Here's an interesting take on Fox News

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Bruce Bartlett has a small paper out on SSRN (I have no idea if he's submitted it to a journal yet) about the dangers of the dramatic shift in partisanship at Fox News. Despite what some more liberal outlets are claiming, his paper isn't really a rigorous study. He hasn't done any original research. It's really just a survey of studies which have demonstrated things we all know, namely that Fox has become more and more biased, and is truly no longer a conservative outlet as much as it is a Republican outlet.

What's most interesting to me, however, is where Bartlett goes at the very end of his paper. He - again, citing others - suggests that Fox has become so powerful that it actually asserts control over the Republican party, and that this is bad for Republican politicians, especially presidential candidates.

At only 18 pages, it's a pretty quick read, for those interested in media studies.

 

[IU1]

In less than 18 pages:
Fox News saw an underserved market and offered a product that served that market and destroyed the competition.

All 24/7 news media outlets are into sensationalism and repeat themselves constantly. Fox offers a brand of news that a lot of people connect with.
Other networks are losing market share.

In college I wrote a paper on media covering Presidential elections and the average sound byte on the nightly news in 1968 was something like almost 2 minutes. By Clintons first term it was down to 5 seconds. No matter what one's political affiliation the main stream media isn't educating anyone unless they go in depth into a topic.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In less than 18 pages:
Fox News saw an underserved market and offered a product that served that market and destroyed the competition.

All 24/7 news media outlets are into sensationalism and repeat themselves constantly. Fox offers a brand of news that a lot of people connect with.
Other networks are losing market share.

In college I wrote a paper on media covering Presidential elections and the average sound byte on the nightly news in 1968 was something like almost 2 minutes. By Clintons first term it was down to 5 seconds. No matter what one's political affiliation the main stream media isn't educating anyone unless they go in depth into a topic.

I don't think any of that is really responsive to the point of the paper I linked or my post, other than your last line, to which I will respond that the studies are very clear that Fox viewers are more poorly informed, and that this happens across all political affiliations (i.e., Fox Repubs are less informed than CNN Repubs, and Fox Dems are less informed than CNN Dems). My gut tells me that CNN and MSNBC in particular are also not very informative, but perhaps it is the increased level of misinformation at Fox News that causes this. Whatever it is, it's certainly not simply the fact that conservatives are somehow dumber. If that were the case, Fox-viewing Dems wouldn't suffer from the same disability. It's something about Fox that causes this.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Bruce Bartlett has a small paper out on SSRN (I have no idea if he's submitted it to a journal yet) about the dangers of the dramatic shift in partisanship at Fox News. Despite what some more liberal outlets are claiming, his paper isn't really a rigorous study. He hasn't done any original research. It's really just a survey of studies which have demonstrated things we all know, namely that Fox has become more and more biased, and is truly no longer a conservative outlet as much as it is a Republican outlet.

What's most interesting to me, however, is where Bartlett goes at the very end of his paper. He - again, citing others - suggests that Fox has become so powerful that it actual asserts control over the Republican party, and that this is bad for Republican politicians, especially presidential candidates.

At only 18 pages, it's a pretty quick read, for those interested in media studies.

Harold Hill called.
Says y'all need a boys band.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Bruce Bartlett has a small paper out on SSRN (I have no idea if he's submitted it to a journal yet) about the dangers of the dramatic shift in partisanship at Fox News. Despite what some more liberal outlets are claiming, his paper isn't really a rigorous study. He hasn't done any original research. It's really just a survey of studies which have demonstrated things we all know, namely that Fox has become more and more biased, and is truly no longer a conservative outlet as much as it is a Republican outlet.

What's most interesting to me, however, is where Bartlett goes at the very end of his paper. He - again, citing others - suggests that Fox has become so powerful that it actually asserts control over the Republican party, and that this is bad for Republican politicians, especially presidential candidates.

At only 18 pages, it's a pretty quick read, for those interested in media studies.

That's a really weak effort

Did you see how he sourced the point of Fox being "in control" of the Republicans? Seems like he draws that opinion from an equally weak comment Howard Feinman wrote in Newsweek; you know, that magazine that went out of business? Political science 101 is that a party out of power during the second POTUS term really has no meaningful leadership. The void can be filled by a number of factors, including in the digital age, TV personalities.

Some other random observations.

Bartlett believes he is on the Fox Blacklist. Wouldn't expect anything different from a blacklisted pundit who probably believes he is under-appreciated. He smugly states that TV blacklists are some how wrong. Ask NPR about Juan Williams. Ask ESPN about Rush Limbaugh. Hell ask the Obama Administration about forbidding White House operatives from appearing on Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday without special permission.

Bartlett advances a criticism of Fox about managing the vocabulary of the news. Huh? Maybe a better question is why does Obama Administration refuse to mention "Islamic" and "terrorism" together in the same sentence.

Bartlett mentions Fox's treatment of global warming issues by pointing out that Fox usually notes that AGW is a theory. Bartlett cites the L.A. Times. The L.A. Times banned all stories and commentary challenging the AGW orthodoxy. I assume that ban is still in effect.

I agree Fox has some issues. But none of them remotely compare with ABC's $105 million problem with George Stephanopoulos.

President Obama refers to Fox News so often one has to wonder if he watches it more than I do. Could that be why Obama is so uninformed. (Did you hear the one about Chlorine?) In any event, Obama's frequent mention of Fox News in connection with why Obama can't get his agenda passed could be confirmation that Fox is all powerful, or confirmation that Obama is as shallow and simple minded as he so often appears. Probably a little of both.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's a really weak effort

Did you see how he sourced the point of Fox being "in control" of the Republicans? Seems like he draws that opinion from an equally weak comment Howard Feinman wrote in Newsweek; you know, that magazine that went out of business? Political science 101 is that a party out of power during the second POTUS term really has no meaningful leadership. The void can be filled by a number of factors, including in the digital age, TV personalities.

Some other random observations.

Bartlett believes he is on the Fox Blacklist. Wouldn't expect anything different from a blacklisted pundit who probably believes he is under-appreciated. He smugly states that TV blacklists are some how wrong. Ask NPR about Juan Williams. Ask ESPN about Rush Limbaugh. Hell ask the Obama Administration about forbidding White House operatives from appearing on Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday without special permission.

Bartlett advances a criticism of Fox about managing the vocabulary of the news. Huh? Maybe a better question is why does Obama Administration refuse to mention "Islamic" and "terrorism" together in the same sentence.

Bartlett mentions Fox's treatment of global warming issues by pointing out that Fox usually notes that AGW is a theory. Bartlett cites the L.A. Times. The L.A. Times banned all stories and commentary challenging the AGW orthodoxy. I assume that ban is still in effect.

I agree Fox has some issues. But none of them remotely compare with ABC's $105 million problem with George Stephanopoulos.

President Obama refers to Fox News so often one has to wonder if he watches it more than I do. Could that be why Obama is so uninformed. (Did you hear the one about Chlorine?) In any event, Obama's frequent mention of Fox News in connection with why Obama can't get his agenda passed could be confirmation that Fox is all powerful, or confirmation that Obama is as shallow and simple minded as he so often appears. Probably a little of both.

Soooo, Bartlett is wrong because Obama sucks?

You have a serious problem, COH.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Soooo, Bartlett is wrong because Obama sucks?

You have a serious problem, COH.

You missed the whole damn point

If Obama didn't suck, Fox would be nothing special

Seriously, do you really believe Bartlett said anything that could pass for an insightful, informed and supported opinion? If you do, then you have issues.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You missed the whole damn point

If Obama didn't suck, Fox would be nothing special

Seriously, do you really believe Bartlett said anything that could pass for an insightful, informed and supported opinion? If you do, then you have issues.

Add all the winking smilies you want, that doesn't even make sense.

As I said in my original post, Bartlett's paper contained no original research. It was just a short survey.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You had a reason to post the link and discuss it

So don't diminish your effort with the "short survey" disclaimer. Everything Bartlett used to criticize Fox is standard procedure in politics, government P.R., news delivery, and advocacy. Yet he criticizes Fox for engaging in these things. That is why I noted his view is nothing remarkable. It seems to be another baseless free swing at the Fox news piñata . Which, come to think of it, is likely why you linked it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You had a reason to post the link and discuss it

So don't diminish your effort with the "short survey" disclaimer. Everything Bartlett used to criticize Fox is standard procedure in politics, government P.R., news delivery, and advocacy. Yet he criticizes Fox for engaging in these things. That is why I noted his view is nothing remarkable. It seems to be another baseless free swing at the Fox news piñata . Which, come to think of it, is likely why you linked it.

Here's a freebie: learn to read.

I explained why I posted it in my original post.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'll take a wild guess why you posted it

You intended people to read it and discuss it. Right?

In any event, the point you find "most interesting" is really weak sauce. The material leading up to his conclusion is, as I said, unremarkable.

You invited comment from those interested in "media studies". I qualify. I also find that most of the "studies" about Fox are pretty silly. Bartlett's work, and a cursory review of some of his footnotes, confirms this.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'll take a wild guess why you posted it

You intended people to read it and discuss it. Right?

In any event, the point you find "most interesting" is really weak sauce. The material leading up to his conclusion is, as I said, unremarkable.

You invited comment from those interested in "media studies". I qualify. I also find that most of the "studies" about Fox are pretty silly. Bartlett's work, and a cursory review of some of his footnotes, confirms this.

If this had been your original reply, we might have had a good conversation.

Most of the studies about Fox are not silly. They prove that there is something different about Fox and Fox's viewership. If you simply reject that research out of hand, of course you won't buy Bartlett's argument. The idea that Fox is bad for Republicans is intricately tied to the fact that Fox is uniquely partisan in a way the liberal media is not.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

If this had been your original reply, we might have had a good conversation.

Most of the studies about Fox are not silly. They prove that there is something different about Fox and Fox's viewership. If you simply reject that research out of hand, of course you won't buy Bartlett's argument. The idea that Fox is bad for Republicans is intricately tied to the fact that Fox is uniquely partisan in a way the liberal media is not.

If you ask CO, blacks and Muslims couldn't ask for a better friend than Fox News. He can't understand why there aren't more in his party.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If this had been your original reply, we might have had a good conversation.

Most of the studies about Fox are not silly. They prove that there is something different about Fox and Fox's viewership. If you simply reject that research out of hand, of course you won't buy Bartlett's argument. The idea that Fox is bad for Republicans is intricately tied to the fact that Fox is uniquely partisan in a way the liberal media is not.

Let's examine this a little*

I heartily agree that there is something different about Fox. I don't know what you mean by its viewership being different. That said, it's viewership is more conservative. I don't call that "different" I just call it self selecting like happens all the time in TV.

Without noting that Obama sucks, I think is is worth observing that President Obama frequently mentions Fox news when talking about those in opposition to his POV. As a matter of fact, presidents, and governments in general at all levels, have complained about the press forever. Most all governments have public relations staffs to manage news and news coverage. Lincoln had huge issues with his press coverage. All presidents in my lifetime, (with the possible exception of Ike) routinely complained about the press. The Obama administration has taken its press relations to new levels. Obama even has people high up in his administration who have familial relationships with the high ups in the media. Yet, the mainstream media has complained often about the Obama lack of access, and managed messages. The Obama administration has had the DOJ open criminal investigations of some members of the press, and then lied about it. But do you know what the strangest thing is? Obama rarely, if ever, complains about the coverage in the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, or NBC. Meanwhile it often complains about Fox. What should be our take away from this circumstance? Who deserves more public scrutiny, Fox or the other press. For me, I have to wonder why the other press does not provoke Obama to call them out for how they treat his administration. This is strange and suggests that Fox is indeed different. But different in a good way. The fourth estate is not doing its job.

As far as the Fox "studies" being silly, is concerned, I'm talking about the studies being useless and empty. Take the "study" that allegedly shows Fox news viewers are less well informed that the population in general. I realize that some of those polled are ignorant about a number of issues, but not because of Fox, that is who they are. I recall interviews of self-identified Obama voters after the 2008 election. Some of them thought Sarah Palin was part of the Obama team. There are many examples of ignorance among the voters and public. You've heard of cultural bias in SAT tests, no? The testing service has worked hard to eliminate that. In those "studies" of Fox news viewers being ignorant, many of the questions are about matters of particular interest to liberals, which of course would not be found on Fox. On the other hand, if you would ask a viewer of NBC what they know of the IRS scandal, they would likely respond with "what scandal" because NBC doesn't cover it. They would probably be more likely to say global warming caused Sandy.

The news agenda is important to all outlets. I finish with an example from the Bush era about coverage of the Thanksgiving holiday. Fox ran stories about the American armed services in Iraq and Afghanistan and their messages home. CBS ran stories about how people couldn't afford a Thanksgiving meal because of the "Bush economy".

*I almost said "let's unpack this" but that sounds way to bloggy/wonky

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If you ask CO, blacks and Muslims couldn't ask for a better friend than Fox News. He can't understand why there aren't more in his party.

Yep

I always depend on you to bring insightul important thoughts to any thead.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Let's examine this a little*

I heartily agree that there is something different about Fox. I don't know what you mean by its viewership being different. That said, it's viewership is more conservative. I don't call that "different" I just call it self selecting like happens all the time in TV.

Without noting that Obama sucks, I think is is worth observing that President Obama frequently mentions Fox news when talking about those in opposition to his POV. As a matter of fact, presidents, and governments in general at all levels, have complained about the press forever. Most all governments have public relations staffs to manage news and news coverage. Lincoln had huge issues with his press coverage. All presidents in my lifetime, (with the possible exception of Ike) routinely complained about the press. The Obama administration has taken its press relations to new levels. Obama even has people high up in his administration who have familial relationships with the high ups in the media. Yet, the mainstream media has complained often about the Obama lack of access, and managed messages. The Obama administration has had the DOJ open criminal investigations of some members of the press, and then lied about it. But do you know what the strangest thing is? Obama rarely, if ever, complains about the coverage in the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, or NBC. Meanwhile it often complains about Fox. What should be our take away from this circumstance? Who deserves more public scrutiny, Fox or the other press. For me, I have to wonder why the other press does not provoke Obama to call them out for how they treat his administration. This is strange and suggests that Fox is indeed different. But different in a good way. The fourth estate is not doing its job.

As far as the Fox "studies" being silly, is concerned, I'm talking about the studies being useless and empty. Take the "study" that allegedly shows Fox news viewers are less well informed that the population in general. I realize that some of those polled are ignorant about a number of issues, but not because of Fox, that is who they are. I recall interviews of self-identified Obama voters after the 2008 election. Some of them thought Sarah Palin was part of the Obama team. There are many examples of ignorance among the voters and public. You've heard of cultural bias in SAT tests, no? The testing service has worked hard to eliminate that. In those "studies" of Fox news viewers being ignorant, many of the questions are about matters of particular interest to liberals, which of course would not be found on Fox. On the other hand, if you would ask a viewer of NBC what they know of the IRS scandal, they would likely respond with "what scandal" because NBC doesn't cover it. They would probably be more likely to say global warming caused Sandy.

The news agenda is important to all outlets. I finish with an example from the Bush era about coverage of the Thanksgiving holiday. Fox ran stories about the American armed services in Iraq and Afghanistan and their messages home. CBS ran stories about how people couldn't afford a Thanksgiving meal because of the "Bush economy".

*I almost said "let's unpack this" but that sounds way to bloggy/wonky

The studies that show Fox viewers to be less informed than others do so even when accounting for party. In other words, liberals who watch Fox are less well-informed than liberals who watch CNN, not just conservatives. Paired with the fact that Fox viewers are more likely than others to get their news ONLY from one source, and it's pretty difficult to escape the fact tha Fox itself is at least partially to blame for misinforming it's own viewers.

So what if Obama doesn't like Fox? That has nothing to do with this. Why do you insist on inserting criticism of the president into topics in which he simply doesn't belong?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Geeze goat,

You have your COH/Obama detection system working overtime today.

My criticism wasn't directed at Obama. It was directed at all media that doesn't have "Fox" in its name.

I'll write in in Crayons for you: When POTUS doesn't criticize the media, the media isn't doing its job!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Geeze goat,

You have your COH/Obama detection system working overtime today.

My criticism wasn't directed at Obama. It was directed at all media that doesn't have "Fox" in its name.

I'll write in in Crayons for you: When POTUS doesn't criticize the media, the media isn't doing its job!

That's... Just plain stupid.

I got nothing for you.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Yep

I always depend on you to bring insightul important thoughts to any thead.

I try to say things I know you can understand.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's... Just plain stupid.

I got nothing for you.

I get that

Once you get by the idea that my post is not about Obama, you got nuthin'.

But to the issue; do you really think it has been good for the country, or good for the Obama presidency for that matter, that the MSM has been largely uncritical and supportive?

That 60 Minute exit interview of Hillary with Obama patting her on the back was absolutely shameful.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I get that

Once you get by the idea that my post is not about Obama, you got nuthin'.

But to the issue; do you really think it has been good for the country, or good for the Obama presidency for that matter, that the MSM has been largely uncritical and supportive?

That 60 Minute exit interview of Hillary with Obama patting her on the back was absolutely shameful.

Your response to evidence that Fox News does a bad job is essentially, "Yeah, but Obama hates them, so other media outlets are worse."

It is not responsive to the discussion at hand. The paper wasn't about what's wrong with liberal media. It was about what's wrong with Fox News. I got nothing for you because you refuse to address the topic of the thread. Why not just stay out of the thread, or go start your own?

 

[Rockfish1]

Your response to evidence that Fox News does a bad job is essentially, "Yeah, but Obama hates them, so other media outlets are worse."

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "Speaking of Fox News, Obama sucks."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your response to evidence that Fox News does a bad job is essentially, "Yeah, but Obama hates them, so other media outlets are worse."

It is not responsive to the discussion at hand. The paper wasn't about what's wrong with liberal media. It was about what's wrong with Fox News. I got nothing for you because you refuse to address the topic of the thread. Why not just stay out of the thread, or go start your own?

I specifically responded

with a fairly lengthly discussion refuting the Bartlett thesis. My criticism was on two fronts: First I criticized Bartlett suggestion that Fox News exercises undue influence over the GOP is wholly unsupported. His sole source was a weaker piece in Newsweek. Second, I noted that Bartlett randomly criticizes Fox for conduct and activities that are straight from Persuasion for Dummies and are techniques employed by all media and all governments. There was nothing to see there. Finally, I made a counterclaim, if you will, that Fox is doing its job better than the MSM as established by the conspicuous failure of the Obama Administration to ever criticize what the MSM says about it. That leads to a couple of reasonable conclusions, Obama (through the incestuous contacts in his administration and the MSM) manages the news coverage (See CBS and 60 minutes) and second, that the MSM treats Obama with substantial TLC which is wholly inappropriate for the 4th estate. That failure to hold Obama accountable is bad for him and bad for the Country (see the mindless, aimless, random, superficial and haphazard Middle East policy).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I specifically responded

with a fairly lengthly discussion refuting the Bartlett thesis. My criticism was on two fronts: First I criticized Bartlett suggestion that Fox News exercises undue influence over the GOP is wholly unsupported. His sole source was a weaker piece in Newsweek. Second, I noted that Bartlett randomly criticizes Fox for conduct and activities that are straight from Persuasion for Dummies and are techniques employed by all media and all governments. There was nothing to see there. Finally, I made a counterclaim, if you will, that Fox is doing its job better than the MSM as established by the conspicuous failure of the Obama Administration to ever criticize what the MSM says about it. That leads to a couple of reasonable conclusions, Obama (through the incestuous contacts in his administration and the MSM) manages the news coverage (See CBS and 60 minutes) and second, that the MSM treats Obama with substantial TLC which is wholly inappropriate for the 4th estate. That failure to hold Obama accountable is bad for him and bad for the Country (see the mindless, aimless, random, superficial and haphazard Middle East policy).

And yet, you continue to ignore my attempts to engage you in discussion about the actual topic at hand.

Three times in this thread, I have pointed out that the misinformed nature of Fox viewers is not found only among conservatives, but among Fox viewers of all political stripes. If it were merely topic selection bias in the questions asked, as you suggested, this would not be the case.

Fox viewers are more misinformed than people who get their media elsewhere, and this is true whether the viewers are conservative or liberal. Add to the fact Fox viewers are more likely to eschew other news sources, and it seems very clear that it is something about Fox itself that (at least partially) causes its viewers to be less informed.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And yet, you continue to ignore my attempts to engage you in discussion about the actual topic at hand.

Three times in this thread, I have pointed out that the misinformed nature of Fox viewers is not found only among conservatives, but among Fox viewers of all political stripes. If it were merely topic selection bias in the questions asked, as you suggested, this would not be the case.

Fox viewers are more misinformed than people who get their media elsewhere, and this is true whether the viewers are conservative or liberal. Add to the fact Fox viewers are more likely to eschew other news sources, and it seems very clear that it is something about Fox itself that (at least partially) causes its viewers to be less informed.

I didn't go down that rabbit hole

Simply because it highly nuanced and complicated. I will say I don't necessarily accept the data at face value simply because we don't know the knowlege and accumen of the viewers who tune into Fox. I would agree that the viewers of PBS are likely more knowledgeable to start with. I'm not sure watching PBS makes them smarter. There is enormous anecdotal and emperical evidence that the level of political knowledge in the country leaves a lot to be desired. Further separation by who watches which networks doesn't seem to be very sound to me.

I don't know why you would say the topic selection bias doesn't work across the board. That seems counter-intuitive to me. Eschewing other news sources? I don't recall the data that way. The point was that other sources were deemed to be less trustworthy. ABC's troubles certainly confirms that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I didn't go down that rabbit hole

Simply because it highly nuanced and complicated. I will say I don't necessarily accept the data at face value simply because we don't know the knowlege and accumen of the viewers who tune into Fox. I would agree that the viewers of PBS are likely more knowledgeable to start with. I'm not sure watching PBS makes them smarter. There is enormous anecdotal and emperical evidence that the level of political knowledge in the country leaves a lot to be desired. Further separation by who watches which networks doesn't seem to be very sound to me.

I don't know why you would say the topic selection bias doesn't work across the board. That seems counter-intuitive to me. Eschewing other news sources? I don't recall the data that way. The point was that other sources were deemed to be less trustworthy. ABC's troubles certainly confirms that.

Here's a study from a couple of years ago, which highlights two troubling trends. With domestic questions, Fox viewers, and with international questions, both Fox and MSNBC viewers, were less likely to answer questions correctly than people who watched no news at all. When you see things like that, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that some media actually makes viewers less informed, and Fox is the standard-bearer in that regard.

 

[Sope Creek]

Here's a study from a couple of years ago, which highlights two troubling trends. With domestic questions, Fox viewers, and with international questions, both Fox and MSNBC viewers, were less likely to answer questions correctly than people who watched no news at all. When you see things like that, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that some media actually makes viewers less informed, and Fox is the standard-bearer in that regard.

Boooooo . . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Boooooo . . . .

Here's a study from a couple of years ago, which highlights two troubling trends. With domestic questions, Fox viewers, and with international questions, both Fox and MSNBC viewers, were less likely to answer questions correctly than people who watched no news at all. When you see things like that, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that some media actually makes viewers less informed, and Fox is the standard-bearer in that regard.

I dunno

I'd like to know who came up with the questions. I can understand the results after reading the questions. I think I would have selected question more in the "news you can use," or at least the interesting news category. I'm not sure I would get these answers from watching Fox since I usually only watch a couple of commentary shows. This seems to a fundamental fault with the study--we don't know what the viewers watched.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I dunno

I'd like to know who came up with the questions. I can understand the results after reading the questions. I think I would have selected question more in the "news you can use," or at least the interesting news category. I'm not sure I would get these answers from watching Fox since I usually only watch a couple of commentary shows. This seems to a fundamental fault with the study--we don't know what the viewers watched.

Does it matter?

For the purposes of Bartlett's paper, all that matters is that:

1. Fox viewers aren't getting informed.
2. They are being fed very partisan takes on issues.

Because his concern is that, as a result of this, Republican voters end up mistaken, not only about certain specific issues, but about the political viability of candidates, as well, which leads to an electorate that votes for candidates who only appeal to the base, i.e., will have a harder time winning in a general election. Obviously, he's thinking primarily of presidential candidates.

In this context, it doesn't matter what part of Fox they are consuming. It only matters that in doing so, they are not becoming informed, and perhaps are becoming misinformed.

In both domestic issues and international issues, that study found the least informative news sources to be, in order:
1. Fox News
2. MSNBC
3. CNN

Since I'd have fully expected MSNBC and CNN to be 2nd- and 3rd-worst, in that order, that lends weight to the study, for me. If they had found that Fox was the worst, followed by the Wall Street Journal, followed by the Financial Times, followed by CNN, with MSNBC viewers as the most informed, that would off all sorts of red flags for absurdity for me. But the findings here are consistent with what we learn from other recent media studies, namely:
1. Cable news sucks.
2. Fox sucks worst.

 

[Sope Creek]

Does it matter?

Booooooo . . . .

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Booooooo . . . .

Are you still mad about the Kerri Strug comment?

 

[Sope Creek]

Are you still mad about the Kerri Strug comment?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO . . . . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Does it matter?

For the purposes of Bartlett's paper, all that matters is that:

1. Fox viewers aren't getting informed.
2. They are being fed very partisan takes on issues.

Because his concern is that, as a result of this, Republican voters end up mistaken, not only about certain specific issues, but about the political viability of candidates, as well, which leads to an electorate that votes for candidates who only appeal to the base, i.e., will have a harder time winning in a general election. Obviously, he's thinking primarily of presidential candidates.

In this context, it doesn't matter what part of Fox they are consuming. It only matters that in doing so, they are not becoming informed, and perhaps are becoming misinformed.

In both domestic issues and international issues, that study found the least informative news sources to be, in order:
1. Fox News
2. MSNBC
3. CNN

Since I'd have fully expected MSNBC and CNN to be 2nd- and 3rd-worst, in that order, that lends weight to the study, for me. If they had found that Fox was the worst, followed by the Wall Street Journal, followed by the Financial Times, followed by CNN, with MSNBC viewers as the most informed, that would off all sorts of red flags for absurdity for me. But the findings here are consistent with what we learn from other recent media studies, namely:
1. Cable news sucks.
2. Fox sucks worst.

Sure it matters

Some information isn't important to know when deciding how to vote. Second, what part of the Fox News programming is consumed is also important. I don't think the the prime time lineup is intended to be a complete news service.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sure it matters

Some information isn't important to know when deciding how to vote. Second, what part of the Fox News programming is consumed is also important. I don't think the the prime time lineup is intended to be a complete news service.

Intended isn't as important as how people use it. If people are becoming misinformed because of it, then whatever effects there are of being misinformed - positive or negative - are going to happen, regardless of whether or not the producers of the show consider it "hard news."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Intended isn't as important as how people use it. If people are becoming misinformed because of it, then whatever effects there are of being misinformed - positive or negative - are going to happen, regardless of whether or not the producers of the show consider it "hard news."

So?

That's on the viewer, not on Fox.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So?

That's on the viewer, not on Fox.

Not true.

And also not the point.

Either Fox is intentionally misleading viewers, or Fox is being brutally honest, but viewers are being misled because they are stupid. It doesn't matter. The end result is the same: Fox creates dumb people.

Who it's "on" is a matter of assigning moral blame.

That's not the purpose of this type of study.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Not true.

And also not the point.

Either Fox is intentionally misleading viewers, or Fox is being brutally honest, but viewers are being misled because they are stupid. It doesn't matter. The end result is the same: Fox creates dumb people.

Who it's "on" is a matter of assigning moral blame.

That's not the purpose of this type of study.

That make no sense

How can Fox create dumb people if said people choose to only watch Hannity and ignore the newscast?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That make no sense

How can Fox create dumb people if said people choose to only watch Hannity and ignore the newscast?

Because they air Hannity.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Because they air Hannity.

Really?

This whole discussions comes to that? I'll go back to my first point. Bartlett and you are peddling some seriously weak sauce here.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Really?

This whole discussions comes to that? I'll go back to my first point. Bartlett and you are peddling some seriously weak sauce here.

If Hannity makes people dumb, and Fox airs Hannity, then Fox makes people dumb. Simple transitivity.