Fox News Viewers Uninformed

[Y2HH]

How IS it? I just listed the two cherry picking scenarios and neither applies.

 

 

 

Because they're the major current events? What about those questions is biased against Fox News viewers? It's not like they asked "What joke did Jon Stewart make about so-and-so?" or "What color was Rachel Maddow's suit?"

 

 

 

 

They polled 612 New Jersey residents on the phone.

 

It's nice that you would have gotten all 4, but the point is, that Fox News watchers as a whole are less likely to.

 

How do they know those 612 new jersey residents were Fox viewers?

[CrimsonWeltall]

This is exactly what I'm saying.

 

No, you were saying the study's methodology was bad. That's not the same as complaining about a headline being too broad.

 

Also, he highlights exactly what I said about this poll and who it's intended for. This poll was tailor made for HIM, and people like him.

 

Right, because they knew ahead of time that the Fox viewers would be so uninformed? The only reason you're attacking the poll is because you don't like the results.

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

No, you were saying the study's methodology was bad. That's not the same as complaining about a headline being too broad.

 

 

 

Right, because they knew ahead of time that the Fox viewers would be so uninformed? The only reason you're attacking the poll is because you don't like the results.

 

Because it WAS bad.

 

And the only reason your defending the poll is because you do.

 

Also, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Considering in my first post I said most people are uninformed regardless of what news they watch.

 

For the historic record here. I attack ALL polls with impunity. Not just this one.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Y2HH

[CrimsonWeltall]

How do they know those 612 new jersey residents were Fox viewers?

 

...they polled them.

 

The study paper that was linked to takes like TWO minutes to read. You could have read all these things (what were the questions, who was polled, how were they polled, etc).

[Y2HH]

...they polled them.

 

The study paper that was linked to takes like TWO minutes to read. You could have read all these things (what were the questions, who was polled, how were they polled, etc).

 

I DID read all those things.

 

And?

 

They polled someone and asked do you watch Fox...and anyone could have just said sure, even if it's a lie.

[StrangeSox]

You already know how I feel about polls, so why bother getting into this again?

 

There are so many questions about such studies. Who did they ask, again, I ask this because I watch Fox, and I could have answered all 4. How did they get these people? Did they look for the most retarded looking schleps on the street and ask, hey, do you watch Fox news?! Great, answer these 4 questions then!!!!

 

I know. You keep blurring the distinction between data and anecdotes. The results do not say that all Fox viewers are dumb and stupid. They show that, on these four major topics that represent a cross-section of current events, Fox viewers are less likely as a whole to know the correct answer. Talking about groups and individuals within a group is an important distinction.

 

Also, you've clearly not read their methodology or otherwise you'd know how they conducted the poll.

 

 

This is dumb. The fact you guys want it to be true again, highlights exactly what I said earlier.

 

I do not "want" this to be true. I don't care if this is true. The most interesting part to me was the MSNBC/#OWS part. How you keep highligthing what you said earlier is your insistence that is isn't true well, because.

 

This poll was tailored to you.

 

But you haven't actually demonstrated or explained how the poll was tailored. You've merely asserted that it was.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

I DID read all those things.

 

And?

 

They polled someone and asked do you watch Fox...and anyone could have just said sure, even if it's a lie.

 

Fair point.

 

A significant portion of the respondents were probably liberal trolls trying to make Fox News look bad.

[StrangeSox]

I DID read all those things.

 

And?

 

They polled someone and asked do you watch Fox...and anyone could have just said sure, even if it's a lie.

 

Yeah that's always an issue with any polling, and that sort of thing is looked into in political science studies. But "what news media do you consume" is not a question that is going to give motivation for people to lie.

[StrangeSox]

For the historic record here. I attack ALL polls empirical data with impunity. Not just this one.

 

fyp

[southsider2k5]

Yeah that's always an issue with any polling, and that sort of thing is looked into in political science studies. But "what news media do you consume" is not a question that is going to give motivation for people to lie.

 

Like hell it isn't. There has been an organized campaign for quite a while against Fox News. Hence these sort of polls and headlines.

[Y2HH]

To anyone that CONTINUES saying I didn't read how they got their data -- shut the f*** up. Please. I did read it...and for kicks, this is f***ing how.

 

The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 612 adults statewide was underwritten by WFDU-FM Radio and conducted by telephone using both landlines and cell phones from Oct. 17 through Oct. 23, 2011, and has a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points.

 

OMG IT MUST BE 10000% ACCURATE AND TRUE.

 

Nothing like questioning anything. I guess even on Soxtalk the liberal hive mind will attack you because you QUESTION A f***ING POLL that was conducted by telephone via landlines and cell phones.

[southsider2k5]

To anyone that CONTINUES saying I didn't read how they got their data -- shut the f*** up. Please. I did read it...and for kicks, this is f***ing how.

 

The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 612 adults statewide was underwritten by WFDU-FM Radio and conducted by telephone using both landlines and cell phones from Oct. 17 through Oct. 23, 2011, and has a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points.

 

OMG IT MUST BE 10000% ACCURATE AND TRUE.

 

Nothing like questioning anything. I guess even on Soxtalk the liberal hive mind will attack you because you QUESTION A f***ING POLL that was conducted by telephone via landlines and cell phones.

 

Unless it shows liberals don't know Economics. Then by all means, question away.

[StrangeSox]

Like hell it isn't. There has been an organized campaign for quite a while against Fox News. Hence these sort of polls and headlines.

 

s***, why not just completely fabricate the data then if its all a massive liberal conspiracy against Fox News?

[StrangeSox]

Unless it shows liberals don't know Economics. Then by all means, question away.

 

I linked to two articles, one explaining why that specific polling method was so terrible and going over why the questions were so terrible and actually biased, and another from the author of that original WSJ article admitting that his study was, in fact, heavily biased.

 

Some polls are biased. Construction of questions in a poll is crucial. Order of those questions can be very important as well. The variety of the questions and interpretation of the answers is also critical. That some polls really truly are garbage, like that one you linked to, does not impugn all polls.

[StrangeSox]

Wrong. Polls are NOT f***ing empirical data. Moron.

 

Your FYP is bulls*** and attempts to make me look like a moron. Thus me calling you one in return. At least have the balls to just come out and say it instead of hiding it behind some bulls*** post like you did.

 

How are polling results not empirical data?

[StrangeSox]

To anyone that CONTINUES saying I didn't read how they got their data -- shut the f*** up. Please. I did read it...and for kicks, this is f***ing how.

 

The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 612 adults statewide was underwritten by WFDU-FM Radio and conducted by telephone using both landlines and cell phones from Oct. 17 through Oct. 23, 2011, and has a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points.

 

OMG IT MUST BE 10000% ACCURATE AND TRUE.

 

Nothing like questioning anything. I guess even on Soxtalk the liberal hive mind will attack you because you QUESTION A f***ING POLL that was conducted by telephone via landlines and cell phones.

 

So if you had read that, why did you make your "I bet they asked the dumbest people ever on the streets!" post?

 

You didn't really question the poll, though. You immediately declared it "f***ing stupid" and deliberately biased in its question selection. You still haven't really shown how. I've already said that you're absolutely correct that the article was an overstatement of the results.

[Y2HH]

How are polling results not empirical data?

 

Because by substituting "Emperical Data" in place of "poll", you lend it to scientific method.

 

IE: A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

 

Polls, which they can be technically called "empirical data", it's unfair to say they are. By your own admission, there are many bad polls out there. Lending them all equal credence by using the words empirical data is bulls*** and a word play.

 

EDIT: You tried to make it sound like I dismiss science/the scientific method by substituting that I dislike polls with the words 'empirical data'. I didn't like what you did there, either. I do believe in science. Polls on the other hand, I don't like, never have, and never will. So don't substitute my hate of "polls" for the hate of "empirical data". They are NOT exchangeable when it comes to this.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

So if you had read that, why did you make your "I bet they asked the dumbest people ever on the streets!" post?

 

You didn't really question the poll, though. You immediately declared it "f***ing stupid" and deliberately biased in its question selection. You still haven't really shown how. I've already said that you're absolutely correct that the article was an overstatement of the results.

 

It's just a generalization. Streets, phone, etc...all the same BS. They asked RANDOM people.

[StrangeSox]

Because by substituting "Emperical Data" in place of "poll", you lend it to scientific method.

 

IE: A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

 

Polls, which they can be technically called "empirical data", it's unfair to say they are. By your own admission, there are many bad polls out there. Lending them credence by using the words empirical data is bulls***.

 

There's plenty of s*** science out there, too. But you said yourself that you reject all polling, which is pretty silly because there are plenty of good political scientists and poll-taking organizations out there to do careful, accurate work. Poll data is, in fact, empirical data and sampling is a central part of scientific research.

[NorthSideSox72]

1. There really is no point discussing any polling data with Y2HH, because he's made it pretty clear that any poll is useless.

 

2. 612 respondents means you probably have less than a hundred for each news outlet, and I consider that way, way, way too small a data set to be reliable. The T-score calcs being used are using the 612 basis, which is not at all an accurate use of that test. This poll, in particular, is highly flawed.

 

3. Should it really surprise anyone that people who primarily get their news from MSNBC, or even slightly worse, Fox, are uninformed? Those aren't news outlets, they are places where people can scream about s*** and skim over the surface of issues like a perfect skipping stone. NPR/PBS and BBC are probably the best available channels for news, but neither can cover the breadth of news in the US to be truly complete - no surprise their viewers/readers are more informed. CNN is likely between. None of this should shock anyone.

 

4. Is Fox News more biased (and shallower) than MSNBC? Maybe by a little, but it doesn't really matter, as they are both trash.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I linked to two articles, one explaining why that specific polling method was so terrible and going over why the questions were so terrible and actually biased, and another from the author of that original WSJ article admitting that his study was, in fact, heavily biased.

 

Some polls are biased. Construction of questions in a poll is crucial. Order of those questions can be very important as well. The variety of the questions and interpretation of the answers is also critical. That some polls really truly are garbage, like that one you linked to, does not impugn all polls.

 

So apparently the key is to not admit bias no matter what.

[StrangeSox]

It's just a generalization. Streets, phone, etc...all the same BS. They asked RANDOM people.

 

Well, yeah, that's how you construct non-biased samples.

[StrangeSox]

So apparently the key is to not admit bias no matter what.

 

The key is to not make s***ty polls. Do you actually think that WSJ article showed anything other than "liberals are less likely to agree with conservative ideology than conservatives," that the questions only challenged liberal ideology and not conservative ideology and that the "enlightened" answers to the questions are not clear-cut correct answers to questions that are either contentious in academic fields or have vague, undefined definitions for important words?

 

Are you really trying to make this dumb equivalency stick, so that you can point to one really bad WSJ article poll as evidence that other polls are also biased?

[StrangeSox]

2. 612 respondents means you probably have less than a hundred for each news outlet, and I consider that way, way, way too small a data set to be reliable. The T-score calcs being used are using the 612 basis, which is not at all an accurate use of that test. This poll, in particular, is highly flawed.

 

Plus, New Jersey.

 

4. Is Fox News more biased (and shallower) than MSNBC? Maybe by a little, but it doesn't really matter, as they are both trash.

 

I don't think MSNBC comes near the level of open, blatant and deliberate bias that Fox does. It is nearly impossible to match that.

[Y2HH]

Well, yeah, that's how you construct non-biased samples.

 

Sure, if they were in fact "random".

 

I can conduct a poll here in Chicago via the phone. Do you know the easiest way to fix that poll? With the use of the Prefix code. How about I poll 200 "random" people, 100 from the buck town area, and 100 from the englewood area.

 

Sure, they're "random", but I bet the results they yield will be VASTLY different.