Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: popeye on October 03, 2003, 10:13:59 AM
-
"In the run-up to the war with Iraq and in the postwar period, a significant portion of the American public has held a number of misperceptions that have played a key role in generating and maintaining approval for the decision to go to war. Significant portions of the public have believed that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks and that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the war and that Iraq actually used weapons of mass destruction during the war, and that world public opinion has approved of the US going to war with Iraq. While, in most cases only a minority has any particular misperception, a large majority has at least one key misperception."
"Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
-
Doesn't suprise me a bit....of course everyone knows, Republicans are the only party to hold misconceptions:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Doesn't suprise me a bit....of course everyone knows, Republicans are the only party to hold misconceptions:)
Is that even a complete sentence? Or did i somehow miss you trying to explain how its not a bad thing that fox news has the most mislead viewers.
-
"Republicans are the only party to hold misconceptions"
Rude, that is a blatant misconception!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Is that even a complete sentence? Or did i somehow miss you trying to explain how its not a bad thing that fox news has the most mislead viewers.
ABC, CBS, and NBC have millions more viewers than fox. So it is very unlikely that fox has the most mislead viewers.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Is that even a complete sentence? Or did i somehow miss you trying to explain how its not a bad thing that fox news has the most mislead viewers.
While you've not been that impressive here on the boards, i still find it hard to believe that you cannot understand my response....still, don't fret about it, as I was responding to my friend Popeye and not asking for your opinion.
Do you fly the game or just lurk these boards seeking to impress us?
Just curious.
-
Originally posted by popeye
"Republicans are the only party to hold misconceptions"
Rude, that is a blatant misconception!
I'm sorry....it was a misconception on my part in the first place....please accept my apology:)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
ABC, CBS, and NBC have millions more viewers than fox. So it is very unlikely that fox has the most mislead viewers.
"Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."
They're talking about percentages here... the actual numbers of viewers is irrelevant.
-
And it looks to me as if the principals "bait and switched" the poll questions and their conclusions. For example, one poll asked about "clear evidence" of an Iraq-Al Quaeda connection, but the report summary calls that opinion erroneous because there is no "conclusive evidence".
In my world, those are two different things.
And frankly, there may never be CONCLUSIVE evidence of a connection. Many will say that is because there was no connection. Others will say that is because intelligence work is NOT police work, and intelligence officers DO NOT need to gather evidence to a judicial standard in order to arrive at conclusions.
I am in the latter group, by the way.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
"Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions—and were three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."
They're talking about percentages here... the actual numbers of viewers is irrelevant.
Frog quote:
"Is that even a complete sentence? Or did i somehow miss you trying to explain how its not a bad thing that fox news has the most mislead viewers. "
Thats not what frog wrote. Do you think he was trying to mislead?
-
Whoops, sorry, misread that. Redirect my previous post at Frogman, please. :)
-
I have to defend FOX here. It is not necessarily that those morons were actually misled by FOX.
Much more likely explanation they picked up most of their misconceptions elswhere - from right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Curtis Sliwa or Monica Crawley.
miko
-
im sorry i should have made it more clear, its fox news that has mislead a higher percentage of their viewers. I do fly Rude all the time in fact. How else would the FDB's made #1 fighter squad last month if i wasnt on everyday vulching and shooting chutes.
-
Going deeper into the background of the supporters and cotributors of the report, you see outfits like Public Agenda, the Brookings Institution, and Center for International and Security Studies.
Every one of these groups promotes left-wing policies. I therefore conclude that they had an agenda in publishing this report beyond the simple examination of public opinion--they would like to discredit certain media outlets.
-
When confronted with statistical facts which prove how distorted the right wing media is, how well organized they are, and how they sprew lies and propogandize their twisted view point of the world....
Let me play the next card in the Conservative deck of cards.
"IGNORE THE FACTS AND CALL YOUR OPPONENT NAMES, FROTH AT THE MOUTH IN A PATRIOTIC RANT, STOMP UP AND DOWN AND THREATEN THEM WITH VIOLENCE AND PROSECUTE them with AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR - ACCUSE THEM OF BEING TRAITORS. Accuse them of being un-patriotic. TELL THEM TO MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY. Accuse them of being homosexuals, accuse them of being immoral, ACCUSE THEM OF BEING SISSIES. CALL THEM A DIRTY 6 LETTER WORD LIKE "LIBRAL" [Even though it's a 7 letter word... drop the "er" sound and slurr it so it sounds dirty] Yelll and scream like a truculant child who's just been caught lying, deny, deny, deny, run to your mommy who believes you and loves you.
BUT NEVER NEVER NEVER - admit the truth regardless of the overwhelming evidence. Change the subject by talking about Ted Kennedy and that women that died in the car accident.
Change the subject and talk about drug addiction, throw down you mic, and walk off the set, yell that you wont participate in any liberal ambushes.
Tell a conservative report a national secret like the intelligence community is tracking Bin Laden on his cell phone or ambassador Wilson's wife is a CIA operative.
-
actually miko brings up a valid point.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
im sorry i should have made it more clear, its fox news that has mislead a higher percentage of their viewers. I do fly Rude all the time in fact. How else would the FDB's made #1 fighter squad last month if i wasnt on everyday vulching and shooting chutes.
I know what you meant, I was just pulling your chain. I think you must have gone to the same writing class I did hehe
-
Didn't Paula Zahn go to CNN from Fox?
She's slammin'.
-
So the two groups most likely to know the facts are those who read print media and those who listen to PBS and NPR. This is not a startling revelation.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Is that even a complete sentence? Or did i somehow miss you trying to explain how its not a bad thing that fox news has the most mislead viewers.
It's a bad thing to believe everything you read or everything you hear on tv.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
BUT NEVER NEVER NEVER - admit the truth regardless of the overwhelming evidence. Change the subject by talking about Ted Kennedy and that women that died in the car accident.
Waiting for your admission of truth in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97686
-
Erlkonig: So the two groups most likely to know the facts are those who read print media and those who listen to PBS and NPR.
Right wing talk media is generally targeted towards less sophisticated audience and tends to lie by comission. Left-wing talk media is more sophisticated and tends to lie by omission.
Right-wing host is likely to argue out of ignorance about the facts themselevs - denying something happened because he/she have never heard of it or denying alternative inerpretation just because he/she cannot think of any.
Left-wing host is likely to lie about meta-facts - like saying that "there are no studies whatsoever that would confirm..." or "the prevalent scientific opinion is..." where it is far from being the case.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Erlkonig: So the two groups most likely to know the facts are those who read print media and those who listen to PBS and NPR.
Right wing talk media is generally targeted towards less sophisticated audience and tends to lie by comission. Left-wing talk media is more sophisticated and tends to lie by omission.
Right-wing host is likely to argue out of ignorance about the facts themselevs - denying something happened because he/she have never heard of it or denying alternative inerpretation just because he/she cannot think of any.
Left-wing host is likely to lie about meta-facts - like saying that "there are no studies whatsoever that would confirm..." or "the prevalent scientific opinion is..." where it is far from being the case.
miko
If by sophisticated you mean clueless then I must agree.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
actually miko brings up a valid point.
Yeah, he does. He points out a problem that the study seems to ignore, which is that most people get their news from more than one source.
-
Actually, in terms of what news source I consider to be more valid than others is:
(a) print - most valid, considering the source.
(b) television - less valid, they have to cater to ratings wars.
(c) radio - least valid and takes two forms: (1) headline news (which may be true, but tends to omit facts germaine to the information) and (2) talk news, which tends to be skewed one way or another to incite the listener to call in and spout off about the announcer's position. After all, with no callers there's no show.
-
Be careful with summaries of the report.
Some interesting details:
Of those three misperceptions (and you can claim clear or conclusive evidence if you like, the fact of the matter is that neither is the case), there was a direct correlation between them and supporting the war.
The report also claims to strain out things such as demographics.
"Looking just at Republicans, the average rate for the three key misperceptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however, the average rate was 54% while for Republicans who get their news from PBS-NPR the average rate is 32%. This same pattern obtains with Democrats and independents."
and the poll did control for multiple sources. It wasn't just about the television newsmedia. Rather the fact is that most people get their news from TV these days. And the report does quantify how many people is "most people" (something like 80 percent)
-
AKIron: If by sophisticated you mean clueless then I must agree.
Not really - I ment more educated, more knowlegeable, more intelligent, more carefully done.
They are clueless about higher-level issues like why free market is superior to government intervention and why socialism does not work, but so are the right-wingers.
Basically, when NPR or PBS cites some fact, you do not have to verify it. You may disagree radically with it's interpretation as I do but they are not lying or ignorant or sloppy checking the facts. You can use them for actual education on many factual issues, once you have the right philosophical worldview straight. Of course they are more dangerous to the young minds without set worldviews - exactly for the reason of being more professionally done.
Right-wingers on the other hand are likely to say outright falcities based on presumpion or ignorance.
Just one example. Curtis Sliwa said recently in discussion whether Saddam Hussein was a fundamental muslim of a secular socialist (and thus a likely enemy of Al-Qaede) "Hussein was different from Stalin and Hitler - neither Stalin or Hitler turned to religion when going got tough for them..."
Not only did the ignorant dolt never heard of well-documented historical facts that Hitler and especially Stalin radically changed their stance on religion and employed it when they experienced cricis, he could not conceive there was something he could be ignorant about.
I am sure plenty of ignorant listeners are now armed with false knowlege where they previously had none.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Basically, when NPR or PBS cites some fact, you do not have to verify it.
miko
Pretty dangerous attitude imo.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Pretty dangerous attitude imo.
Maybe so, but it's a pretty good bet. The odds are better than any of the networks simply because they aren't in it for the scoop or to be the first one to have the news.
-
As a daily listener...
I can say that PBS and NPR get caught on their mistakes all the time.
And guess what!
Rather than rationalizing their mistakes and calling people names, like O'Reily and Rush...
NPR points out their mistake on the next broadcast and give their listeners of the correct information.
-
AKIron: Pretty dangerous attitude imo.
I mean basic facts, not interpretations. They would not tell an obvious lie that one can discover by reading a textbook.
I listen to righ-wingers most of the time while driving and to NPR/PBS occasionally.
Being a reasonably educated person, my reaction to NPR/PBS is "Yes, but..." while my reaction to Hannity/Crawley/Savage/Sliwa is "No, that's pure B.S. - it never happened like that..." - even if I may agree with conclusions.
miko
-
NPR's facts/numbers may be right, but they are just as guilty of spin as is anyone. Just look at who always gets the last word in any issue discussion. 9 times out of 10 it will be the more liberial of the two POV's. And I can tell you that the majority of people are impacted most by the last person's statements.
A defense attorney once told me he'd give up his defendant's right to not testify if he could have the last word in closing arguments (the plaintiff/prosecution always gets the rebuttal close).
-
I wasn't denying the integrity of either NPR or PBS which I also listen to/watch on occasion. I just think it's foolish to trust any single source without question. Especially if they report something of significance, whether it supports or opposes my "worldview."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Pretty dangerous attitude imo.
I think what they're saying Iron is that NPR/PBS makes a determined effort to report the facts of the story. However, time is always a limiting factor, so they report what they think is important about the event.
What NPR thinks is important is frequently 180 degrees away from what we think is important.
With FOX/NBC/CBS/ABC, they appear to have agendas. Sometimes, it appears that they go looking for story elements that support their point of view. They decide at the start how the story is going to play out. Never mind the facts, let's go find supporting evidence.
curly
-
Partial sentence Iron.
"You do not have to verify it because experience has shown that the facts they present are generally reliable."
Now, _what_ facts get presented (suppression of evidence) and _how_ they're interpreted, that's a different matter. But you don't find yourself saying "That's downright false" listening to NPR nearly as much as with the television news networks. You can be saying "Damn, there's a lot of whiny stories about suffering in the Third World slapped between soft-sell interviews of pseudointellectual writers and musicians and persistent requests for baksheesh", but you rarely say, "that guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about."
Of course, as with anything, it helps to verify the facts. Just be sure you don't do it by turning the news channels until you hear something you agree with. Go to the sources.
Take the case of this study -- you've got the methodology, the results and the interpretation. They're all individual steps. If you want to trash the study, you need to argue:
A) The methodology was flawed, leading to bad results.
B) The results are fraudulent (and if this happens, heads will come off)
C) The interpretation is off.
For those who want to destroy this study, the most promising angle of attack here is C). So do your research, study the results, and tell me how it should be read. I see the conclusions as they are perfectly obvious.
-
I think you're right about what they are saying Curly. BUT, everyone is human, well, except a few on this board, and susceptible to presenting the "facts" as seen through the distortion of their "world view." As you mentioned, even the choice of which "facts" to present is based on someone's opinion as to what's important.
Hey, I'm not saying they're not trying to be objective. Just that that's virtually impossible for a human being to do.
-
The most telling criticism of NPR I ever heard:
"It's boring."
-
I don't see a problem with the report. It appears to reach a completely "objective" conclusion. :rofl
Give me a break. There have been many political and philosophical discussions on these boards in which the proponents of both sides offered rational, articulate, and often prosaic arguments without resorting to insults. As I have said before, I do not think either liberals or conservatives have a monopoly on intelligence or moral superiority. Flouting one's "superior intelligence" or "moral superiority" is one of the lowest and basest arguments. It bores me silly.
Shuckins (Leggern)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
The most telling criticism of NPR I ever heard:
"It's boring."
Much like politics, it is an acquired taste.