open Society Foundations. It's funded by left-leaning billionaire financier-philanthropist George Soros, who made his fortune in hedge funds and currency speculation.

The money is for a worthy purpose.

NPR is using the two-year grant as seed money to start a local-national initiative, known as the Impact on Government project. Eventually, the plan is to have two public radio reporters in every state keeping tabs on state government issues that are woefully under-reported by the media. This is to be a multi-media project for radio, the Web and social media.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2...funding-source

Originally Posted by Marine1

[/COLOR]


The left loves to go wild claiming that Rupert Murdoch, a famous conservative, owns a few news outlets. The left is also aghast that well known righty Roger Ailes guides Fox News. Ailes’s ideology makes of his network a compromised product, they claim. It’s all a travesty of “news,” and “proof” that those agencies are contaminated by right-wing ideology say lefty detractors. So, with the news that George Soros is buying one hundred political “reporters” for National Public Radio (NPR), one waits with bated breath for the left to decry the fact that a famous anti-American leftist is buying and influencing the “news.”

In fact, The New York Times doesn’t even mention the left-wing ideology of the foundation that is supplying $1.8 million to NPR so it can hire political reporters across the country.

The left-wing Open Society Foundations is donating the large sum to NPR for a project being called “Impact of Government.” The project is planning to add at least 100 reporters across the country to cover local state house politics to fill the holes left by the firing of so many local reporters due to the contraction in the field of journalism over the last decade.

One might look at this plan and imagine that it isn’t such a bad idea. If states have lost reporters ready to hold local politicians accountable why is it so bad for $1.8 million to be spent to fill that gap? But in the NYT piece one can see why this donation should raise eyebrows instead of making folks feel at ease that the plan is merely helping fill a reporting gap.


Ms. Schiller said the journalists would not be part of typical statehouse coverage, but instead would work on enterprise journalism that looks at how state government decisions play out over years, and extend beyond a single state’s borders.

What exactly does “enterprise journalism” mean? This sure smacks of agenda journalism as opposed to mere reporting, doesn’t it? And even if that isn’t the intent, the rhetoric here is suspicious.

But what makes this all even more suspicious is the source of the $1.8 million donation. The Open Society Foundations was founded by well-known anti-American George Soros. Yet, nowhere in the news is this made clear to readers.

One might recall the hullabaloo that was raised when it was revealed that News Corp, owner of Fox News, had donated one million dollars to Republicans for this election cycle. It was the end of the world as far as the left was concerned. It was “proof” that Fox could not be trusted.

Yet, here we have George Soros buying reporters for NPR, the same Soros who has an extremely left-wing agenda that he has been pushing on the world for decades. After all, if the assumption that conservatives owning Fox makes its news slanted, shouldn’t the same logic dictate that anything Soros owns reflects his ideology? Shouldn’t we assume that NPR’s new reporters will be left-wing hacks bought and paid for by one of the richest, most active, most extreme left-wing activists in the world?

So what is the difference between a left-wing billionaire buying 100 reporters for NPR and Fox News being owned by conservative owners? Why has the Old Media establishment completely ignored the extremist agenda of the foundation making such a large donation to NPR? Why isn’t NPR to be suspected of being a left-wing mouthpiece now?

The answer to this question can only be that the Old Media establishment is already bought and paid for by the far left and would never raise questions that might reflect badly on a left-wing agenda. Only conservatives need “outing” as far as the Old Media is concerned.

That George Soros owns NPR like this? Well, that’s just a little secret between you and me

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/20...rters-for-npr/

It doesn't really matter because it doesn't show up in their broadcast.

They're news reporting is fair. Covers all it's bases. Asks all the big W questions. And apologizes for mistakes.

Never do you hear them spout nonsense about socialism. Never do you hear them spout nonsense about fascism. It's always either fact or fair political analysis. I listen every day and I haven't heard very many left wing rants on NPR. The day I start hearing that on a regular basis is the day I no longer listen to NPR.

Originally Posted by merc

Above what? What page is it on?
(yes, I just refuse to read page after page of the same stuff where both sides say the same thing repeatedly and the wrong side just refused to read/admit/confirm the facts as laid down by the other side.)
Thanks.

It's 3 pages. Don't be lazy. Just scan for the big red merc with a mouth.

Originally Posted by legojenn

I would suggest that people who read the news in a newspaper or online are better informed than those who watch news on TV.

Definitely depends WHERE they get their news online. The internet is mostly unfiltered garbage.

Ok, i'm curious, what percentage of conservatives on this forum watch FNC on a regular basis? That'd be a pretty good barometer for the accuracy of this study

Originally Posted by Cloak

Ok, i'm curious, what percentage of conservatives on this forum watch FNC on a regular basis? That'd be a pretty good barometer for the accuracy of this study

It's all the same people who would sooner call you an idiot libtard than actually debate with you.

Or all the people who actually believe the Community Reinvestment Act actually had something to do with the Subprime crisis. Such a freakin joke.

Originally Posted by TheTaoOfBill

It's 3 pages. Don't be lazy. Just scan for the big red merc with a mouth.

Wow... it is 11 pages on my PC. Guess you are only counting the pages you like?

And the insult, no matter how lame, is just sad and tends to reduce the validity of whatever you say in your posts. It reduces your opinion to that of a bad clown.

Regardless, guess you aren't proud enough of the study to repost it so I'll go and find it... when I have time to waste since just by your own apathy for the study, I can guess it is probably crap journalism and bad science.

Still, if I have time to find it, I'll read it. Until then... this thread is akin to reading the World News and just another waste of time.