Study hits war views held by Fox fans (moronic study alert)

Baltimore Sun ^ | 10.4.03 | David Folkenflik

[mhking]

Heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as media consumers who rely on National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System, according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs.

"When evidence surfaces that a significant portion of the public has just got a hole in the picture ... this is a potential problem in the way democracy functions," says Clay Ramsay, research director for the Washington-based Program on International Policy Attitudes, which studies foreign-policy issues.

Fox News officials did not return repeated requests yesterday for comment on the study.

Funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, the study was conducted from June through September. It surveyed 3,334 Americans who receive their news from a single media source. Each was questioned about whether he held any of the following three beliefs, characterized by the center as "egregious misperceptions":

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Exactly why I refuse to give any of my time to PBS or NPR. Truly a socialist outfit, the two of them.

[knuthom]

"Each was questioned about whether he held any of the following three beliefs, characterized by the center as "egregious misperceptions":

Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Depends on whether you believe the Salman Pak reports.

Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq.

Depends on whether you are a Kurd.

World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

To date, as measured by government reports and accepted public surveys, each of those propositions is false, according to the center.

They are using accepted public surveys to determine truth???

[LisaFab]

What a crock of cr*p! Thanks for the ping.

[syriacus]

When will they survey for these egregious misconceptions?

1. The Coalition of the Willing has been bogged down in a quagmire since Week One.
2. Chirac wants what is best for Iraqis.
3. Saddam wanted what was best for Iraqis.
4. The museum in Baghdad was looted of thousands of precious objects.
5. Peter Arnett was unbiased.
6. CNN was truthful in its pre-war reporting.
7.Saddam's scientists did not take steps to convert their missles to exceed the distance allowed.

[cardinal4]

Unbiased? Suuuuuuuuuuuuure...

This is unbelievable! Im watching an all out blitz by the right, and all I can do is laugh! All these articles and opinions are so transparent, my 4 and 2 year old can see right through them! They cant even manufacture good scandals anymore...

[fortaydoos]

Bush and Rice and Rumsfled confirmed two weeks ago that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and were aghast that anyone would think they suggested otherwise.

[jpl]

In a related study, readers of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Baltimore Sun are four times more likely than others to believe that Steven Hatfill sent anthrax in the mail to Mohammed Atta's landlord.

[slimer]

The study itself is biased. The so called misconceptions that were blamed on Fox News are skewed because most of the people who listen to NPR believed the opposite to begin with.

The Baltimore Sun is a propaganda machine.

[MontanaBeth]

I read it, "bleeding heart pinko's with trust funds" pretty much sums it up.

[Criminal Number 18F]

The three "egregious misperceptions" were (drum roll please):

1. Saddam was behind 9/11
2. Iraq had WMDs
3. World opinion was with us.

#1 almost certainly is false. An honest person could call it an egregious misperception. #2 almost certainly is not, and #3 can be credibly argued either way. We didn't have old europe with us, and we didn't have the tinhorn dictators and third world welfare cases who make up the bulk of the UN, but we had the young lions of eastern europe and many other countries.

Tentative conclusion: these lefties had their results in hand before they started gathering data.

For the record I don't get any of my news from Fox (and I can prove it: no TV) or from NPR (I seldom listen to radio, and those whiny, navel-gazing "typical NPR" voices actuate my "scan-seek button reflex"). Actually maybe it's something in the EQ they use but anyone can tell NPR and switch it off the instant they hear it. Must be why they depend on welfare.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[MeekOneGOP]

Man! What a crock ...

Among broadcast network viewers there also were differences. Seventy-one percent of those who relied on CBS for news held a false impression, as did 61 percent of ABC's audience and 55 percent of NBC viewers. Fifty-five percent of CNN viewers and 47 percent of Americans who rely on the print media as their primary source of information also held at least one misperception.

The three evening network news shows command the largest audiences, together typically reaching between 25 million and 30 million viewers nightly. But Fox News, the top-rated cable-news outlet, has steadily increased its viewership by offering a blend of hard news and opinionated talk that often takes on a patriotic sheen. Its top show draws more than 2 million viewers nightly.

"Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions," the report concludes. "Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention."

[Howlin]

Don't they wish. Talk about self-serving!

[Howlin]

Did you all see this?

[syriacus]

missiles, not missles...sorry

[reasonseeker]

Add to that:

President Bush claimed there was an "imminent" threat from Iraq.

President Bush said Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from "NIGER."

See Andrew Sullivan for links to show how CNN, TIME, NEWSWEEK, the AP, etc. are spreading these blatant lies.

[lepton]

They also seem to be unaware of Samon Pak (I think that's the name of the facility).

[chmst]

Wait a minute. They surveyed 3,334 people right? Most single news source people get thier news from broadcast news. So... how many out of this group watched FOX? Where was it taken? Could it be that they polled say 5 FOX watchers and got 4 crappy answers?

[lepton]

The second is that WMDs have been found in Iraq. Didn't Kay say they had found some already - e.g. a vile of botulism toxin?

There have also been a few confirmed finds of mustard gas, and mustard-mixes. Not huge finds, but finds nonetheless.

[MizSterious]

Fer cryin' out loud. The liberals are really in a tizzy over Fox News, aren't they? CNN is tanking. They need to get over it.

Fox is not always as "fair and balanced" as I'd like, but at least on Fox I know I'll get something a little closer to that ideal than I would on the three "networks" and other cable news channels.

[Tacis]

"# Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. "

This has always been a strange one to me. There are neocummunists (a Columbia U. professor, for one) who rant and rave at the administration's idiocy for even suggesting this. Some media pimps go on at length about when Cheney, or Bush, or Rummy said what about the connection.

How do they know that there is NO connection between 9/11 and Saddam? I can see questions yet unanswered, but these lefties laugh at the suggestion that Saddam had a hand in 9/11; they KNOW there is no connection. How do they know this?