Dems to Fox: No thanks!

[Nishin]

There's an interesting implication there: by refusing to go on Fox, if the idea is that the commentators will corrupt the message, aren't the Democrats -- at least the candidates -- assuming that people are stupid? that they can't listen to the candidates and hear what is said?

Because people are not stupid and gullible??
LOL ... god one... you just made my day.

 

[NickCole]

I'll be frank, I have some problems with FOX myself, but I can assure you that FOX has a conservative base that is well educated.

Survey says ... you're wrong.

Pew Survey Finds Most Knowledgeable Americans Watch 'Daily Show' and 'Colbert'-- and Visit Newspaper Sites

Published: April 15, 2007

Other details are equally eye-opening. Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot -- with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct. Watchers of the Lehrer News Hour on PBS followed just behind.

Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. Fox topped only network morning show viewers.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/newsroom/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571876

 

[Kulindahr]

Survey says ... you're wrong.

Um... Nick, that survey doesn't really address Eric28's statement in the least -- so I guess in fact you're wrong.

The article is also rather useless -- without listing the questions, it's meaningless.

 

[chance1]

The "most knowledgeable" watch Colbert and Stewart?

The audiences for those shows are niche - small - very small

I guess they have a really smart small audience

 

[Eric28]

Survey says ... you're wrong.

And we know that surveys are always right!

I'm was just talking about my own personal experience from being in the doctor's lounge as a nurse. You can take it for what it's worth. Didn't quote any statistics to begin with!

 

[NickCole]

And we know that surveys are always right!

I'm was just talking about my own personal experience from being in the doctor's lounge as a nurse. You can take it for what it's worth. Didn't quote any statistics to begin with!

You wrote, "I can assure you that ..." So that's how you write about your own personal experience versus a knowledge you may have of the world at large? Well okay, so long as that's clear.

 

[NickCole]

Um... Nick, that survey doesn't really address Eric28's statement in the least -- so I guess in fact you're wrong.

Nope.

The article is also rather useless -- without listing the questions, it's meaningless.

Here's the Pew Research Survey:




http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions
What Americans Know: 1989-2007
Released: April 15, 2007


... There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events). ...

... More than six-in-ten college graduates (63%) fall into the high knowledge group, compared with 20% of those with a high school education or less - among the largest disparities observed in the survey....

... Nearly half of all men (45%) score in the top third, compared with 25% of women....

... Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older. But it is not these oldest respondents who know the most. Instead, it is people in the age group younger than them - those ages 50-64 - who are slightly more likely to finish among the third of the sample who know the most (47% vs. 43%) and less likely to be represented among those who know the least (22% vs. 28%). ...

...

 

[Kulindahr]

That still doesn't address Eric's statement.
And it's still meaningless!

How many questions were there?
Who put them together?
What areas of knowledge did they cover?
How much time were the respondents given to answer?
What form(s) did the questions take -- simple answer, essay, multiple choice, show-your-work....?
In the different areas, who scored best in each? Were those deficient in political knowledge more knowledgeable in science? Were those knowledgeable ion science deficient in history? Was there any appreciable difference in knowledge of local vs. national politics in different groups?
What about change over time?

Unless we know those things, the term "knowledgeable" is meaningless.

 

[NickCole]

That still doesn't address Eric's statement.
And it's still meaningless!

Did you really want me to clog this thread with an endless cut & paste answering questions like this:

How many questions were there?
Who put them together?
What areas of knowledge did they cover?
How much time were the respondents given to answer?
What form(s) did the questions take -- simple answer, essay, multiple choice, show-your-work....?
In the different areas, who scored best in each? Were those deficient in political knowledge more knowledgeable in science? Were those knowledgeable ion science deficient in history? Was there any appreciable difference in knowledge of local vs. national politics in different groups?
What about change over time?

Unless we know those things, the term "knowledgeable" is meaningless.

I provided a link. Are you familiar with links? Do you know how to click into them and read the contents? Did you even bother to click into the one I provided when you asked?

If you click into the link it will take you directly to the extensive Summary of Findings, where you will find the answers to most of your questions. If you don't find what you need there, click into About the Survey or Topline Questionaire at the top of the page my link takes you to. In case you need it, at the bottom of each page there's a link titled About Methodology, which may provide some additional answers for you.

Geesch!

 

[Eric28]

You wrote, "I can assure you that ..." So that's how you write about your own personal experience versus a knowledge you may have of the world at large? Well okay, so long as that's clear.

What I'm saying here is that from my personal experience I can assure you that there are doctors who prefer FOX news, again from having been in the doctor's lounge, knowing, and having worked with many doctors. I have worked in three relatively large medical facilities and that has consistently been the case, whether your Pew study supports those statistic or not is irrelevant to me. Have you worked with many medical professionals yourself and had a different experience? If so, I would love to hear about it, otherwise what you have is just another study in my opinion. Of course, I'm sure you always base everything in life on a study and that you don't ever make judgements about life based on you're own personal experiences! As we all know all polls are politically unbiased and impartial! *sarcasm of course* I'm well aware there are many people here who are left of center who do not like FOX news, of which in some cases may be justified. Lets just leave it at that!

 

[NickCole]

What I'm saying here is that from my personal experience I can assure you that there are doctors who prefer FOX news, again from having been in the doctor's lounge, knowing, and having worked with many doctors. I have worked in three relatively large medical facilities and that has consistently been the case, whether your Pew study supports those statistic or not is irrelevant to me. Have you worked with many medical professionals yourself and had a different experience? If so, I would love to hear about it, otherwise what you have is just another study in my opinion.

My father's a doctor, as was his father. A lot of my parent's friends when I was growing up were doctors, and some of their kids were my friends; there were lots of parties where I heard lots of doctors in conversation. My uncle's a doctor, his wife is a nurse. My brother's a doctor. My best friend's partner is a doctor, as are three of my other friends. My first job other than yardwork was in a hospital. I'm familiar with doctors. They're disproportionately Republican and generally more ideological than knowledgable in a discussion of politics or current events. That's my experience.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I'm a Residential Repair Plumber when I'm not growing organic vegetables, and I catch FOX News every now and again, does that count for anything?



My point is, is that its pretty stupid to lump individuals into one group because they happen to watch FOX News.

It's funny to me how we all speak from experience, but then turn around an paint others around here with one broad brush stroke.

Some even like to use fractions.

Proceed.

 

[NickCole]

I'm a Residential Repair Plumber when I'm not growing organic vegetables, and I catch FOX News every now and again, does that count for anything?



My point is, is that its pretty stupid to lump individuals into one group because they happen to watch FOX News.

It's funny to me how we all speak from experience, but then turn around an paint others around here with one broad brush stroke.

Some even like to use fractions.

Proceed.

Read the Pew Research Survey I posted a link to.

It's actually very interesting. The point of it is not to bash Fox News or its viewers; there's a lot more there.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Read the Pew Research Survey I posted a link to.

It's actually very interesting. The point of it is not to bash Fox News or its viewers; there's a lot more there.

I don't have to read it.

I know that there is a ton of information there, and I actually respect the Pew Research Center. More so than any other polling group, because that's what they do.

It's because of my belief and respect of the way that they poll, that I think it's stupid for everyone to attempt to categorize each other into one group or another. i.e. things that divide us, as opposed to those things that we have in common.

That's all that I'm saying.

 

[thewiz]

Over the years I have found myself going from liberal to more conservative to the point today that I think I am pretty middle of the road. I have never voted straight party ticket; to me that is the easy way people use to cast their votes. I take the time to research the candidates, see where they stand on issues, and have been privileged to get to meet and talk with many over the years.

I also find that I watch FOX news, not that I am brainwashed, but that I think they do a pretty good job of representing or at least presenting both sides of issues. I rarely see them just have a republican spokesperson; rather they nearly always have someone from the right and the left (Hannity AND COLMBES). I don't see the same thing on CNN and I studied journalism in college and it was my career for four years. I was taught that if you are going to present an issue, you had better have quotes and points equally weighted from both sides of the issue. Not to do so means that you are a stooge or trying to espouse your own points of view. In addition, presenting opinions is supposed to be done under the banner of "Editorial" not in news stories. Too often I see this violated on both sides of the spectrum.

The last time I looked, Democrats and Republicans are supposed to represent ALL the people when they are elected, particularly president. Certainly they can have their platform but the minority is always supposed to be represented. Unfortunately politics has taken on a bitter, angry and "we are gods" role that has relegated statesmanship to the garbage heap. I long for the days of Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan where they could disagree but at the end of the day tip a beer and talk as friends. Too often that is lacking in politics and I blame both sides equally for such a breakdown.

 

[chance1]

Over the years I have found myself going from liberal to more conservative to the point today that I think I am pretty middle of the road. I have never voted straight party ticket; to me that is the easy way people use to cast their votes. I take the time to research the candidates, see where they stand on issues, and have been privileged to get to meet and talk with many over the years.

I also find that I watch FOX news, not that I am brainwashed, but that I think they do a pretty good job of representing or at least presenting both sides of issues. I rarely see them just have a republican spokesperson; rather they nearly always have someone from the right and the left (Hannity AND COLMBES). I don't see the same thing on CNN and I studied journalism in college and it was my career for four years. I was taught that if you are going to present an issue, you had better have quotes and points equally weighted from both sides of the issue. Not to do so means that you are a stooge or trying to espouse your own points of view. In addition, presenting opinions is supposed to be done under the banner of "Editorial" not in news stories. Too often I see this violated on both sides of the spectrum.

The last time I looked, Democrats and Republicans are supposed to represent ALL the people when they are elected, particularly president. Certainly they can have their platform but the minority is always supposed to be represented. Unfortunately politics has taken on a bitter, angry and "we are gods" role that has relegated statesmanship to the garbage heap. I long for the days of Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan where they could disagree but at the end of the day tip a beer and talk as friends. Too often that is lacking in politics and I blame both sides equally for such a breakdown.

\

I agree for the most part

as for Hannity & Colmes ...........

Sean is the 80% - Alan is the 20% (hope u get my drift)
It's really Sean's show
and could he be more obnoxious?
He's overtly selling all the time - always categorizing
Let's face it - Alan is overwhelmed by it all

I agree with u about "guests" - each side has one - which is good

Bill O'Reilly is considered on this board to be the devil - the right wing conservative devil that is - if u listen to him - he definately is a "traditionalist" but he is not Pro Bush and if u saw his interview with Al Sharpton (post Imus firing) you see that he for the most part allows intelligent and divergent discourse. He goes off from time to time - he is at his worst when he does - and loses his right to be heard/understood

Good point about Tip/Ronald

I think Lieberman is like this

I think Russ Feingold is like this

it's ok to differ

good post

 

[Eric28]

My father's a doctor, as was his father. A lot of my parent's friends when I was growing up were doctors, and some of their kids were my friends; there were lots of parties where I heard lots of doctors in conversation. My uncle's a doctor, his wife is a nurse. My brother's a doctor. My best friend's partner is a doctor, as are three of my other friends. My first job other than yardwork was in a hospital. I'm familiar with doctors. They're disproportionately Republican and generally more ideological than knowledgable in a discussion of politics or current events. That's my experience.

Couldn't agree more with that personal analysis based purely on your own experience!

I'm just saying from my perspective, they also watch a lot of FOX news when in the Doctor's Lounge!

 

[Sausy]

\

I agree for the most part

as for Hannity & Colmes ...........

Sean is the 80% - Alan is the 20% (hope u get my drift)
It's really Sean's show
and could he be more obnoxious?
He's overtly selling all the time - always categorizing
Let's face it - Alan is overwhelmed by it all

I agree with u about "guests" - each side has one - which is good

Bill O'Reilly is considered on this board to be the devil - the right wing conservative devil that is - if u listen to him - he definately is a "traditionalist" but he is not Pro Bush and if u saw his interview with Al Sharpton (post Imus firing) you see that he for the most part allows intelligent and divergent discourse. He goes off from time to time - he is at his worst when he does - and loses his right to be heard/understood

Good point about Tip/Ronald

I think Lieberman is like this

I think Russ Feingold is like this

it's ok to differ

good post

This is an example of a real attempt to be fair and balanced.You can view Fox without taking every voice or point as gospel......politics will have disagreements but not need to descend into disagreeability.Posts like wiz and chance's here show there is reflection,context,and sophistication to political perspectives that go beyond a narrow ideological comfort zone,where one will not see outside of what they believe or want to believe.Damn chance why can't you always take this tack....you're really good when you defend without getting defensive!

 

[chance1]

This is an example of a real attempt to be fair and balanced.You can view Fox without taking every voice or point as gospel......politics will have disagreements but not need to descend into disagreeability.Posts like wiz and chance's here show there is reflection,context,and sophistication to political perspectives that go beyond a narrow ideological comfort zone,where one will not see outside of what they believe or want to believe.Damn chance why can't you always take this tack....you're really good when you defend without getting defensive!

There's a line from Al Franken's Stuart Smiley that I can't quite remember - but it is appropriate - anyone?

thanks sausage - I appreciate this post

and in addition to stopping the "harping", I may try to reduce the "defensiveness"

self improvement is a good thing