Fox v MSNBC -- preliminary

[Cicero]

Cicero, in the other thread you were eager for me to kick off this thread. And so I did, and now you're not even engaging. I'm left with the impression that you're not so eager to put your claims into testable form.

Forgive me for not giving you the proper attention. Perhaps you could read the magazines in the outer office to keep you occupied in the meantime?

FOX NEWS SHOWS

1) "Hannity & Combs"- predominately conservative, but with liberal guests and the non-evolved liberal Combs.

2) "The Factor"-host is not a progressive not necessarily a conservative but does hold some progressive views, the guests include whole spectrum of those holding contrary positions.

3) "Live Desk"- Martha MacCallum is eye candy with no discernible political bias, Trace Gallager, leans conservative

4) "Studio B" with Shepherd Smith- a liberal anchor

5) Neil Cavuto- conservative with both liberal and conservative guests

6) Laura Ingraham "Just In"- Conservative with both liberal and conservative guests

7) Brit Hume "Special Report"- two conservatives and two libs

8) Greta Van Susterin "On The Record" - liberal host lawyer that is mostly interested in the sensational

9) "Fox News Watch": panel of two libs and two conservatives discuss the media and even make some scathing comments about FOX News.

MSNBC SHOWS

1) Keith Olbermann "Countdown"- invincibly liberal host that only has on pundits and guests that share his views.

2) Chris Matthews "Hardball"- liberal whose show pretty much mirrors Countdown but allows for some diversity of opinion

3) Joe Scarborough "Morning Joe"- conservative host with mostly liberal pundits and guests

4) Dan Abrams "Verdict"- liberal host, one time head of MSNBC programing, expertise is the law, yet wanders into politics with mixed results.

5) David Gregory- liberal host, but not on the level of either KO or Matthews

6) "First Look"- another morning show in the Regis and whomever style


How is that for starters?

 

[Cicero]

Hmm, nicely dodged the part about Fox having the highest viewership again Ciccy?

Damn that reality and its well-known liberal bias!

I see you decided to have an argument with someone whom you might actually convince; yourself.

Could it possibly be necessary once again to refer you the the #2 post in this thread, my post, where I bragged about how FOX News routinely defeats MSBC and CNN in the ratings. The mind boggles.

 

[Lurker]

Liberal views of O'eilly, for the umpteenth time:

1) believes wholeheartedly in global warming
2) despises the oil companies
3) loves Barbara Walters
4) RFK is his idol
5) pro gun control
6) is fine with 60% tax rate for rich

Alas, it is a real shame that these mysterious "liberal" viewpoints only rarely seem to make it on his show. I would also question #6 there.

 

[Kerberos]

In the real world, things may never be proven, but they can be proven false. For example:

• Common sense told us the world was flat.
• Common sense told us the universe moves around the Earth.
• Common sense told us that light, being a wave, must propagate through a substance.
• Common sense told us that velocities are strictly additive.

All of these have been proven incorrect, despite reliance on common sense. Common sense is a poor substitute for taking the time to learn more about a topic.

I think I'll avoid using the term common sense in the future since it seems to be very upsetting to a lot of people here.

Point remains that the fact that conservative misconceptions are more common among FOX viewers than among the viewers of more liberal channels is equally consistent with FOX being more, less and equally biased as other channels.

 

[Upchurch]

Point remains that the fact that conservative misconceptions are more common among FOX viewers than among the viewers of more liberal channels is equally consistent with FOX being more, less and equally biased as other channels.

Which brings you back to the problem of a lack of evidence for your "fact".

Is a fact that you can't prove still a fact?

eta:

I think I'll avoid using the term common sense in the future since it seems to be very upsetting to a lot of people here.

The problem is not that you used the term common sense. The problem is that you presented common sense as the reason you think something is true. It is the equivalent to saying, "It's true because I think it's true."

 

[Upchurch]

1) nobody would have thought the world was flat since anyone watching a ship with a mast go out to sea can see that the ship does not disappear from view at once, but that the top of the mast is the last thing receding from view.

That would not be common sense. That would observation.

2) religion demanded that the earth was the center of the universe.

Does it matter from where the common understanding of something originates? Isn't it still common sense?

3 & 4 are not even laymen subjects so where was the "common" in the "sense?'

Ask any high school science student trying who has first heard about length contraction and time dilation. R&P and the Science forums are full of threads about how Relativity defies common sense (and people who refused to give up cherished common sense ideas about how the world works).

 

[Kerberos]

Which brings you back to the problem of a lack of evidence for your "fact".

Is a fact that you can't prove still a fact?

Are you seriously questioning that bias only makes you less likely to accept facts that are inconvinient to you in light of that bias? The mind boggles. Do you know what the word "bias" means?

eta:

The problem is not that you used the term common sense. The problem is that you presented common sense as the reason you think something is true. It is the equivalent to saying, "It's true because I think it's true."

No, I used common sense to mean: "that is what the word "bias" means".

 

[Cicero]

That would not be common sense. That would observation.


Does it matter from where the common understanding of something originates? Isn't it still common sense?


Ask any high school science student trying who has first heard about length contraction and time dilation. R&P and the Science forums are full of threads about how Relativity defies common sense (and people who refused to give up cherished common sense ideas about how the world works).

If observation is beyond the scope of common sense, then only the blind possess true common sense skills.

Of course religion asks the believer to substitute faith for common sense. Does that mean that all secular astronomers at the time knew the world was not the center of the universe? Of course not.

You have got be kidding if you think asking a randomly selected 17 year-old public school kid about relativity, if they have even heard of it, is going to elicit any lucid comment.

Have you ever watched "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Not only is common sense not in abundance, but basic knowledge is woefully lacking even in PhD contestants.

 

[Upchurch]

Are you seriously questioning that bias only makes you less likely to accept facts that are inconvinient to you in light of that bias? The mind boggles. Do you know what the word "bias" means?

Yes, "a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment", but that is irrelevant to your claims of fact.

You said,

Point remains that the fact that conservative misconceptions are more common among FOX viewers than among the viewers of more liberal channels is equally consistent with FOX being more, less and equally biased as other channels.

Do you know what the word fact means? "a piece of information presented as having objective reality" Something with objective reality is provable with evidence.

No, I used common sense to mean: "that is what the word "bias" means".

...?
No, here's the sequence:

Which proves nothing. Those are conservative misconceptions and FOX is conservative. If you checked for liberal misconseptions (like that Bush engeneered 9/11) you'd get the oposite result.

Sounds like an excellent hypothesis. Got any evidence?

Not unless you count common sense,

So, no evidence then? Thanks for playing.

I'll take common sense over hopelessly biased evidence any day of the week. If you prefer to ucritically accept any evidence that fits your procenceptions then that's up to you.

You aren't using "common sense" to mean "bias". You used it as a substitute for evidence. Worse, you used it as a preferential substitute for evidence.

Oh, yes, I know you said you preferred it over biased evidence (both of which are useless), but since it was your claim, it was your evidence to provide. If you don't like hopelessly biased evidence, don't use any when backing up your claim.

 

[Kerberos]

Yes, "a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment", but that is irrelevant to your claims of fact.

You said,

Do you know what the word fact means? "a piece of information presented as having objective reality" Something with objective reality is provable with evidence.

Yes I know what the word fact means, now read what I wrote again. The fact I'm refering to is the fact that FOX viewers are more likely to believe that WMD's have been found.

You aren't using "common sense" to mean "bias". You used it as a substitute for evidence. Worse, you used it as a preferential substitute for evidence.

Oh, yes, I know you said you preferred it over biased evidence (both of which are useless), but since it was your claim, it was your evidence to provide. If you don't like hopelessly biased evidence, don't use any when backing up your claim.

"Are you seriously questioning that bias only makes you less likely to accept facts that are inconvinient to you in light of that bias?" I''m having an enormous amount of difficulty understanding why that's even being debated.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes I know what the word fact means, now read what I wrote again. The fact I'm refering to is the fact that FOX viewers are more likely to believe that WMD's have been found.

What you are referring to is not a fact, but a claim. This is why I asked if you knew what a fact was, since you continually misuse the term.

If you would like to contend that it is Fox News's viewers who were willfully ignorant concerning certain events as opposed to Fox News misleading their viewers, you need to provide evidence that this is the case. Simply claiming it does not make it a fact.

"Are you seriously questioning that bias only makes you less likely to accept facts that are inconvinient to you in light of that bias?" I''m having an enormous amount of difficulty understanding why that's even being debated.

Because I could easily counter, should I choose to do so, that being self-aware of one's own bias can allow someone to not allow their bias to cloud their judgment. That may be the case, it may not. I don't claim to know.

You, however, do claim to know. (Although given you appeal to "common sense", I suspect you are only assuming you know.) It is not unreasonable, then, to ask you how you know and on what basis, is it?

 

[Kerberos]

What you are referring to is not a fact, but a claim. This is why I asked if you knew what a fact was, since you continually misuse the term.
If you would like to contend that it is Fox News's viewers who were willfully ignorant concerning certain events as opposed to Fox News misleading their viewers, you need to provide evidence that this is the case. Simply claiming it does not make it a fact.

I never made that claim, I made the claim that the facts are equally consistent with FOX being more, less and equally biased as other stations. I'll try to explain.

OK let's see, FOX is Conservative compared to MSNBC, both in viewers and in the channels themselves.

So FOX= Conservative, MSNBC= Liberal. Compared to each other at least.

Highly biased conservative coverage would not mention that no WMD's had been found and might even claim or insinuate otherwise. Slightly biased conservative coverage would downplay the fact somewhat.

Highly biased Liberal coverage. Well the fact is politically convenient for liberals so they cold be expected to talk about it incessantly. Slightly biased Liberal coverage: Well the fact is still convenient to them so they would still talk about it, and still mention it somewhat more often than equally important facts (by whatever standard you choose) that are not politically convenient to them.

Furthermore the viewers of FOX are more conservative than the viewers of MSNBC and would therefore require more convincing for them to accept that there were no WMD.

So case 1: FOX very biased, MSNBC very biased
FOX never mentions that no WMDs have been found, might even imply otherwise. MSNBC drones on about it 24/7.

Expected effect: MSNBC viewers more aware that no WMDs have been found.

Case 2: Fox slightly biased, MSNBC very biased:
Fox downplays the fact that no WMDs have been found. MSNBC Drones on 24/7.

Expected effect: MSNBC viewers more aware that no WMDs have been found.

Case 3: Fox very biased, MSNBC slightly biased:
FOX never mentions that no WMDs have been found, might even imply otherwise. MSNBC overplays the fact slightly compared to other news.

Expected effect: MSNBC viewers more aware that no WMDs have been found.

Case 4: FOX slightly biased, MSNBC slightly biased;
FOX downplays the fact that no WMDs have been found slightly. MSNBC overplays it slightly.

Expected effect: MSNBC viewers more aware that no WMDs have been found.

Conclusion: The fact that FOX viewers are less likely to know that no WMDs have been found is equally consistent with all cases. You could even add in the possibility of FOX or MSNBC having no bias whatsoever (no such thing of cause, but whatever), and see that in any scenario other than both FOX and MSNBC having no bias whatsoever the expected effect is *drumrolls* MSNBC viewers more aware that no WMDs have been found.

 

[boloboffin]

Hm. An adaptation of Pascal's wager vs. a scientifically conducted survey whose methodology has not yet been impeached. I'm going with the survey.

 

[Kerberos]

Hm. An adaptation of Pascal's wager vs. a scientifically conducted survey whose methodology has not yet been impeached. I'm going with the survey.

Except that the study doesn't prove what you claim it proves, and that my argument doesn't have the faintest resemblance to Pascals wager. Do you have anything with substance to add?

 

[Upchurch]

So case 1: FOX very biased, MSNBC very biased
FOX never mentions that no WMDs have been found, might even imply otherwise. MSNBC drones on about it 24/7.

Is this the case?

Case 2: Fox slightly biased, MSNBC very biased:
Fox downplays the fact that no WMDs have been found. MSNBC Drones on 24/7.

Is this the case?

Case 3: Fox very biased, MSNBC slightly biased:
FOX never mentions that no WMDs have been found, might even imply otherwise. MSNBC overplays the fact slightly compared to other news.

Is this the case?

Case 4: FOX slightly biased, MSNBC slightly biased;
FOX downplays the fact that no WMDs have been found slightly. MSNBC overplays it slightly.

Is this the case?

Conclusion: The fact that FOX viewers are less likely to know that no WMDs have been found is equally consistent with all cases. You could even add in the possibility of FOX or MSNBC having no bias whatsoever (no such thing of cause, but whatever), and see that in any scenario other than both FOX and MSNBC having no bias whatsoever the expected effect is *drumrolls* MSNBC viewers more aware that no WMDs have been found.

A conclusion based on limited possibilities, several assumptions, and no empirical data. No empirical data, that is, unless you are now accepting the research you earlier favored "common sense" over?

However, that only (vaguely) justifies half your claim. As a reminder:

Which proves nothing. Those are conservative misconceptions and FOX is conservative. If you checked for liberal misconseptions (like that Bush engeneered 9/11) you'd get the oposite result.

Your claim is that, as I understand it, that the number of conservatives who believe that Iraq has/had WMDs is comparable to the number of liberals who believe that Bush engineered 9/11.

Can you back this up?

 

[Kerberos]

Is this the case?


Is this the case?


Is this the case?


Is this the case?

You sound like a broke record

A conclusion based on limited possibilities, several assumptions, and no empirical data. No empirical data, that is, unless you are now accepting the research you earlier favored "common sense" over?

Fell free to bring up possibilities you think should be included, or assumptions you think are wrong. Anything? As for the research the problem was never the factual accuracy of the data, but the intepretation of that data. Care to defend the notion that FOX news viewers are more likely to have conservative misconceptions means anything other than that FOX is concervative? Actually it's not even conclusive evidence of that, but I don't think anyone is denying that.

Your claim is that, as I understand it, that the number of conservatives who believe that Iraq has/had WMDs is comparable to the number of liberals who believe that Bush engineered 9/11.

Can you back this up?

And to my total lack of surprise you don't understand it. No I did not say that the number of Liberals believing that Bush engineered 9/11 would be the comparable to the number of conservatives believing that there had been found WMDs in Iraq. I said the trend would be the opposite meaning more Liberals than conservatives would believe it.

 

[Upchurch]

You sound like a broke record

Only because you aren't following through on any of the questions you raise. You speculate without checking to see if your speculation has any foundation in reality.

Fell free to bring up possibilities you think should be included, or assumptions you think are wrong. Anything?

Sure. One gaping hole was obvious immediately. Your very first assumption is that viewership is exclusive to a single news source.

IIRC, the same study (or another one that was released about the same time) that found that Fox News viewers were the most misinformed also found that those viewers who were well informed obtained their information from multiple sources.

As for the research the problem was never the factual accuracy of the data, but the conclusion drawn from it which just doesn’t follow logically.

Based on what? Was there a problem in their methodology? Experimental design?

I said the trend would be the opposite meaning more Liberals than conservatives would believe it.

Okay, fine. If this is your claim, can you back this up or are you just assuming it would be true?

 

[Kerberos]

Sure. One gaping hole was obvious immediately. Your very first assumption is that viewership is exclusive to a single news source.

No, I make no such assumption, people who watch both sources equally simply fall outside of the study. Got anything else?

Based on what? Was there a problem in their methodology? Experimental design?

Based on the fact that the misconceptions are all scewed in favour of conservatives. Are you paying attention at all?

Okay, fine. If this is your claim, can you back this up or are you just assuming it would be true?

Not quite the same as engineering it but to the great suprise of no thinking person Democrats are more likely to believe that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lieve_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

In any case it was an aside. If you prefer to believe that only conservatives have biases then feel free.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I make no such assumption, people who watch both sources equally simply fall outside of the study.

um... that is the very assumption I was talking about.

Got anything else?

Sure. How about the assumption that they didn't control for viewer bias? That same report had these numbers for misconceptions held by Republicans who watched different news sources:

Average Rate of Misperceptions Among Republicans According to News Sources

All Republicans: 43%
Republican Fox: 54%
Republican PBS-NPR: 32%​

In other words, even with the political bias of the viewer taken into account, Fox did a worse job of informing the public than PBS and NPR.

Another assumption is that media sources that do a poor job of reporting one kind of story would necessarily do a good job of reporting another kind of story. Alternatively that media sources that do a really good job of reporting one kind of story would necessarily do a bad job of reporting another kind of story.

Based on the fact that the misconceptions are all scewed in favour of conservatives. Are you paying attention at all?

I assume you mean "skewed against conservatives"?

So, your argument is not that the conclusion doesn't follow logically, it is rather that they chose to study a public understanding of a Iraq war? But that was the purpose of the study. To do anything else would have been outside the scope of that study. It would be like saying the theory of evolution doesn't follow logically because it does not address the big bang.

Not quite the same as engineering it but to the great suprise of no thinking person Democrats are more likely to believe that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lieve_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

22% vs 43%? Not exactly an equal but opposite trend.

PBS/NPR viewers had the least amount of misconceptions concerning the Iraq war. Do you believe they would have the most misconceptions about a conservative issue rather than simply being an objective news source? If so, why?

 

[varwoche]

Thanks. Here are my assessments, some semi informed, others poorly informed.

1) "Hannity & Combs"- predominately conservative, but with liberal guests and the non-evolved liberal Combs.

Yes and no. No because it's a left:right 1:1 format. Yes because Hannity dominates the proceedings. We can rate it as conservative if you wish.

2) "The Factor"-host is not a progressive not necessarily a conservative but does hold some progressive views, the guests include whole spectrum of those holding contrary positions.

Whereas I consider this show conservative despite that O'Reilly takes contrary positions on a few populist issues. We could take this one subject and run with it if you wish. (a Tom Sawyer inspired suggestion what with Lurker on hand )

3) "Live Desk"- Martha MacCallum is eye candy with no discernible political bias, Trace Gallager, leans conservative

No idea. I take it the show leans conservative overall?

4) "Studio B" with Shepherd Smith- a liberal anchor

I have a vague sense of the program as conservative leaning (though mostly moronic leaning). I say we call it middle-road. (Unless leaning is clear, I think we should classify the programs as middle-road.)

5) Neil Cavuto- conservative with both liberal and conservative guests

Agreed that the show leans conservative.

6) Laura Ingraham "Just In"- Conservative with both liberal and conservative guests

Though I haven't seen it, I have little doubt it leans conservative.

7) Brit Hume "Special Report"- two conservatives and two libs

I think it leans conservative, especially since it's Hume's show. I'll agree to ranking it as middle-road if you'll agree to same for David Gregory. (The notion that Kondracke is liberal is funny.)

8) Greta Van Susterin "On The Record" - liberal host lawyer that is mostly interested in the sensational

I have no idea what her leanings are. It's not political content so we should just disregard it. (Unless we decide to compare % drivel. )

9) "Fox News Watch": panel of two libs and two conservatives discuss the media and even make some scathing comments about FOX News.

I'll bet that hasn't happened since Gabler got canned. (I haven't seen it since the purge.) We'll call it middle-road.

1) Keith Olbermann "Countdown"- invincibly liberal host that only has on pundits and guests that share his views.

Agreed it's liberal.

2) Chris Matthews "Hardball"- liberal whose show pretty much mirrors Countdown but allows for some diversity of opinion

I know he's supposedly liberal. Yet he fawns all over McCain. And he was brutal on B. Clinton in the 90's. I'll go along with liberal though I think middle-road could be argued.

3) Joe Scarborough "Morning Joe"- conservative host with mostly liberal pundits and guests

Agreed conservative.

4) Dan Abrams "Verdict"- liberal host, one time head of MSNBC programing, expertise is the law, yet wanders into politics with mixed results.

I've seen it a couple of times and it seemed close enough to center to be called middle-road. Or we toss it along with Gretta?

5) David Gregory- liberal host, but not on the level of either KO or Matthews

Seems like a middle-road news broadcast to me. (see my comments on Hume)

6) "First Look"- another morning show in the Regis and whomever style

Dunno. We can disregard it if you want. I'm not willing to disregard Fox & Friends though, which leans markedly conservative.

Once we're done hashing out the leanings (we're pretty close I hope) we'll see which programs admit to their leanings and then we're good to go. (I don't know of a program that admits its leaning. Do you?)

Of course we'll also have a simpler measurement at hand: a tally of the programs that lean per network.