Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Well thats not good at all.... Especially because of this: Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests - Forbes and this: Survey: Fox News Viewers Less Informed Than Those Who Don
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..
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.Well thats not good at all.... Especially because of this: Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests - Forbes and this: Survey: Fox News Viewers Less Informed Than Those Who Don
your polls didn't measure intelligence.... why did you switch gears like that?
Being informed of current events doesn't play into intelligence? Really?
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.
Being informed of current events doesn't play into intelligence? Really?
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.
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%.A single poll in 2011 of 600 folks in NJ is hardly what I would call "conclusive".
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.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.
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.