• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Fox News most trusted network

Drives the Progs nuts.

They've tried everything they can think of to minimize Fox News's success.
 
#Gruberwasright
 
There's a pretty sizable market for bull****.
 
Being 4 times more trustworthy than MSNBC means what? ;)
 
NP, I'm close to speechless. Tell me you are screwing with everyone. Tell me this is a grand joke you've decided to play.
 
It's relevant to the OP. Think about it, NP.

 
That poll is from four years ago and liberals treat it like the bible. Maybe they should do an extensive study and update it every year. Then it might be more relevant and reliable.

Yup, I imagine in 4 short years FOX News viewers suddenly became more intelligent..
 
There's usually amusement to be had when reality strays from lefties' preconceptions. Certainly true here.
 
If a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 612 New Jerseyans is all you have to hang your hat on, then your hat aint hanging. But if reality TV is any indication of the intelligence of New Jersey residents, then they are all stupid no matter what they watch.
 
your polls didn't measure intelligence.... why did you switch gears like that?

Being informed of current events doesn't play into intelligence? Really?
 
All the poll means is that the majority of right wingers trust Fox News while all the other networks split the majority of moderates and liberals.
 
If a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 612 New Jerseyans is all you have to hang your hat on, then your hat aint hanging. But if reality TV is any indication of the intelligence of New Jersey residents, then they are all stupid no matter what they watch.

Sorry I think California has us beat there.
 
Being informed of current events doesn't play into intelligence? Really?

As pointed out before this poll was not measuring intelligence in general. They were measuring which people were informed about current events. However, does knowledge of current events make you smarter? I would say not in the slightest! There is no scientific basis in which to even begin to measure that.

I know some pretty damn smart physicists who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I know doctors who are also creationists. I know a priest who can psycho-analyze your personality in one five minute sit down. People are good a different things. No one says you need to be informed about current events to be smart. I mean just look at the way children and the school system works. We don't learn about current events in schools as a main subject. But people still get straight As and 4.0 GPAs.
 
Being 4 times more trustworthy than MSNBC means what? ;)

Nobody is questioning the fact that Fox is successful or that their views consider them trustworthy. However, those are opinions. When one looks at the facts, namely, is what views see are factual, we get a different story. The fact that Fox viewers are less informed than people who watch nothing, is conclusive.
 
Nobody is questioning the fact that Fox is successful or that their views consider them trustworthy. However, those are opinions. When one looks at the facts, namely, is what views see are factual, we get a different story. The fact that Fox viewers are less informed than people who watch nothing, is conclusive.

A single poll in 2011 of 600 folks in NJ is hardly what I would call "conclusive".
 
so a group of people of whom approximately 70% really really really believed the president was born in Kenya really really really trust fox news. seems about right.
 
A single poll in 2011 of 600 folks in NJ is hardly what I would call "conclusive".
The standard attack of research, that reports what you don't like, is that the sample size was flawed. However, the standard sample size is about 1,000 to have a confidence interval of 95%.

STUDY: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All - Business Insider

Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad.
On average, people correctly answered 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs.
Because the aim of the study was to isolate the effects of each type of news source, they then controlled for variables such as other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors.
They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all. Those watching only "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" answered 1.42 questions correctly and people who only listened to NPR or only watched Sunday morning political talk shows answered 1.51 questions correctly.
Thus, Fox viewers are more likely to get factual questions about current events wrong more than those who watch no news -- but at least those Fox viewers will be more trusting that their wrong information is correct.
 
The standard attack of research, that reports what you don't like, is that the sample size was flawed. However, the standard sample size is about 1,000 to have a confidence interval of 95%.

STUDY: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All - Business Insider

Thus, Fox viewers are more likely to get factual questions about current events wrong more than those who watch no news -- but at least those Fox viewers will be more trusting that their wrong information is correct.

That is a distinction without a difference - all groups, on average, failed (answered less than 2 of the 6 questions correctly) so perhaps the real problem is linking "watched" news (from a single source?) as opposed to heard or read news (from multiple sources?) to one's knowledge of current events. How, exactly, did those that "watched" no news manage to learn of current events - or are they simply better guessers/test takers?
 
Back
Top Bottom