Things you learn watching Fox News

[Skeptic Ginger]

At the risk of perhaps not wanting to know...

What are PMF/TJMK for those of us who don't read Amanda Knox threads?

I read those threads and I still had to ask:

PMF is the Perugia murder file and TJMK is True Justice for Meredith Kercher which I won't link to because the site says it may have been compromised.

 

[Ziggurat]

I read about a study done by a university recently...I forget which one...and they (a) asked people where they got their new and (b) quizzed them on current events. And the people that said they got most of their news from Fox scored lower than the people that said they don't even follow the news.

I've seen this referred to lots and lots of times, and it's disappointing how rarely people realize how meaningless such studies are, and how easy it is to ensure the desired results even before the study begins simply by the design of the question.

People of all political persuasions believe falsehoods. What's more, human nature being what it is, people are more susceptible to believing falsehoods that confirm their outlooks. All one has to do in order to slant the study is cherry pick which false beliefs are tested for. Ask about false beliefs that paint liberals in a negative light or conservatives in a positive light, and surprise, surprise, you'll get liberals looking more informed than liberals. And you can do the reverse to. But it doesn't mean anything other than that people like to have their beliefs confirmed.

And what do you find if you look at the questions in the study questions? Well, the vast majority of them examine "misinformation" which would make the Obama or Democrats look worse. Only one of the questions mentioned in the link (about the Chamber of Commerce) was a misconception that made Republicans look worse, and go figure, that's the one where Democratic voters scored higher.

So unless you can find some way to get a representative sample of false beliefs (I don't see any good way to do that, and this study certainly didn't even try), then the results are completely meaningless if you're trying to determine which population is really better informed. So the idea that it's been proven that the Fox audience is any less informed overall than other audiences is simply not supported by any evidence.

 

[Number Six]

I assumed the university in question did the study fairly and didn't slant it towards or against any political view. Yes, if the study was done poorly then it's unreliable. I assumed it was done well but we all know what can happen when one assumes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you in denial, Zig?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you in denial, Zig?

Do you have a response with any substance, SG? Because I gave a detailed analysis of the flaws of a study, and you responded with an ad hominem. Come now, I've seen you do better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a link to the Nov, 2011 study with links to the methodology:

Some News Leaves People Knowing Less

Some News Leaves People Knowing Less

It's actually more current than the Dec 2010 study linked to by Wirelight in post #49.

You are welcome, Zig, to show us how the questions were unfair to Fox. I'll go back and look again at what you've already said here as I missed it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've seen this referred to lots and lots of times, and it's disappointing how rarely people realize how meaningless such studies are, and how easy it is to ensure the desired results even before the study begins simply by the design of the question.

People of all political persuasions believe falsehoods. What's more, human nature being what it is, people are more susceptible to believing falsehoods that confirm their outlooks. All one has to do in order to slant the study is cherry pick which false beliefs are tested for. Ask about false beliefs that paint liberals in a negative light or conservatives in a positive light, and surprise, surprise, you'll get liberals looking more informed than liberals. And you can do the reverse to. But it doesn't mean anything other than that people like to have their beliefs confirmed.

And what do you find if you look at the questions in the study questions? Well, the vast majority of them examine "misinformation" which would make the Obama or Democrats look worse. Only one of the questions mentioned in the link (about the Chamber of Commerce) was a misconception that made Republicans look worse, and go figure, that's the one where Democratic voters scored higher.

So unless you can find some way to get a representative sample of false beliefs (I don't see any good way to do that, and this study certainly didn't even try), then the results are completely meaningless if you're trying to determine which population is really better informed. So the idea that it's been proven that the Fox audience is any less informed overall than other audiences is simply not supported by any evidence.

This is what you were referring to I take it? This is mostly a general complaint about how a study can be slanted. I don't see more than one specific on how the studies which consistently find Fox news consumers misinformed actually were slanted. I'll look at the Chamber of Commerce question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, let's take this a piece at a time.

I've seen this referred to lots and lots of times, and it's disappointing how rarely people realize how meaningless such studies are, and how easy it is to ensure the desired results even before the study begins simply by the design of the question.

Some of the studies you refer to have been done under university names and are not in any way the same as a meaningless Fox News or MSNBC poll of viewers.

People of all political persuasions believe falsehoods.

Of course, people of all persuasions even skeptics and scientists believe falsehoods. Perfection is a lofty goal.

What's more, human nature being what it is, people are more susceptible to believing falsehoods that confirm their outlooks. All one has to do in order to slant the study is cherry pick which false beliefs are tested for. Ask about false beliefs that paint liberals in a negative light or conservatives in a positive light, and surprise, surprise, you'll get liberals looking more informed than liberals. And you can do the reverse to. But it doesn't mean anything other than that people like to have their beliefs confirmed.

Again, this is possible, but it is not necessarily true about all studies of this kind.

And what do you find if you look at the questions in the study questions? Well, the vast majority of them examine "misinformation" which would make the Obama or Democrats look worse. Only one of the questions mentioned in the link (about the Chamber of Commerce) was a misconception that made Republicans look worse, and go figure, that's the one where Democratic voters scored higher.

If you are looking at Wirelight's link, you have it backward.

Re the Chamber of Commerce example, direct from the full report the correlation of misinformation was with people that lacked a high school education and/or who voted Democratic. Regarding said knowledge and how one voted, the study says about those who held:

...the [false] belief that it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%);

That suggests it was the Democratic voters who heard the story from Truthout or similar sources that falsely believed evidence was presented of foreign donations being used.

It's really a poor example, however, for a number of reasons. One, that study specifically looked at politically oriented beliefs rather than just facts from the news in general. And much of what is in the public sphere re the US Chamber of Commerce is obscure. So it's a pretty muddy question given how secretive the US Chamber of Commerce is re their funding sources.

Sourcewatch article on the US Chamber of Commerce

So unless you can find some way to get a representative sample of false beliefs (I don't see any good way to do that, and this study certainly didn't even try), then the results are completely meaningless if you're trying to determine which population is really better informed. So the idea that it's been proven that the Fox audience is any less informed overall than other audiences is simply not supported by any evidence.

Multiple studies with repeatable results suggests otherwise.

From Wiki:

A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists".[68] A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.[69] A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believed incorrect rumors than those with "low reliance" on Fox News. [70]

Those studies used for the most part fairly objective measures of believing false information.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some of the studies you refer to have been done under university names and are not in any way the same as a meaningless Fox News or MSNBC poll of viewers.

That's completely irrelevant to everything I said. I'm not sure what on earth made you think otherwise. My point was about the significance of the results, not whether the results themselves were correct.

Again, this is possible, but it is not necessarily true about all studies of this kind.

It's true of the specific link in question. And it's true of other studies I've seen.

If you are looking at Wirelight's link, you have it backward.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm saying, but no, I most certainly don't have it backwards.

Re the Chamber of Commerce example, direct from the full report the correlation of misinformation was with people that lacked a high school education and/or who voted Democratic. Regarding said knowledge and how one voted, the study says about those who held:That suggests it was the Democratic voters who heard the story from Truthout or similar sources that falsely believed evidence was presented of foreign donations being used.

Exactly: people are more likely to believe false things which make their opponents look bad. It matches what I'm saying.

It's really a poor example, however, for a number of reasons. One, that study specifically looked at politically oriented beliefs rather than just facts from the news in general. And much of what is in the public sphere re the US Chamber of Commerce is obscure. So it's a pretty muddy question given how secretive the US Chamber of Commerce is re their funding sources.

And other questions are also muddy. For example, questions about future costs of programs were supposedly answered by CBO estimates, but since CBO estimates have a long-established history of being wrong, there's not much in the way of definitive answers for those either.

Multiple studies with repeatable results suggests otherwise.

That's rather my whole point: they don't actually suggest anything of the sort, once you realize that a fundamental assumption you're making (perhaps without even realizing it) simply isn't justified, namely that the false beliefs examined are representative. Nothing about ANY of the studies even tried to establish that they were. And in the absence of such a characterization, there's simply no way to draw the conclusion that you're drawing.

From Wiki:Those studies used for the most part fairly objective measures of believing false information.

Again, you simply don't get it. It doesn't matter how objective the measurements are regarding a specific belief. If the beliefs being examined are not representative of the whole spectrum of beliefs, then there is no logical way that one could extrapolate ANY possible result to mean anything about the overall level of false beliefs in any sample population. And again, no effort has been made to demonstrate that the beliefs being tested are representative. It is in fact rather damning that this question isn't even being asked.

 

[devnull]

Wait. If it's true that there were a lot of coal/natural gas commercials, doesn't that mean that they were sponsoring the debate by definition? Isn't that what "sponsoring" means? "...and now a word from our sponsor."

I'd be more inclined to look at the use of the term "clean coal". Having worked for a coal mining/electricity generation company, I can tell you that there is no such thing. I would submit that anybody who regularly uses the term is on the payroll.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's completely irrelevant to everything I said. I'm not sure what on earth made you think otherwise. My point was about the significance of the results, not whether the results themselves were correct.

You're twisting what I said into straw to suit your needs. I was referring to significance, not correctness of results. Try again now that I've clarified myself.

It's true of the specific link in question. And it's true of other studies I've seen.

So now it's all about the cherry picked studies you've seen? How about addressing the studies I cited.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm saying, but no, I most certainly don't have it backwards.

How does a question more Democratic voters got wrong make the Republicans look bad?

Exactly: people are more likely to believe false things which make their opponents look bad. It matches what I'm saying.

So what you are saying is the Republicans are more likely to believe false things, not the Fox News viewers are more likely to believe false things?

I know what you'd like to believe as you are a right winger politically. How do you feel about the fact your side currently uses more falsehoods in their propaganda than the left currently uses?

Specifically I refer to falsehoods about global warming and the reasons to go to war with Iraq. (I would include falsehoods about the economy and the need for voter ID laws but I don't want to derail this thread.)

And other questions are also muddy. For example, questions about future costs of programs were supposedly answered by CBO estimates, but since CBO estimates have a long-established history of being wrong, there's not much in the way of definitive answers for those either.

Anything predicting the future is hard to ask as a question about facts. I suggest you may be distorting the actual questions but without specifics I don't know exactly which questions you are talking about.

That's rather my whole point: they don't actually suggest anything of the sort, once you realize that a fundamental assumption you're making (perhaps without even realizing it) simply isn't justified, namely that the false beliefs examined are representative. Nothing about ANY of the studies even tried to establish that they were. And in the absence of such a characterization, there's simply no way to draw the conclusion that you're drawing.

It's pretty straight forward that the scientific evidence supports AGW and the fact Saddam Hussein was not behind 911. It's an easily verifiable fact that no WMD were found in Iraq. If you refuse to believe there are some evidence verifiable facts that certain political proponents would like to mislead the public on, then you are essentially saying there is no way to evaluate claims for their validity if someone stating various facts has a political agenda. I think that is ludicrous. Just like we can determine religious claims about radiocarbon dating are baloney we can evaluate the evidence for politically expedient claims. If you don't think so I suggest you prefer denial.

Again, you simply don't get it. It doesn't matter how objective the measurements are regarding a specific belief. If the beliefs being examined are not representative of the whole spectrum of beliefs, then there is no logical way that one could extrapolate ANY possible result to mean anything about the overall level of false beliefs in any sample population. And again, no effort has been made to demonstrate that the beliefs being tested are representative. It is in fact rather damning that this question isn't even being asked.

Again you are dismissing valid studies with a wave of your don't-like-the-outcome hand.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

Those comments over the Science news are a great source of intertainment. Whenever Fox News has an article dealing with evolution, I skip the article and go right to the comments -

Wow, I should have proof-read my post before posting it - "intertainment", what a horrible misspelling, I'm embarrassed!

 

[SezMe]

Typos are a dime a dozen and not worth being embarrassed about.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're twisting what I said into straw to suit your needs. I was referring to significance, not correctness of results. Try again now that I've clarified myself.

So you were making an argument from authority fallacy. Sorry, my mistake.

So now it's all about the cherry picked studies you've seen? How about addressing the studies I cited.

Same fundamental problem: none of them even try to establish that their questions are in any way representative of the vast number of ideas floating around out there.

How does a question more Democratic voters got wrong make the Republicans look bad?

Way to miss the point.

That question alone doesn't. What it illustrates is that people tend to be mistaken in directions which flatter their preconceptions. So when a false idea flatters the conception of democrats, it's no surprise that democrats are more likely to believe it.

So what you are saying is the Republicans are more likely to believe false things, not the Fox News viewers are more likely to believe false things?

I'm saying that everyone is more likely to believe false things which flatter their preconceptions.

I know what you'd like to believe as you are a right winger politically. How do you feel about the fact your side currently uses more falsehoods in their propaganda than the left currently uses?

I have no idea how you even expect to measure that. If you mean in terms of political adds in major media, I don't see how that's anything other than an indication that Republicans are doing more political advertising right now. If you want to include propaganda more broadly (including, say, protest signs and blogs), then how the hell can you even claim to know?

Specifically I refer to falsehoods about global warming and the reasons to go to war with Iraq.

You have a very funny definition of "now" if you're including something from eight years ago. And you are also engaging in exactly the sort of blindness that I'm talking about: focusing on a cherry-picked, non-representative sample of issues.

It's pretty straight forward that the scientific evidence supports AGW and the fact Saddam Hussein was not behind 911.

It's also pretty straight forward that nuclear power is relatively safe and clean (no source of electricity is totally safe or clear), and that GMO foods are safe. Where are those questions in your surveys?

Are you cluing in yet?

It's an easily verifiable fact that no WMD were found in Iraq.

Oh, the irony. WMD's were found in Iraq. In particular, chemical weapons. Small quantities, to be sure, but they were found. So the easily verifiable facts actually contradict your view. Should I then extrapolate from that one mistake that you are more misinformed than me about everything? That would be unfair and unjustified, wouldn't it?

If you refuse to believe there are some evidence verifiable facts that certain political proponents would like to mislead the public on

I never suggested there weren't. But that's not what's under debate here. What's under debate is how misinformed different groups are relative to each other. And none of the studies have established that relationship in general, only with regards to the specific questions asked. But that is, frankly, not very useful unless you only care about those specific questions.

then you are essentially saying there is no way to evaluate claims for their validity if someone stating various facts has a political agenda. I think that is ludicrous.

Of course it's ludicrous. It's also a complete and utter strawman.

Again you are dismissing valid studies with a wave of your don't-like-the-outcome hand.

You just don't get it. The conclusions you draw from the study simply do not follow logically from the actual study results. I've explained why. Your response has been to attack straw men. Not once have you tried to argue for why the questions asked should be considered as a representative sample of the ideas that are out there. Without that, well, there's a little something called "sampling bias" which makes your conclusions impossible to draw.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don't get Fox News in my cable line up.

Yet so far, each time, without exception, when someone says some right wing news or pundit says something I found out it is misquoted when I look it up. I distrust what people say about Limbaugh, Fox News, etc more than I distrust the source. The news about Fox News is wrong more often than Fox News is wrong, in my view. But that is just my personal expeience so far. Show me the whole story, not a sound byte out of context. I am still waiting for proof.

I don't get Fox News in my cable line up but there is youtube. So, show me.

Oh yeah, and there is something else disturbing. The one percent of crazy, stupid stuff the GOP candidates say are the only thing liberal jackasses focus on. I watch Perry today on CSPAN and he did not say one crazy stupid thing in his whole speech (of course, maybe because he was dropping out of the race). But I love the montagues people make on youtube as if all those crazy right winges talk about is how much they dislike gays getting married. Sure that is nuts. But, at the same time, it is the state rights that are going to make gay marrage the law. On the other hand, Progressive radio is crazy more than 80 percent of the time. We got a Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton type for the last 4 years who has fumbled the war in Afghanistan, destroyed NASA, and pissed away 100 billion dollar on a failed stimulis package. And we focus on gaffs and mistakes on Fox News? That is insane !!

 

[SezMe]

I don't get Fox News in my cable line up.

Yet so far, each time, without exception, when someone says some right wing news or pundit says something I found out it is misquoted when I look it up.

Nobody is wrong 100% of the time. Not even Fox.

It would promote more robust discussions of your world if you would stop exaggerating so much.

The news about Fox News is wrong more often than Fox News is wrong, in my view. But that is just my personal expeience so far.

But, Bill, you don't get Fox so how could you possibly make that assessment?

Show me the whole story, not a sound byte out of context. I am still waiting for proof.

There is no such thing as "proof" in matters such as this.

The one percent of crazy, stupid stuff the GOP candidates say are the only thing liberal jackasses focus on.

There you go again.

On the other hand, Progressive radio is crazy more than 80 percent of the time.

See, that's the way to do it. Yay for Bill. Now, the statement is bollocks but at least you avoided the absolutism bubble you inhabit.

We got a Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton type for the last 4 years who has fumbled the war in Afghanistan, destroyed NASA, and pissed away 100 billion dollar on a failed stimulis package. And we focus on gaffs and mistakes on Fox News? That is insane !!

Yeah, I agree. We ought to focus on mistakes closer to home...like the ones in this part of your post. The stimulus was around 800 billion and it didn't fail.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't get Fox News in my cable line up.

Yet so far, each time, without exception, when someone says some right wing news or pundit says something I found out it is misquoted when I look it up. I distrust what people say about Limbaugh, Fox News, etc more than I distrust the source. The news about Fox News is wrong more often than Fox News is wrong, in my view. But that is just my personal expeience so far. Show me the whole story, not a sound byte out of context. I am still waiting for proof.

I don't get Fox News in my cable line up but there is youtube. So, show me.

Oh yeah, and there is something else disturbing. The one percent of crazy, stupid stuff the GOP candidates say are the only thing liberal jackasses focus on. I watch Perry today on CSPAN and he did not say one crazy stupid thing in his whole speech (of course, maybe because he was dropping out of the race). But I love the montagues people make on youtube as if all those crazy right winges talk about is how much they dislike gays getting married. Sure that is nuts. But, at the same time, it is the state rights that are going to make gay marrage the law. On the other hand, Progressive radio is crazy more than 80 percent of the time. We got a Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton type for the last 4 years who has fumbled the war in Afghanistan, destroyed NASA, and pissed away 100 billion dollar on a failed stimulis package. And we focus on gaffs and mistakes on Fox News? That is insane !!

Rationalizing is a fascinating phenomena.

 

[Number Six]

The Farleigh-Dickinson study is the one I recently read about, rather than the one linked to before that, so I was remembering correctly when I remembered it said that those that watch Fox know less than those that don't watch the news at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you were making an argument from authority fallacy. Sorry, my mistake.

Another straw man. Try again:

Some of the studies have been done by legitimate researchers using valid assessment tools and they got repeatable results.

Are you equating legitimate researchers and repeatable results with 'argument from authority'? Or did I miss something?

Same fundamental problem: none of them even try to establish that their questions are in any way representative of the vast number of ideas floating around out there.

What does this hand waving mean? "Vast numbers of ideas floating around out there?"

The studies looked at some very specific very objective bits of knowledge that the news media reported on. Fox News misreported (most likely knowingly) and Fox News consumers bought the misinformation propaganda more often than consumers of other mainstream news.

The criticisms you are echoing are cited in the Wiki article I linked to above:

In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[57] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[58] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[59] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[60] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.[61][62]
PIPA also conducted a statistical study on purported misinformation evidenced by registered voters prior to the 2010 election. According to the results of the study, "...false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment..."[63] but viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed on specific issues when compared to viewers of comparable media,[64] that this likelihood also increased proportionally to the frequency of viewing Fox News[64] and that these findings showed statistical significance.[65] Media critic David Zurawik pointed to what he saw as weaknesses in the study, such as that certain government agencies are defined as holding the "true" positions on issues and that the study didn't differentiate between the influences of FNC shows as opposed to political ads that aired within shows.[66]

But looking at the specific measures of correctly and incorrectly informed viewers tells a different story:

Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War

Frequency of Misperceptions per Respondent: WMD Found, Evidence of al Qaeda Link, and World Majority Support for War
(percentages) Number of misperceptions per respondent
--------------------Fox--CBS--ABC--CNN--NBC--Print Media--NPR/PBS
None of the three: 20 --30 ---39 ---45 ----45 ----53 ------------77
One or more
misperception: ----80 --71 ---61 ---55 ----55 ----47 ------------23

Source: Program on International Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Network

These are not political opinions, they are verifiable facts.

MISPERCEPTIONS, THE MEDIA AND THE IRAQ WAR is a different published version of the same study but worth including if someone cares to review the study's specifics with a fine toothed comb.

Political Bias Not Full Explanation

It is tempting to assume that political bias can explain variations in misperceptions and can account for variations in those who get their news from various news sources. However, this idea is contradicted by the data on several fronts.

Supporters of a Democratic nominee also have significant misperceptions. Almost a third—32%--did believe that the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda. If this misperception was simply a function of a political position, one would not find it held by such a large proportion of those who do not intend to vote for Bush.

Also, while Bush supporters are more likely than supporters of a Democratic nominee to have misperceptions, for both groups, respondents’ choices of a news source make a significant difference in how prevalent misperceptions are. For example, 78% of Bush supporters who watch Fox News thought the US has found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, but only 50% of Bush supporters in the PBS and NPR audience thought this. On the other side, 48% of Democrat supporters who watch Fox News thought the US has found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, but not one single respondent who is a Democrat supporter and relies on PBS and NPR for network news thought the US had found such evidence.

Misinformation and the 2010 Election A Study of the US Electorate

WORLDPUBLICOPINION.ORG IS A PROJECT MANAGED BY THE PROGRAM ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY ATTITUDES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

That's not an appeal to authority, it is recognition of legitimate research vs an opinion poll.

4. Variations in Misinformation by Exposure to News Sources
Consumers of all sources of media evidenced substantial misinformation, suggesting that false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment, just as voters say they perceive it to be. In most cases increasing exposure to news sources decreased misinformation; however, for some news sources on some issues, higher levels of exposure increased misinformation.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
ƒ most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely)
ƒ most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
ƒ the economy is getting worse (26 points)
ƒ most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
ƒ the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
ƒ their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
ƒ the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
ƒ when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
ƒ and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

(emphasis mine)
You could argue these are political opinions but the questions ask about evidence supporting the opinions and verifiable facts, and not whether certain opinions are correct or not.



Then there are studies on specific issues:
Frequent Viewers of Fox News Are Less Likely to Accept Scientists' Views of Global Warming

ASSESSING AMERICANS’ FAMILIARITY WITH THE HEALTH CARE LAW

FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTES TO SPREAD OF RUMORS ABOUT PROPOSED NYC MOSQUE



And then there was the more recent study cited earlier in this thread,
Some News Leaves People Knowing Less , which I won't repeat the results of here as it's been discussed.


I'll break this reply here as it is already tl, but I'll continue below. The point here is you are dismissing this important issue as unimportant, unreliable, untestable and so on when you clearly don't like what the studies consistently find. Your confirmation bias is showing.

Why not address the problems with Fox's propaganda while still maintaining your political positions? Why wouldn't this bother you as much as it bothers people on the left? I'm not happy when left wing news sources spout falsehoods anymore than I am with Fox's propaganda. I don't want media owners to control the narrative. I believe if the public has valid truthful information with which to make their political decisions we'd all be better off even if the majority held political positions I did not agree with. I find this message/narrative control much more worrisome than the different political positions people hold.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some of the studies have been done by legitimate researchers using valid assessment tools and they got repeatable results.

That is irrelevant to my argument. What's at issue is what the results mean. The reputation of the pollers and repeatability of the results says nothing about their significance.

What does this hand waving mean? "Vast numbers of ideas floating around out there?"

People have lots of different beliefs, both correct and incorrect. If you want to know how misinformed someone is, you basically want to know how many incorrect beliefs they have, right? But you certainly can't test all possible beliefs they might have to see which ones they're misinformed about, can you? It's only ever possible to test for some relatively small number of beliefs.

Now, you apparently believe that the surveys in question can still accomplish the task of indicating how misinformed someone is in general. But this belief would only be supportable if the measured beliefs were a representative sample. In fact ALL surveys of small sample sizes can only ever tell us about a large population (in this case, the population of beliefs) if the survey is either a representative sample or if it can be corrected for any non-representative sampling.

This is really basic statistics, and I'm absolutely positive that you're actually familiar with the requirements of sampling. But you have not yet clued in to the fact that in the present case, we are not simply sampling people, we're also sampling beliefs. If you don't get a representative sample of beliefs to test for, then you cannot extract much of anything in the way of actually useful data, because there's simply no way to preclude or even estimate the effect of any sampling bias you might have. And none, not a single one, of the studies in question ever even attempted to deal with the sampling bias that the choice of questions can introduce.

The studies looked at some very specific very objective bits of knowledge that the news media reported on.

That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to my argument. The fact that you keep trying to hammer away at this irrelevant point tells me that you still have failed to understand what it is I'm saying.

Fox News misreported (most likely knowingly) and Fox News consumers bought the misinformation propaganda more often than consumers of other mainstream news.

That specific misinformation. But that tells us nothing about misinformation in general, because of the sampling problem. Pick another sample of misinformation to test, and you could get completely different results. That's the point you have failed to address, or apparently even comprehend. Until you do, you won't make any headway at all.