New York Times Uses Princeton Prof.: U.S. Masses are Ignorant ( Typical Left Snobbery)

THE share of Americans who believe that news organizations are "politically biased in their reporting" increased to 60 percent in 2005, up from 45 percent in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center.

Many people also believe that biased reporting influences who wins or loses elections. A new study by Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California, Berkeley, and Ethan Kaplan of the Institute for International Economic Studies at Stockholm University, however, casts doubt on this view. Specifically, the economists ask whether the advent of the Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's cable television network, affected voter behavior. They found that Fox had no detectable effect on which party people voted for, or whether they voted at all.

The New York Times today trundled out its sanguine mounts of academe in order to stem the flood of nay sayers who allegedly form the majority opinion about America's Mainstream Media. The answer to fabricated news? " It doesn't matter!" What will these left wing wackos do next to mitigate the necessity for truth in reporting news? To Krueger, European designed empirical data justifies the left's wing-nut notion that the electorate is comprised solely of the ignorant unless one is liberal.

Most Americans don't think that propaganda in the news matters? Try telling that to freepers and bend over while the large boot makes contact with the wing nut butt! The New York Times apparently is still looking for justification in creating fictitious news! They should not have fired Jayson Blair. He was so fictitious he even fooled his liberal editors! LOL! Why did the Times fire Blair if it doesn't matter ? LOL!

The Times editorial board STIL just doesn't get it: Americans are NOT ignorant, and in fact are more savvy than liberal, left wing reporters. The right's blog press are keeping them honest and they don't like it one bit! The truth hurts and may it continue to!

Kruger's cited "impartial" survey:

Quote:

Fox's format, for example, might alert the audience to take the views expressed with more than the usual grain of salt.

Unquote.

We take Dan Rather and all of his left wing wacko successors with a grain of salt, and for good reason! How can anyone be at Princeton and be so out of context? Or was it the "money for study" game? Is there a large "MOVE ON ORG" check in Kruegers hand?

They found that Fox had no detectable effect on which party people voted for, or whether they voted at all.

Isn't it interesting that they took as their example the only "fair and balanced" network in the bunch. Of course FoxNews had no effect. They are fair and balanced. If you take one of the liberal propaganda networks, though, I doubt you'd get the same result.

In fact, I'd put money on it that they DID look at the other networks, but threw out the results because they did not comport with what they wanted to prove.

and just WHO taught those "masses"....Mr. Professor from Princeton?????

Excellent point. The intelligentsia seems to be ignoring it's responsibilty and exchanging it for it's own sense of importance (as if they were interchangable and not causally related), forgetting that they become less important if they continue to follow rather than lead. How many in the Ivory Tower are still trying to make communism work (Mr. Chomsky)?

We may be ignorant...but we've pulled our heads out of our navels and are genuinely questioning authority and what has become the conventional wisdom, and trying to apply reason to what we see. Not seeking to make rationalizations after the fact, we are participating in the process. Get down in the slop where the work gets done and then tell us, "It doesn't matter."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.