Social The Fox News Effect

[IGotAHugePeckah]

The thing is now ignorance and "different political views" are one and the same. Most of those sources are conservative anyway including CNN and MSNBC now. Conservatives don't get this because they see them bashing Trump and they associate anti Trump consipacy's with liberal but basically everything is some degree of economically center right. Fox is unique mainly in style and in social conservatism rather than substantive differences with "fake news"(of course Fox, CNN and MSNBC are all fake news).

Losing to twitter sucks though given the character limit.

You think CNN and MSNBC are center right? Am I reading that correctly?

 

[ferrisjso]

A study was done that shows Fox viewers are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

Yeah they are. MSNBC was left but that was for a brief period. On economic issues they are center right and support pro corporate politicans in both parties. They are socially liberal. They worked very hard to shut out left of center voice and while they oppose Trump they oppose Trump on things like Russiagate and manners and "muh institutions" rather than actual substantive issues. They are right of center America's just went so far off the deep end they see someone opposing the dude they think "they must be a liberal". I mean Mueller is a hardocre right winger and you've got Joe Scarborough being a Republican congressman and people are pretending these people are liberals now they aren't.

 

[58miles]

As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels”

A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim

Only 25 percent of self-proclaimed Trump voters agree that climate change is caused by human activities.

Only 43 percent of Republicans overall believe that humans have evolved over time.

Forty-six percent of Trump voters polled just after the 2016 election either thought that Hillary Clinton was connected to a child sex trafficking ring run out of the basement of a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., or weren’t sure if it was true.

Sixty-six percent of self-described “very conservative” Americans seriously believe that “Muslims are covertly implementing Sharia law in American courts.”

https://slate.com/technology/2017/1...re-more-susceptible-to-believing-in-lies.html

 

[RoosterHucklebuck]

As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels”

A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim

Only 25 percent of self-proclaimed Trump voters agree that climate change is caused by human activities.

Only 43 percent of Republicans overall believe that humans have evolved over time.

Forty-six percent of Trump voters polled just after the 2016 election either thought that Hillary Clinton was connected to a child sex trafficking ring run out of the basement of a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., or weren’t sure if it was true.

Sixty-six percent of self-described “very conservative” Americans seriously believe that “Muslims are covertly implementing Sharia law in American courts.”

https://slate.com/technology/2017/1...re-more-susceptible-to-believing-in-lies.html

I remember 2 years ago when these same dumbass polls claimed that Trump had no chance in Hell of winning the election.

 

[HOLA]

I have to say that I find most American media to be disappointing. I have a lot of family members that watch only Fox and they are definitely less informed/misinformed on most issues. Anecdotal, but just my observations. That being said, I find that while CNN/MSNBC might provide more information, they frame stuff in such a way that their opinion is presented as fact. E.g. Trump pulling out of Syria was universally reported as something terrible. No discussion on what we could accomplish by staying there...just "Russia, Iran, bad bad".

Overall, I'd say the best way to stay informed is to read and confirm with multiple sources. Read multiple books on political issues by experts in the field that interest you.

There's a lot more out there than Fox, CNN and MSNBC. People just whatabout CNN and MSNBC because Trump does, and they're parrots.


Even just comparing those 3 - Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a PHD from Oxford who opens each show generally with about a 25 minute commercial free long-form segment. Meanwhile Fox's most popular show with Tucker Carlson you get 5 minute clips of him inviting some schmuck on so that he can yell at them and call them names and make that stupid face.

CNN's biggest problem is they keep on inviting Trump surrogates to lie. In an effort to appear unbiased.

 

[58miles]

I remember 2 years ago when these same dumbass polls claimed that Trump no chance in Hell of winning the election.

I remember the Comey letter 11 days before the election sending Hillary's numbers into a nosedive. I also Remember Hillary taking the popular vote by 3 million.
So what you are saying is that these dumbass polls got it wrong that 54% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim or only 43% of Republicans believe in evolution? Why would the polls get those question wrong? Where they only polling the Republicans whose IQ's are the same as their shoe sizes?

 

[HOLA]

There was a chart someone once posted (purporting to be unbiased) that showed of the 3 networks, Faux News, MSNBC, and CNN, the reliability of their information was pretty much in that order, from worst to best. But that's relative to each other.

Fox News viewers don't watch Fox to be informed. Every time Shep Smith tries they have a nervous breakdown. They tune in to watch Cucker and Ingraham insult liberals.

I think there is broad agreement even around here that there are better sources for news than any of them, although there may be disagreement about which ones. I would personally recommend CBC and NPR but I know there are many who have low opinions of one or the other.

I would like to see a different survey to find out how many people use more than one source for news. I have no proof, but I would be willing to bet that Faux News viewers would also use the fewest sources for news, not including social media, but I could also see how someone who considers their source super-reliable, e.g. NPR, might not stray.

There was an extensive study just done on this.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.

Is social media destroying democracy? Are Russian propaganda or "Fake news" entrepreneurs on Facebook undermining our sense of a shared reality? A conventional wisdom has emerged since the election of Donald Trump in 2016 that new technologies and their manipulation by foreign actors played a decisive role in his victory and are responsible for the sense of a "post-truth" moment in which disinformation and propaganda thrives.

Network Propaganda challenges that received wisdom through the most comprehensive study yet published on media coverage of American presidential politics from the start of the election cycle in April 2015 to the one year anniversary of the Trump presidency. Analysing millions of news stories together with Twitter and Facebook shares, broadcast television and YouTube, the book provides a comprehensive overview of the architecture of contemporary American political communications. Through data analysis and detailed qualitative case studies of coverage of immigration, Clinton scandals, and the Trump Russia investigation, the book finds that the right-wing media ecosystem operates fundamentally differently than the rest of the media environment.

The authors argue that longstanding institutional, political, and cultural patterns in American politics interacted with technological change since the 1970s to create a propaganda feedback loop in American conservative media. This dynamic has marginalized centre-right media and politicians, radicalized the right wing ecosystem, and rendered it susceptible to propaganda efforts, foreign and domestic. For readers outside the United States, the book offers a new perspective and methods for diagnosing the sources of, and potential solutions for, the perceived global crisis of democratic politics.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40846641-network-propaganda?from_search=true

Here's a 20 minute talk with the author:

 

[RoosterHucklebuck]

I remember the Comey letter 11 days before the election sending Hillary's numbers into a nosedive. I also Remember Hillary taking the popular vote by 3 million.
So what you are saying is that these dumbass polls got it wrong that 54% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim or only 43% of Republicans believe in evolution? Why would the polls get those question wrong? Where they only polling the Republicans whose IQ's are the same as their shoe sizes?

Thanks for proving my point. Polls don't mean dick.

And who gives a fuck how many votes Hillary had? It doesn't work that way. In fact, she had 1 MILLION more votes in California than Obama had in 2012(Gee, I wonder why?)

Clinton beat Trump by 2 million votes in Los Angeles, let's declare her the champ of the entire country.

 

[PEB]

I am a democrat but CNN and sometimes MSNBC is tied up with the neoliberals to the point it's ridiculous. FOX has the Hannity, Laura Ingraham's an alike but they also have honorable reporters.

I can go a number of times an give examples were CNN will defend a neoliberal war monger an people like Chris Wallace will challenge it. I am glad there are people who are not afraid of going against their widely network pushed positions.

I see many times Fox people will give more effort to an honest view then CNN. Are they perfect no but they seem to make an effort to honest reporting more then CNN at times.

Example

 

[AgonyandIrony]

CNN is a tabloid.

i agree with their television network, but I find much of their written work to be far better than Fox News overall.

 

[HOLA]

I remember the Comey letter 11 days before the election sending Hillary's numbers into a nosedive. I also Remember Hillary taking the popular vote by 3 million.
So what you are saying is that these dumbass polls got it wrong that 54% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim or only 43% of Republicans believe in evolution? Why would the polls get those question wrong? Where they only polling the Republicans whose IQ's are the same as their shoe sizes?

They think if something showed Trump had a 2% chance of winning it was wrong because Trump ended up winning, and that all future polls are now rendered useless.

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of these nincompoops could convert a fraction into a decimal.

 

[58miles]

Thanks for proving my point. Polls don't mean dick.

And who gives a fuck how many votes Hillary had? It doesn't work that way. In fact, she had 1 MILLION more votes in California than Obama had in 2012(Gee, I wonder why?)

Clinton beat Trump by 2 million votes in Los Angeles, let's declare her the champ of the entire country.

Polls only mean dick in rightwing world when the polls say what it wants them to say. Any other time fake news!

Hillary won the popular vote because all of those illegal votes in California!!! Nevermind there has never been any even remotely credible evidence to prove widespread voter fraud but still believes in widespread voter fraud. Thanks for proving the very point this thread was making, thanks for owning yourself champ.

 

[58miles]

They think if something showed Trump had a 2% chance of winning it was wrong because Trump ended up winning, and that all future polls are now rendered useless.

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of these nincompoops could convert a fraction into a decimal.

It's so damn easy to own right wingers it's almost unfair I mean because they usually end up owning themselves like RoosterHucklebuck in his last post.

 

[58miles]

Fox News is one giant misinformation machine masquerading as a news channel.

Researchers at Emory and Stanford universities found that watching only three minutes of Fox News coverage per week would make Democratic and centrist voters one percent more likely to vote Republican in the 2008 election.

According to the study, this means that if Fox News hadn't existed in 2004, George W. Bush would have captured nearly four fewer percentage points, making John Kerry the popular vote winner. In 2008, Barack Obama would have won in a landslide if it weren't for Fox, capturing 60 percent of the vote, with John McCain winning 6.34 percent fewer votes.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/08/your-worst-fears-about-fox-news-are-confirmed-new-study

 

[Andy Capp]

I am a democrat but CNN and sometimes MSNBC is tied up with the neoliberals to the point it's ridiculous. FOX has the Hannity, Laura Ingraham's an alike but they also have honorable reporters.

I can go a number of times an give examples were CNN will defend a neoliberal war monger an people like Chris Wallace will challenge it. I am glad there are people who are not afraid of going against their widely network pushed positions.

I see many times Fox people will give more effort to an honest view then CNN. Are they perfect no but they seem to make an effort to honest reporting more then CNN at times.

Example

You call the very first sentence he spews making an effort to an honest view? Citing that piece of shit Limbaugh to support the idea Faux is better than CNN is like suggesting diarrhea is better than piss because it's got more stuff in it.

 

[Andy Capp]

Fox News viewers don't watch Fox to be informed. Every time Shep Smith tries they have a nervous breakdown. They tune in to watch Cucker and Ingraham insult liberals.



There was an extensive study just done on this.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.

Is social media destroying democracy? Are Russian propaganda or "Fake news" entrepreneurs on Facebook undermining our sense of a shared reality? A conventional wisdom has emerged since the election of Donald Trump in 2016 that new technologies and their manipulation by foreign actors played a decisive role in his victory and are responsible for the sense of a "post-truth" moment in which disinformation and propaganda thrives.

Network Propaganda challenges that received wisdom through the most comprehensive study yet published on media coverage of American presidential politics from the start of the election cycle in April 2015 to the one year anniversary of the Trump presidency. Analysing millions of news stories together with Twitter and Facebook shares, broadcast television and YouTube, the book provides a comprehensive overview of the architecture of contemporary American political communications. Through data analysis and detailed qualitative case studies of coverage of immigration, Clinton scandals, and the Trump Russia investigation, the book finds that the right-wing media ecosystem operates fundamentally differently than the rest of the media environment.

The authors argue that longstanding institutional, political, and cultural patterns in American politics interacted with technological change since the 1970s to create a propaganda feedback loop in American conservative media. This dynamic has marginalized centre-right media and politicians, radicalized the right wing ecosystem, and rendered it susceptible to propaganda efforts, foreign and domestic. For readers outside the United States, the book offers a new perspective and methods for diagnosing the sources of, and potential solutions for, the perceived global crisis of democratic politics.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40846641-network-propaganda?from_search=true

Here's a 20 minute talk with the author:

If only people on the right would listen. No chance of that though.

 

[58miles]

According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.

Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.

The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.

How in the hell did the Republicans go from being the party of Carlton Banks

to the party of angry, ignorant and paranoid Larry The Cable Guy's?

 

[PEB]

You call the very first sentence he spews making an effort to an honest view? Citing that piece of shit Limbaugh to support the idea Faux is better than CNN is like suggesting diarrhea is better than piss because it's got more stuff in it.

CNN has been horrific for Tulsi an Bernie when they mention Tulsi she's being friendly with Russia "MSNBC" or giving comfort to our enemies. On Bernie they just go on an on about how can US afford his healthcare ideas. Yet he gives data from CATO that shows it saving money.

 

[Contra-dictator]

Thanks for proving my point. Polls don't mean dick.

And who gives a fuck how many votes Hillary had? It doesn't work that way. In fact, she had 1 MILLION more votes in California than Obama had in 2012(Gee, I wonder why?)

Clinton beat Trump by 2 million votes in Los Angeles, let's declare her the champ of the entire country.

 

[skold]

I remember 2 years ago when these same dumbass polls claimed that Trump had no chance in Hell of winning the election.

Is this your dumbass go-to excuse for every unfavorable poll result?

Are you still going to be quoting that 20 years down the line??

"Oh yeah??? Remember when these polls said Trump had no chance of winning in 2016"

"Dude, that was 2 decades ago"