What is your opinion on a Rolling Stone article according to which Fox News viewers are misinformed?

Question

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

Researchers at the Fairleigh Dickinson University concluded that:

Fox viewers scored the lowest in both categories, getting an average of 1.04 questions right on domestic issues and 1.08 on international, behind people who watch MSNBC (which, on international affairs, also lagged the non-news watchers) The Daily Show, and the Sunday talk show viewers, as well as NPR listeners – the best informed audience – and, yes, people who don't "do" news.

The research doesn't seem to indicate where people who don't watch the news on T.V. or the radio might be getting their information from, but I'm suspecting it's print and Internet.

Answer 1

Rolling Stone magazine has been around since I was in Jr. High, 48 years ago. It was always a highly respected artsy magazine that had the latest on music, dancing, rock groups and fashion.



They've become political as well now and know their stuff.



Guess what? Fox News viewers are the MOST misinformed that exist. You don't get your news from newscaster or any journalists. You get opinions, they spread the Republican hate. If you watch nothing else, you're doing yourselves a gross injustice.



Watch Fox if you want. But don't limit yourself. The world is WAY MORE than Fox News.

Answer 2

No it isn't a marvel. learn also instruct that those who detect as republicans are the least knowledgeable. I do have a difficulty with this learn, in spite of the truth that. a number of those statements, at the same time with "seventy 2 % believe the monetary equipment is getting worse (It has gotten more desirable seeing that fall 2009)" and "ninety one % believe the stimulus legislations lost jobs (actual, it created about 3 million jobs, in accordance to CBO)" are a count number of opinion, not truth. those may properly be argued both way. also, the truth "seventy 2 % believe the well being reform regulation will develop the deficit. (It reduces it)" is incorrect. it really is too early to inform how the reform will result our monetary equipment. an excellent type of the bill hasn't even lengthy previous into result yet. regrettably, we are able to likely in no way recognize because conservatives will likely kill funding to the bill. yet actual, both FOXs and MSNBCs programming predominately good factors communicate instruct hosts who argue for his or her opinion extremely of in simple terms telling info. in case you want actual information, possibilities are intense you should do learn and seek for it your self.

Answer 3

Neither the Rolling Stone nor Fairleigh Dickinson has a reputation for intelligence or credibility. That study is BS. Want to see who's least informed? Ask viewers of the different networks what the sequester is, what happened in Benghazi, or the difference between the debt and the deficit. Something tells me those who watch the Daily Show, MSNBC, ABC, etc. would have absolutely no idea.

Answer 4

Faux News puts such a hateful bias into everything, no wonder their viewers can't get anything right.

@ RJC, since there is a difference between 'they are' and 'those who will ADMIT it', I'd say that figure might be pretty accurate.



@ mcnamara, you are so uninformed....it's Retardicans like you that remind me constantly of how screwy yu people think things are, I bet you were one of the fools that sincerely believed Romney was going to win in November 'by a landslide'



@ no chance w/o dice, if Faux News was as unbiased and pure as you want to think, then why were their viewers so misinformed about the Nov elections?

Answer 5

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.



You can look it up. They have the legal right to lie to their viewers. Another thing to take note of is that the average age of Bill O'Reilly's viewers is 70 years old! Hannity has lost 35% of his viewers recently, and O'Reilly has lost 26%.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/fox-news-ratings-february-oreilly-hannity_n_2768265.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utZG26r4xNk

Answer 6

Apparently it's not even a real survey:

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/05/26/fox-news-fights-back-survey-insisting-fox-viewers-are-dumb



"But here’s what’s amazing: the Fairleigh Dickinson team didn’t actually identify people who got their news only from one source, as these surveys never seem to do. They used “multinomial logistic regression” to create representations of such people who were then compared “to a hypothetical construct of someone who had no recent news exposure.”



I've seen Huffington Post report this, but didn't bother looking it up until now. Apparently this is not Fairleigh's first offense: http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/01/22/liberal-websites-embarrassed-after-using-faulty-polling-attack-gop



Also, it depends which news stories you ask about perhaps. Many sources run stories from the same services, like Reuters and AP. But, not all papers/channels run the same stories or spend the same amount of time on some stories. During the Gary Conduit scandal, Rather refused to spend time on it for weeeks.



Finally, it's Rolling Stone readers who are misinformed. They do not "know what they're talking about". Matt Taibbi's 08 article on Mitt Romney was j just full of crap like snide comments about what sexual positions Romney might be in to. It was the basic point of his article.



They run crap like Paul Krugman advising Obama on how to help the economy in Jan. 09 I think. He advised Obama he had to spend butt loads of money to save the economy. Obama had spent a little more than that, and it still sucks. But hey, Krugman thought a housing bubble would help the economy:



http://mises.org/daily/6372/Krugmans-Call-for-a-Housing-Bubble



Edit: what's this junk, bmovies gets thumbs down for explaining why he thinks the study is bogus. Wayf doesn't bother supporting the first assertion (the only one that matters) and gets 4 lefty approvals. Is that how YA works now?



Edit:

The Cassino guy behind the study didn't like what lefty sites did with the study:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-slams-professors-ill-informed-viewers-fairleigh-dickinson-328771

“It was sensationalized – and that’s the dominant bias in the media, sensationalism," he said. "MSNBC was second worst, but it wasn’t talked about."



This also disregards other studies saying the opposite is true:

http://news.yahoo.com/surveys-republicans-more-open-minded-better-informed-democrats-213542567.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-times-tea-partiers-more-educated

Somewhat related subject, is it okay if an NPR chick fantasizes about watching Limbaugh die?

http://www.examiner.com/article/leaked-emails-npr-producer-fantasized-about-killing-rush-limbaugh



EDIT: And after years of hearing about the "Fox suit for the right to lie", usually without the slightest of references to an actual case, yesterday I finally discover what it's all about. And it's another stupid lie. Almost everything about it relies on the word of Wilson, who has a history of deceit and nearly lost the license of his later employer-station in MI to practice journalism. In the original suit, before 2003, all of Wilson's claims were thrown out of court. Some of Akre's claims were thrown it, but she was awarded some money for her claim she felt herself a whistleblower. This is what was overturned in Feb 14 2003 by a higher court which decided she didn't actually qualify add a whistleblower. Suing for the right to lie was never a part of the suit and is a deep distortion of the case. The truth of whether or not the report itself was correct was not a subject of the later suit, and if it was part of the earlier suit it doesn't bode well for people making the claim, since such claims would've been thrown out in the earliest suit. The writer reveals none of Wilson's media boosters have actually fact checked the case, and some got angry at him for even asking.



This is what we call "The Death of Journalism": http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils

Answer 7

My opinion is that its a fake and biased study:





Democrats use biased 'study' to smear Fox News



Another painstakingly objective and impartial academic institution has abandoned all integrity to vindictively trash Fox News and peddle the partisan smear that anyone who watches "right-wing propaganda" (anything that includes multiple sides of the story) is stupid.



This time, it's an under-performing, bottom-of-the-barrel school, Fairleigh Dickinson University (Forbes rated it No. 585 out of 650 colleges), and a new "study" pretending to find that Fox News viewers are the least informed...and even less informed than those who don't watch any news.



The only problem with this (other than the fact that it flies in the face of what any reasonable, thinking adult who has had the misfortune of 'debating' with a liberal has experienced), of course, is that it's based on embarrassingly unscientific methodology and a blatantly partisan spinning of the numbers.



According to the report, 1,185 people were asked a series of current events questions on everything from the removal of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, to the latest unemployment rate. Every group got about one question right in each category.



For instance, Fox viewers answered an average of 1.04 domestic questions correctly, while NPR listeners got an average of 1.51 right. This difference is virtually non-existent, and well within the margin of error...and the report admits to deliberately over-sampling Republicans, thereby creating a much larger margin of error only for that group.



But that isn't stopping our left-wing noise machine of a news media from using this "study" to baselessly slander Fox News, while propping up NPR with the idea that we really do need taxpayer-funded Marxist propaganda (as I have documented here and here).



Incidentally, even if you accept the glaringly arbitrary, subjective premise of measuring news outlets by negligible differences in how their audiences answer nine random questions that are open to interpretation and being graded presumably by card-carrying Democrats, this "study" actually indicates that MSNBC is the outlet to avoid, not Fox.



http://www.examiner.com/article/leftists-use-fake-biased-study-to-smear-fox-news

Answer 8

You are cherry picking info.



"The kicker is that MSNBC didn’t do all that much better. In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers." SAME ARTICLE



Plus, how was the study conducted. Did they go to East Podunk Kentucky to find Fox Viewers and Midtown Manhattan to find NPR viewers?



All media is purely biased to promote its agenda. You have to get your info from many sources including international sources.

Answer 9

Rolling Stone is an American magazine published every two weeks and focused on music, LIBERAL POLITICS, and popular culture.



Critics have stated that Fox News Channel promotes CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL positions.



So basically it's the liberals bashing the conservatives, just as the conservatives bash the liberals, just like what is going on in Washington D.C. right now.



By the way, the only time I ever read Rolling Stone magazine was 40 years ago back in my stoner days.

Answer 10

Did the Rolling Stone have an article explaining the obsession that the liberals have with FOX News? Liberals can educate me more about what they have on the show than I can, in fact I wait for them to tell me what I missed the night before! Tell me, why is that? Rolling Stone is an old hippy magazine written for the liberals and trust me, they are only telling you what they know you want to hear.

Answer 11

Have you ever listened to the **** they broadcast on Fox News? It's a house organ for the GOP, the party of stupid. You would only be surprised if their viewers weren't the cellar dwellers.



As for your second question, I imagine the people who eschew television and NPR read newspapers and/or periodicals and have a fair amount of common sense, unlike Fox News viewers. I have never met a person who gets his or her news from the Internet to be honest.

Answer 12

"This time, it's an under-performing, bottom-of-the-barrel school, Fairleigh Dickinson University (Forbes rated it No. 585 out of 650 colleges), and a new "study" pretending to find that Fox News viewers are the least informed...and even less informed than those who don't watch any news."



http://www.examiner.com/article/leftists-use-fake-biased-study-to-smear-fox-news



585 out of 650. Great source!



What is it with libs and Fox News? I don't think I've ever watched an entire news broadcast of theirs.



"The numbers varied a bit, sometimes MSNBC and FOX viewers were just one percent apart. "

http://westwood-hillsdale.patch.com/articles/fdu-poll-watch-fox-news-be-uninformed-6a7e003b

Answer 13

"Researchers at the Fairleigh Dickinson University" (lol)....yeah right.



If you want to know what the other so-called mainstream media news people won't tell you, Fox News is where you will hear what is really going on. And the liberals fear that.

Answer 14

Further proof. This isn't really in question imo.

Answer 15

They won't get an argument out of me.

Answer 16

I don't care.



I'm don't watch Fox News and I'm not obsessed with it the way Liberals are.

Answer 17

Fox viewers have always been misinformed. This isn't news.

Answer 18

That it is bias beyond lucid thought or study



Do you agree with last months article that democrats are 76% more apt to be gay?

Answer 19

it makes sense

Answer 20

Rolling Stone, please.