Wow!

A report from Air America off of a network called "go-left" has a study that finds FOX news to be bad! NO WAY!!!



I'm surprised you ever found this actually. Aren't there like 20 people in the country who listen to Air America?

Hmm..I can only find FOX news mentioned 3 times in that article, and each time it says the findings were not significantly different from other news sources.

The audiences for morning news (34% high knowledge), local TV news (35%), Fox News Channel (35%), blogs (37%), and the network evening news (38%) were not significantly different from the norm for the whole sample (35%).

Are we looking at the same thing here?

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Samantha Bee reporting on female anchors, most notably female Fox News anchors...

Is this a legitimate discussion or are we just bashing FOX News?

How old are you guys? Do your mothers know your using the computer?

We know now what the real prerequisites are for a news anchor job at Fox.

I'm sorry…are you neglecting to comment on my finding that the article you quoted says nothing to back up your claim?

I'll take that as an apology for wasting everyones time.

Fox news does not make you stupid. If you accept the BS that they spew then you're likely stupid with out their help.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Swingarm]

This pattern is evident on many of the individual questions in the survey. For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.

It is in there. I think the way they word it makes it hard for most readers to see the results as bad for Fox or anybody. When they say matched or did only slightly better, than the average American, that means it did below others. And they use average Americans as the ruler stick instead of saying other News Audiences. They don't want to rub Fox News the wrong way.


In retrospect , I think Pew Research is very vague, they try not to delineate any of the News agencies in a bad light, not the mainstream ones at least. Do you notice, in this paragraph, your expecting him to say the next group scored lower? But your not really getting a straight answer, if you read closely, it is saying they all scored well? And they even euphemise Fox's results.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Pocky]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Pocky]

Yes, it says matched or did slightly better than the average American, not slightly worse.

Your hatred for FOX is blinding you my friend. I can see nothing I say will make any difference in this thread.

Goodnight kiddies. I'm out.

Originally posted by nyk537
Yes, it says matched or did slightly better than the average American, not slightly worse.

Your hatred for FOX is blinding you my friend. I can see nothing I say will make any difference in this thread.

Goodnight kiddies. I'm out.

They tricked you by using the ruler stick of Average Americans, instead of competing News Stations, that is what I am seeing. Either way, I just noticed this Poll isn't overtly outing anybody as the lowest scorer. I don't think that is in their best interest, they said it without actually saying it , at least for most people to catch.

Ahhh feels good to be back....I think it was Mark Twain who says he who does not read the newspaper is un informed and he who reads the newspaper is mis informed. Nuff said.