It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Extended exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


i so agree-to limited your opinion is to dumby down yourself! my advice is to go find out for yourself what is behind the soapbox of the so called msm/news. it is a travesty---are the folks over in the msm that stupid? and do they think that the viewing public is that stupid as to buy into their bs-day after day?? i for one cannot wait for all of us to wake up and turn off to the brain-wash techniques of these crazies!!




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


one more comment--think about this...fox news number one-i find that hard to belief. always have...according to who? bad polling! i listen to all if i listen at all...same crap different dial. yes??



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElBraapo
I really do not understand the bashing of Fox News. Can someone give me some real examples of some false reports from them?


Watch this free, online documentary on the subject for your answer.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ElBraapo
 



I really do not understand the bashing of Fox News. Can someone give me some real examples of some false reports from them?

Here's a few: Fox Hype, and this is from 10 years ago.
Here's some more links supporting Fox fallacies: 1, 2, 3, 4

I fully acknowledge the fact that all the outlets sometimes stretch the truth or provide incomplete and over sensationalized perspectives, but would it not stand to say he who shouts the loudest and reaches more people is more responsible than others in this "dumbing down?"

One of the definitions in the dictionary for stupid:

• dazed and unable to think clearly

Another relative vid:


Peace,
spec
edit on 18-12-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Really?


I hope no federal monies were used on this so called 'study'.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 



Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by bphi1908
 



What I was saying that people that were brought up by the television rather than their inattentive parents were more likely to be... well, below average.


I would point out that long-term viewing habits would be expected to make a greater difference than one-off viewing of a show, freedom of choice would probably have smart people watching shows that made them smarter, and stupid people watching shows that dropped their intelligence to such a level that they could just about dial for pizza and change the channel when something informative came on.


Jack White said it best in the White Stripes song Cause and Effect "I didn't rob a bank because you made up the law" , or as it relates to this topic I didn't become stupid because you put on a show, I always was.

I don't disagree with your take on this subject, and it turns out to be a lot more interesting than the simplistic "Fox is bad" crap. I think the sociological nature vs. nurture argument actually has more to with an individual's intellect than a particular television program no matter how much one watches a particular program. But with that said it doesn't explain how an individual can have everything in life stacked against him/her and still turn out to be a productive member of society.

I think an experiment more likely to get to the heart of the issue here would be, albeit this would be an incredibly unethical, to take two newborns. One from a genetically intelligent parents and one from below average parents take them out of society for 20 or 30 years. Then just dump them back into society without any adjustment period as see which of the 2 better adapts to their equally alien environment. Some of the results would be easy to guess without this actually being done. That is neither would be what we call "normal" but it would be interesting to see who more readily adapts. I think something like this would illustrate true intelligence as it relates to genetics.

I always had a problem with studies, first beer is good for you. Then another comes out and says it's bad for you and back and forth it goes. Turns out the "beer is good" study was done by MillerCoors, the "beer is bad" by MADD or someone like it. Very seldom to studies get done just to find out the results.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 

If you don't agree with liberals you're stupid apparently, even if what you believe is factually true.
Actually, for all but those @the top of the pile, if you dont agree with liberals, you are against your own self interest. Is that stupid? I think so.

The trouble is in defining what "liberal" means. MSM have conflated the word with the likes of "socialist", "communist" & "progressive", then, particularly Fox, conflate those words too. They then go on to create the false left/right paradigm airspoon mentioned by reinventing the meaning of "conservative" & placing the 2 @opposite ends of an entirely baseless spectrum. For those who have been trained very well to only view concepts in terms of polar opposites, I'll make it easier...
The opposite of liberal is authoritarian. The opposite of conservative is radical.
A radical liberal is an anarchist. A liberal radical is a social reformer/progressive.
A radical authoritarian would have to support some new type of control. An authoritarian radical most likely supports a particular dictator with a new agenda.
A liberal conservative is a libertarian. A conservative liberal supports parliamentary democracy.
A conservative authoritarian is an absolute monarchist. An authoritarian conservative is a fascist.
Now, imagine these 2 sets of opposites as the axes of a + shaped graph. Then realise that an anarchist & a libertarian have more in common with each other than they do with anyone on the authoritarian 1/2 of the graph or even in the centre of the liberal 1/2 & then think about the difference between monarchy & dictatorship. Not much, eh?
Ok then, so bend the conservative/radical axis round into a circle that adds a 3rd dimension to the graph. Here it comes...

Try to reconcile liberal with authoritarian to do the same to that axis. Cant be done. That is the truth that the left/right lie conceals. Happy tv watching!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon

What, just FOX News? This article is clearly biased, though if you can get past the obvious biases and understand the meat of the issue, the study does have some value. However, I don't think that FOX News is alone in "dumbing down" the American people, as CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the tabloid stations, Newspapers and so-called "media outlets" do the same thing as FOX News, just maybe not to the same degree or with as much "zest".

Make no mistake about it, just as FOX News viewers are likely to believe in falseified information, so are the viewers of the other tabloid stations and while FOX is singled out here, the problem is certainly not limited to them.

--airspoon

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 17-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)


I am not entirely sure this is accurate, I am not a Fox News fan but this "falseified information" that this study contains is exactly what everyone claims Fox News does, pretty hypocritical if you ask me. What am I talking about you ask?

Read...

According to the article you reference it states:
1. 91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs


First where did they get 91% from? This question is broken into 4 answers.
Caused job loss..............................32.333%
Saved or created a few...................32.333%
Saved or created several million.....32.333%
Don't know.......................................3%

I don't see 91% do you? I see 32.3333%.



But let's get back to the question, according to these numbers, people thinking that the stimulus lost jobs is accurate, the Stimulus bill was passed in Feb. 2009, look at the unemployment numbers after FEB 2009, 8.5 in March and 9.9 by April 2010. If the stimulus was suppose to "create jobs" it failed! So saying that the stimulus didn't lose those jobs is a mere technicality isn't it? The nation still did and if you lost your job it doesn't matter why.

This chart also helps answer this
2. 72 percent believed the economy is getting worse

Not to mention we are now printing money that will led to inflation, possibly hyper-inflation.
www.businessinsider.com...

3. 72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit.

www.nytimes.com...

This is from the New York Times, not Fox News!

and check this out....



Can we afford to ADD to this?? And by the way this is already out of date!

4. 60 percent believed climate change is not occurring

climateaudit.org...

startthinkingright.wordpress.com...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

www.realclimate.org...

politisite.com...

There appears to be enough evidence out there to conclude that "global warming" and Cap and Trade are bad news. And who would make money from Cap and trade anyway?

online.wsj.com...
www.humanevents.com...

5. 63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts

How would anyone know?? Nobody read the GD thing, including the lawmakers who passed it!
www.cbsnews.com...\

6. 63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear).

Who gives a S&*%? The only people who still like this story are the people trying to discredit "conspiracy nuts"
like you and me! Except this one doesn't matter, he'll be out of office before anyone can prove a thing!

And finally!!
7. People who watch Fox News are stupid as claimed by the OP, the article and Countdown.





I show this to illustrate the disingenuous nature of this study, how can they surmise the intelligence of just Fox News viewers by this question?

The question separates the channels into different questions, meaning the same people who answered the CNN, MSNBC, and newspaper questions answered the Fox news question!! The way they set up this survey eliminates the possibility of them being able to single out Fox viewers!!!

So continue to bash those stupid fox viewers, because it's fun and all the cool kids are doing it! This is much easier than reading the survey finding out it is complete horse s&^%.

But now you know that this is what all mass media does not just Fox, they are ALL useless.
www.associatedcontent.com...

And this was not aimed at you Airspoon, people have to be responsible for accepting or not the information presented, this is aimed at the "Yeah Fox sucks!" crowd that litters this thread.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
and sorry about the last photo, still new to the linking photo thing, apparently I am not so good at it.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 

People who are just lacking in even the rudimentary intelligence required to name and measure a cucumber for instance, are going to be drawn to a news outlet which caters for people who cant pass basic science, ethics, and social studies classes.
Name it? Measure it? I swear there's people who wouldn't notice having 1 stuffed up the orifice out of which comes the only potentially useful contribution to the world they'll ever make!
The rest of your post was also excellent but I'm a bit busy right now so I cant concentrate enough to elaborate on what you wrote.

I've been meaning to get into some of this stuff for a while. I started to in a thread where I was debunking some wild TFHery about mind control, but the OP U2U'd me to tell me to stop derailing his thread. You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead...
Anyhoo, the $64,000 question: does the media employ mind control techniques? I've been working in the media for over 20yrs...

The answer is yes.

Stay tuned folks! After the break I'll reveal what I know.

[cue music "Go" by Moby][cut to ads]



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


I dont think the study said fox causes stupidity. It says that the most misinformed are Fox viewers.


Take attractive reporters, report not fact but editorial hype/scare, be dramatic. = lots of viewers willing to believe. Most on this site have the power of reason which is employed. fox viewers take what is said as gospel.


True quote:

"If it wasnt true they couldnt say it"

a relative or friend said this about Fox. The law does not does not does not at all require truth.

More importantly any administration who sues the most popular tv station for lies runs the risk of losing votes.

Their own vp chastised their own viewers saying that if they cant tell the difference between fact and editorial then they have a problem.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 

Say a station has a show that says your house is on fire and they have 3 guests on the show that back up the host's assertion most people would check out their own house before running out into the street screaming wouldn't they?
Thing is Fox News is far more likely to be telling people that their collective house (the USA) isn't on fire, its just them danged muslims that want to set light to it... Ooh, be afraid, be very afraid etc. Er... hang on, where's all that smoke coming from?

[revelations from BDLeaks delayed - founder Bulian Desinger caught drunk - claims revelations will shock the world]



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 

Maybe this seems like a pedantic or trivial distinction, but I think the questions are very different.
Thank you. Pedantic my arse! More like exactly the distinction between getting our info from what we each can discover & share rather than listening to some agenda driven, deliberately psychologically targeted, professional propaganda machine.

[reports indicate that Bulian Desinger has been taken into protective custody - stay tuned for exclusive updates!]



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by maluminse
reply to post by TheWill
 

I dont think the study said fox causes stupidity. It says that the most misinformed are Fox viewers.


You seem to be "misinformed", here is the actual title of thread and the article the thread refers to:

"Extended exposure to Fox News makes voters STUPID, university study finds"



Originally posted by maluminse
reply to post by TheWill
 

Take attractive reporters, report not fact but editorial hype/scare, be dramatic. = lots of viewers willing to believe. Most on this site have the power of reason which is employed. fox viewers take what is said as gospel.


Are you saying that Fox does this while the rest of the major cable news channels do not engage in type of "journalism"? And the bit about attractive reporters, really? Gretta Van Sustern? Alan "One eyebrow" Combs?
Come on! Again ALL Cable news channels want attractive people delivering the news.



Originally posted by maluminse
reply to post by TheWill
 

True quote:

"If it wasnt true they couldnt say it"

a relative or friend said this about Fox. The law does not does not does not at all require truth.


Than you have a very ignorant relative, that does not mean everyone who watches Fox is stupid.

I am assuming since you didn't read the title of the article you didn't read the article or the survey, of which the article was written. Which means you wouldn't know that the survey is completely wrong. The title claiming watching Fox makes you stupid was based off ONE multi-part question! And that multi-part question separates the channels into different questions, meaning the same people who answered the CNN, MSNBC, and newspaper questions answered the Fox news question!! The way they set up this survey eliminates the possibility of them being able to single out Fox viewers!!!

And they are able to get away with this because people don't read the articles, they're happy with just reading the headlines and consider themselves "informed."


edit on 19-12-2010 by bphi1908 because: grammer error



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join