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

Lets talk about misleading news.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM"]Black man with "machine gun" protests Obama - YouTube[/ame]

What did MSNBC say he was?

Race bait: MSNBC lies, edits out black gun owner, says 'white people with guns' threaten Obama


http://www.examiner.com/post-partis...er-says-white-people-with-guns-threaten-obama

 

Evil corporations, blah blah blah.

The left sounds like a broken record. It's no wonder nobody listens anymore.

 

Clearly something is making extreme-right Americans even more stupid and aggressive than they used to be, and it can't just be the fact that their President is darker than those they are accustomed to. The bits of Fox news we've been shown - and the fact that it is owned by a lying scumbag - suggest that the insane legal decision to allow the Noise Machine to stop even pretending to give a balance has been a total disaster - both for the US and the World.

 

Oh course they do. The left hate it when the truth comes out. Especially when it hits them right in the face.

 

Only people stupid are those on the Left that ignore the evidence Fox puts up that show how the Left lies.

 

You know a great deal about the truth then? Where do you acquire that knowledge, please? Not from Fox, obviously, since you are able to judge that. Tell us about your sources of information, oh Solomon amongst extremist nutters.

 

I have great sources of information... everytime I put gasoline in my car or buy groceries, I'm reminded we're in the midst of a bad economy. Don't need a talking head to tell me Obama sucks. The proof's all around us.

 

Nobody gets their news from Shep Smith who actually does cover the stories. They get their news from the Twin Pillars of Irish Catholicism.

 

Actually, just noticed the OP comes from the Huffington Post. So much for unbiased news.

 

Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld is hilarious...

 

Honestly if you ever made a post that contained any substance, or even a shred of intelligent analysis, I believe it would cause a wormhole into an alternate reality!!


PS. Only some one with incredibly substandard intelligence thinks anything I said had to do with corporations being evil. My analysis was completely devoid of normative assumptions like "evil corporations."

 

most studies i have seen says people who read the huffington post are totally clueless...

 

Did anyone ever post a link to the actual published study?
If not, then it is just more lib BS.

If so, can someone point me to it so I can see how valid it is. Thanks.

Fairleigh Dickinson is hardly a middle of road institution but what matters most is the study design. So, I'll withhold my judgement until I can actually see the study.

If they didn't publish or release the study details, then it is nothing more than some claim made in one of those supermarket checkout junk newspapers.

 

I know left news when I hear it. there is a reason I think MSNBC is vile filth.

NPR isn't left. It just doesn't spin the facts in it's news broadcast. Any accusations of bias are wildly exaggerated.

For example on Fox you may have Hannity calling Obama a socialist and saying he needs to be stopped at all costs.

On MSNBC you may have Olbermann who thinks Bush is a facist and says he needs to be stopped at all costs.

But on NPR there is no such person who would ever be caught dead saying that. And if they were they'd be fired.

 

Huffington Post didn't do the study. They're just reporting the results. Rather gleefully admittedly due to the fact that it's mostly a left wing rag. But the source is very unbiased. The questions were fair questions that anyone informed should be able to answer.

 

I posted it above.

 

I know...

Its more like Mad Magazine than it is a news source...

 

Left Wing media isn't much better. MSNBC is right there with them.

Moral of the story is if you watch news with the intention of getting your own opinion spat back at you then you will never learn anything.

Listen to NPR. Be informed.

 

I'm smart enough to listen to both sides so that I can get a complete picture of what's being said. I listen to Left Wing radio as much as I do Fox and though I don't agree with a lot of stuff they say, they do have a lot of good points. I don't disreguard everything I hear from them as many on the Left seem to do with Fox, just because I disagree with other things they say. Left Wing radio will spend as much time bad mouthing Fox as the do bad mouthing Conservatives. But you'll never get the whole truth unless you listen to both sides.

This is what I listen to besides Fox, ABC and NBC You can hear it live.

http://www.1480kphx.com/weekdays.asp

 

It really doesn't matter these days. Corporate news is corporate news. They're all spoon feeding you in some way.

Fox is just the biggest offender. But ABC and NBC are just as bad. Though I do enjoy Brian Williams.

But there is a reason why the news that is funded by public donations also has the most well informed listeners. It's because you get what you pay for. Corporations pay for propaganda. NPR listeners pay for news

 

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

 

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.

 

Not everyone per se. I wouldnt' say that everyone that watches Cops and Jerry Springer was stupid either. But thats because I'm certain that at least a few viewers are doctoral students writing theses on human behavior and the monkeys in their cage. In those cases, its a valuable study of history so that future societies can look upon current fox viewership in the same light as we currently study ancient aborigine tribes, or as we imagine ancient cave dwellers behaving. Unbathed, picking fleas off of each other, a sideways look of confusion on their face at any and all "wondrous" things in the world like rain, rocks, tree branches, butterflies. Of course, Fox viewers tend to be MORE scared of things of this nature, and less likely to leave the comfort of their own homes unless packing.

 

lmao, where do you guys come up with this crap.

typical left wing bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

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/2...-millions-buying-political-reporters-for-npr/