Things you learn watching Fox News

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps this will help you, SG. Here's a poll about various misconceptions concerning the 2008 election:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/research-wilson.asp

The poll results showed that McCain voters were significantly better informed than Obama voters. But the same problem exists: we only know that this result is true about those specific questions. We do not know, and the poll cannot tell us, if that's true in general. Perhaps you'll be better able to understand the problem in a case where ignoring the problem doesn't flatter your own biases.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I will address your above post later but I'll reply to this one now.

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.

You're in total denial Zig. It wasn't meant as an ad hom, it means it's difficult to discuss this issue with you. I went to a lot of trouble to cite very specific issues and again you dismiss them with hand waving. What do the results mean? They mean Fox News propaganda is an effective misinformer of facts intended to channel political opinion. You just repeat that you personally don't agree with the conclusions, but you haven't refuted the conclusions in any way.

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.

Wrong. The studies as I very specifically pointed out asked about verifiable facts, not beliefs. Your excuse that a past use of chemical weapons in Iraq made the fact no WMDs were found moot on a technicality does not diminish the study results that looked at many more facts than the WMD question. You cherry picked a technicality that very few people even agree with you is valid, but it doesn't matter because the results were much more broadly based than that.

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 totality of the repeatable findings in multiple legitimate studies says you are wrong.

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.

Don't confuse your failure to present a convincing argument with my not understanding your argument.

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.

Again I see you are ignoring the fact there are multiple studies here with consistently repeatable results. You are demonstrating evidence of denial.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps this will help you, SG. Here's a poll about various misconceptions concerning the 2008 election:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/research-wilson.asp

The poll results showed that McCain voters were significantly better informed than Obama voters. But the same problem exists: we only know that this result is true about those specific questions. We do not know, and the poll cannot tell us, if that's true in general. Perhaps you'll be better able to understand the problem in a case where ignoring the problem doesn't flatter your own biases.

You expect a poll to be valid that found: "How Obama got elected and Palin was targeted"? Really? Palin who has demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about world affairs in her own interviews?

OK, I'll bite.

This is an opinion poll. The citations I posted were academia based research papers at least one of which was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Here's the home page touting Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin's endorsements for your comparison link.

I have looked at a number of sources and for the most part the link you cite is to a right wing movie with no credibility in any academic or legitimate circles.

Try again as this comparison is a dud.

Zig, you are so rational in other threads. I am truly flabbergasted at your attraction to right wing tripe in the political forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

I will address your above post later but I'll reply to this one now.You're in total denial Zig. It wasn't meant as an ad hom, it means it's difficult to discuss this issue with you.

You are indeed having difficulty discussing the issue with me, because you have yet to comprehend what I'm saying.

I went to a lot of trouble to cite very specific issues and again you dismiss them with hand waving. What do the results mean? They mean Fox News propaganda is an effective misinformer of facts intended to channel political opinion. You just repeat that you personally don't agree with the conclusions, but you haven't refuted the conclusions in any way.

Look, the accusation being made here isn't simply that Fox news is a channel for misinforming propaganda. The accusation is that Fox is worse than other news sources in this respect. THAT is the accusation which Fox critics keep latching onto. And yes, I keep dismissing those studies because none of them can actually support this accusation.

Wrong. The studies as I very specifically pointed out asked about verifiable facts, not beliefs.

Wow, way to miss the point. People hold beliefs. If a belief is contradicted by facts, then the belief is objectively false. If the belief is confirmed by facts, then the belief is objectively true. But inside a person's head, it's still a belief either way. I'm not contesting that some beliefs are objectively false, I'm very well aware of that. Nor am I contesting the fact that these studies have studied beliefs which are objectively known to be true or false. In fact, I have used the term "belief" precisely because it includes false beliefs. This semantic criticism of yours is just complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the actual argument at hand. This is such a bizarre response, I can't even comprehend what made you think it had any relevance.

Your excuse that a past use of chemical weapons in Iraq made the fact no WMDs were found moot on a technicality

No, SG. I'm saying that you are objectively wrong. You have a belief which you think is a fact, but it isn't. That isn't about past use, that was about what was in Iraq when we invaded. Like I said, small quantities, but when you claim "no WMD's", you're objectively wrong. Ironically so, too.

Don't confuse your failure to present a convincing argument with my not understanding your argument.

Your misunderstanding of my argument is made explicitly clear in every single post you have made in response. You have never, not once, even addressed the sampling problem.

Again I see you are ignoring the fact there are multiple studies here with consistently repeatable results. You are demonstrating evidence of denial.

Does even a SINGLE one of those studies correct for the sampling problem I have described? No, not a single one does. Do any meta-studies between these individual ones correct for the sampling problem? No.

Repetition of a poorly designed study doesn't make it valid.

 

[Ziggurat]

You expect a poll to be valid that found: "How Obama got elected and Palin was targeted"? Really? Palin who has demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about world affairs in her own interviews?

OK, I'll bite.

This is an opinion poll. The citations I posted were academia based research papers at least one of which was published in a peer reviewed journal.

So we are back to argument from authority.

But way to miss the point, SG.

I have looked at a number of sources and for the most part the link you cite is to a right wing movie with no credibility in any academic or legitimate circles.

The polls were performed by well-respected non-partisan polling agencies. That the polls was commissioned for partisan purposes doesn't invalidate the poll results. There is, in fact, zero reason presented to doubt the poll results. There is, however, reason to not assign much significance to them, namely the reasons I described above, but which you still can't wrap your head around.

Zig, you are so rational in other threads. I am truly flabbergasted at your attraction to right wing tripe in the political forum.

Again, way to miss the point. First off, wake up and notice that I have just explicitly refuted the intended conclusion of that poll. The difference between you and me in this regard is that you did so through ad hominem, whereas I did it through a logical analysis of the intrinsic shortcomings of the poll itself. Second, the conclusions I have drawn here are not "right-wing". They are, in fact, non-partisan. You will note absolutely ZERO effort on my part here to portray conservatives as any better than liberals. In fact, nothing about my argument involves even considering either group to be at all different in any substantive way. Quite the reverse, actually. If you think that such a viewpoint somehow constitutes "right wing tripe", then you're the one with the partisan problem, not me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So we are back to argument from authority.

Dishonesty or denial, which is it?

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?


Let's get past this one first. Then I'll spend more time on this matter with you.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

You have missed a lot. Repeatedly.

The validity of the poll results themselves are not in question. What's in question is their meaning. Given that only their meaning is under debate, a meaning which is in no way determined by the identity of the study authors or their publication source, AND given that you have challenged poll results from well-respected non-partisan public opinion polling organizations purely on the basis that they are not academic institutions, I think you were making an argument from authority. But it doesn't even matter if I've misunderstood you on this point, because again, I'm not contesting the validity of the poll results, I'm contesting their meaning. And nothing about the source of these polls can speak to that question. So there's simply no point in even bringing it up.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The things I learn reading attacks on Fox News is that Liberals engage in the logical fallacy, cherry picking, and that they only survive and retain a political platform by attacking their detractors instead of doing any self reflection upon their incontrovertibly failed socialist agendas.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have missed a lot. Repeatedly.

The validity of the poll results themselves are not in question. What's in question is their meaning.

Round and round the mulberry bush ...

This semantics is a side track. You are saying that "valid conclusion" and "meaning" are different. So let me review the facts with you.

Given that only their meaning is under debate, a meaning which is in no way determined by the identity of the study authors or their publication source, AND given that you have challenged poll results from well-respected non-partisan public opinion polling organizations purely on the basis that they are not academic institutions,

Another straw man. I rejected your supposedly comparable citation because it was an opinion poll as opposed to a peer reviewed published research study.

Of course the fact your citation was ludicrously partisan didn't help your case. I tried to find the source of the pollsters "Wilson" and couldn't find the original source. There were some related company names but it wasn't clear they were the source of the poll in the film. Feel free to cite a proper link and I'll be happy to reevaluate the actual data. But claiming that partisan "film" is a well-respected non-partisan public opinion polling organization is not going to cut it.

I think you were making an argument from authority.

So you refuse to distinguish between published peer reviewed study and argument from authority? You're the one that made the original claim we were referring to opinion polls and not valid research. I've shown you why that's wrong and you changed your argument to claim the opinion poll you cited was equivalent to valid published research.

But it doesn't even matter if I've misunderstood you on this point, because again, I'm not contesting the validity of the poll results, I'm contesting their meaning. And nothing about the source of these polls can speak to that question. So there's simply no point in even bringing it up.

Back to your next dodge, dismissing the statistically significant results with the variables you've complained about addressed.

So let me put that a different way.

These results you are denying have any meaning are from valid research, properly done, with variables controlled for and repeatable results. I'm pretty sure that meets most skeptics' standards of meaningful results.

To dismiss these results you claim they are based on opinion polls, not research, and you claim that my citing published research is akin to an argument from authority. I think you are losing this pissing contest.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this the polling company?

Wilson Research Strategies

This firm, founded according to its website in 1998, claims as of April 2006 to have "conducted over 1,500 research engagements in numerous countries around the world." Its primary work is the "launching new corporate initiatives and winning political campaigns, both here and abroad."

That doesn't sound politically neutral to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Round and round the mulberry bush ...

This semantics is a side track. You are saying that "valid conclusion" and "meaning" are different.

This isn't a side track. It's a central issue. The study reports that some certain percentage of people responds correctly or incorrectly to a specific question. Because we can have some confidence that the sample of people asked is representative, we can conclude that various populations have varying levels of information and/or misinformation about the subject of that question. I accept that these percentages are (within the margin of error) correctly indicative of the population's knowledge of those specific questions. That is the valid conclusion.

The meaning being inferred is that the differences between populations in information or misinformation about these specific questions is an indicator of general information or misinformation. But we cannot draw that conclusion, for the reasons I have now explained at length and repeatedly, namely that we have no reason to believe that the questions asked are a representative sample of facts/issues/ideas/information/misinformation/whatever you want to call it.

You have yet to even attempt to make any connection between survey results for specific questions to conclusions about general levels of information and disinformation. Hell, you have yet to even acknowledge that this is my argument. And really, until you can't at least acknowledge what it is that I'm saying, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, then none of your responses will be meaningful. There's really no point in responding to anything else you write if you can't even get that far.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This isn't a side track. It's a central issue. The study reports that some certain percentage of people responds correctly or incorrectly to a specific question. Because we can have some confidence that the sample of people asked is representative, we can conclude that various populations have varying levels of information and/or misinformation about the subject of that question. I accept that these percentages are (within the margin of error) correctly indicative of the population's knowledge of those specific questions. That is the valid conclusion.

The meaning being inferred is that the differences between populations in information or misinformation about these specific questions is an indicator of general information or misinformation. But we cannot draw that conclusion, for the reasons I have now explained at length and repeatedly, namely that we have no reason to believe that the questions asked are a representative sample of facts/issues/ideas/information/misinformation/whatever you want to call it.

You have yet to even attempt to make any connection between survey results for specific questions to conclusions about general levels of information and disinformation. Hell, you have yet to even acknowledge that this is my argument. And really, until you can't at least acknowledge what it is that I'm saying, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, then none of your responses will be meaningful. There's really no point in responding to anything else you write if you can't even get that far.

Hey. we're getting somewhere. Darn, and I'm out of beer.

Never mind. OK, central issue. Why are you equating one of these studies published in a peer reviewed journal with opinion polls? The study controlled for the variables you use to dismiss the "meaning" of the study.

 

[This is The End]

I've watched plenty of Fox News. It's unquestionably a pro-Republican news outlet.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hey. we're getting somewhere. Darn, and I'm out of beer.

Never mind. OK, central issue. Why are you equating one of these studies published in a peer reviewed journal with opinion polls?

Because they measure the same thing: what people believe. There's nothing magic about peer review, you know.

The study controlled for the variables you use to dismiss the "meaning" of the study.

No it didn't. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Tell me how they made sure that their questions covered a representative sample of beliefs.

 

[SezMe]

Tell me how they made sure that their questions covered a representative sample of beliefs.

Circular argument. What are the criteria for determining a "representative" sample?

 

[Ziggurat]

Circular argument. What are the criteria for determining a "representative" sample?

There's nothing circular about it - that accusation doesn't even make sense. And the criteria is the same as for any other population that you're surveying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because they measure the same thing: what people believe. There's nothing magic about peer review, you know.

No it didn't. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Tell me how they made sure that their questions covered a representative sample of beliefs.

Two misrepresentations and another straw man, Zig.

Misrepresentation 1) You know darn well what the difference is between research published in a peer reviewed journal and a partisan designed opinion poll. So don't bother going there, you know we know better.

The straw man) As for the study criteria you decided was needed: "made sure that their questions covered a representative sample of beliefs", that contains a misrepresentation and a straw man.

You are distorting what one of the studies looked at. You're saying you don't like the outcome measured to look at the effect of certain misinformation in the news because the study didn't look at different misinformation. But that is not what the research was about so you are arguing a straw man.

In the one peer reviewed study they looked specifically at misinformation in the news regarding the Iraq War. It wasn't about the left vs the right. If you recall, the majority of Democratic legislators were equally on board with the Iraq war. Only a minority of us were against the war from the beginning. What the study was concerned with specifically were the lies amplified in the media that influenced public support for the war. If you've seen the video, "Buying the War" by Bill Moyers, you'd know that the media's role disseminating misinformation about Iraq contributed to public support for the war when had the truth been known, the support likely would not have been there.

The researchers were looking at that issue specifically, not just at right and left wing media.
_______________________________________________________________

Misrepresentation 2) Regarding your argument, however, I do think you could (but don't) have a point about right wing news consumer's being duped while left leaning news consumers were not being equally examined. The right would like to believe tu quoque in this matter. They've tried to match the criticism that sources like Media Matters are able to document. But the tu quoque has been a failure. FAIR, for example, has never met the same standard of documenting their accusations against the "liberal media bias" as Media Matters has. But that's a discussion for a different day.

None of the left leaning mainstream media outlets puts out as much blatant propaganda as Fox News does. And that's what these studies show. So you would have a point if the studies only looked at one sided politics. Turns out, however, they didn't. And I showed you that with the University of Maryland study and the FairleighDickenson University studies.

In the former study, they looked thoroughly at both Democratic and Republican voters as well as looking at numerous political issues. You tried to dismiss this study based on what you believe were their assumptions about what was fact. You didn't bother to look at the actual study, you just dismissed it based on your confirmation bias.

The researchers used expert consensus views as their measure of truth. The researchers cite their sources. If you want to support your argument the study had a political bias in what was considered a fact, then you need to specifically show that is the case, not just wave your hand. The survey questions asked, "what do most [fill in the appropriate experts] say about [subject]. The researchers suggest this information is useful to a public charged with making democratic decisions.

The researchers did not ask whether the expert opinions were believed or not. The easiest one to use as a demonstration is the question about climate change. Whether you believe the scientific consensus or not, the consensus is an evidence based fact. A minority of dissenters among the scientific community does not change the fact there is a consensus among the majority. Fox News has a political motivation to broadcast lies about the scientific consensus. (Actually, they've begun to change that news narrative given the accumulation of irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing, but again that's getting off topic).

In the latter study they examined knowledge of worldwide events, not right or left wing opinions.

Among other topics, New Jerseyans were asked about the outcome of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East this past year. While 53% of New Jerseyans know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing the government of Hosni Mubarak, 21% say that the uprisings were unsuccessful, and 26% admit they don’t know. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful, while 36% say they don’t know, and 16% say the Syrians have already toppled their government.

These are not left and right wing political opinions.

But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news. For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.

And the researchers controlled for the partisanship you claim they did not.

"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."

In addition, the following adds to the consistency of the results:

By contrast, some media sources have a positive effect on political knowledge. For example, people who report reading a national newspaper like The New York Times or USA Today are 12-points more likely to know that Egyptians have overthrown their government than those who have not looked at any news source. And those who listen to the non-profit NPR radio network are 11-points more likely to know the outcome of the revolt against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. However, the best informed respondents are those that watched Sunday morning news programs: leading to a 16-point increase in the likelihood of knowing what happened in Egypt and an 8-point increase in the likelihood of knowing what happened in Syria.

So your argument would be valid except it is misinformed. The studies looked at facts and knowledge, not one sided political opinions.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're saying you don't like the outcome measured to look at the effect of certain misinformation in the news because the study didn't look at different misinformation.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. This isn't about what I like. It's about what we can infer from those specific bits of information. And we can't infer much at all. That's my point, a point you continue to studiously avoid addressing.

In the one peer reviewed study they looked specifically at misinformation in the news regarding the Iraq War.

There is LOTS of misinformation regarding the Iraq war. They diod not examine a representative sample of that misinformation.

It wasn't about the left vs the right. If you recall, the majority of Democratic legislators were equally on board with the Iraq war. Only a minority of us were against the war from the beginning.

But that was never true about the electorate. Republicans were more in favor of the war than democrats, from the beginning. You're just playing games to try to hide this fact, but you know it's true.

What the study was concerned with specifically were the lies amplified in the media that influenced public support for the war.

You still don't get it. The study measured a small sample of lies that influenced public. But there were many more lies out there, including lies which weakened support for the war when believed. And if you don't include those, then there's simply no basis for concluding that Fox was any more deceptive, or its viewers any worse informed overall, than anyone else.

If you've seen the video, "Buying the War" by Bill Moyers, you'd know that the media's role disseminating misinformation about Iraq contributed to public support for the war when had the truth been known, the support likely would not have been there.

Funny thing. When I go to that link, I see a number of news organizations named, some of them in the context of bad reporting on the topic. You know what news organization is NOT mentioned anywhere on that page?

Fox News.

I'm not contesting the fact that news organizations can and do misinform the public, and I'm not contesting that this can change public opinion. That's not the issue here. What's under discussion is whether or not Fox has any particular culpability, or whether their audience is particularly misinformed. And your link has absolutely nothing to do with that.

None of the left leaning mainstream media outlets puts out as much blatant propaganda as Fox News does. And that's what these studies show.

No they don't. How could they? They don't even examine the actual content of Fox News shows. This is such an epic and elementary logic fail on your part that it's become quite clear that you're simply grasping for anything to support your predetermined position.

So you would have a point if the studies only looked at one sided politics. Turns out, however, they didn't. And I showed you that with the University of Maryland study

Um... this study is pretty much exactly the problem I'm talking about. Aside from the fact that they don't actually establish the correct answer to a number of their questions (they ask about the majority opinion of economists, then substitute the CBO's opinion for that of the majority of economists), the questions are indeed slanted in exactly the manner I described. Of the eleven questions, nine of them are slanted in favor of democrats and/or Obama, meaning that misconceptions would make democrats/Obama look worse or republicans look better, one question had misperceptions that could go either way, and only one question out of the eleven was a question where a misconception would make republicans look worse or democrats look better.

In the former study, they looked thoroughly at both Democratic and Republican voters as well as looking at numerous political issues. You tried to dismiss this study based on what you believe were their assumptions about what was fact. You didn't bother to look at the actual study, you just dismissed it based on your confirmation bias.

You're wrong. I dismissed it precisely because I did look at it, and found it to be crap.

The researchers used expert consensus views as their measure of truth.

In some cases. In other cases, they used the CBO as a proxy for majority expert opinion, which is rather bad methodology for the obvious reason that the CBO doesn't have to agree with majority expert opinion. But it doesn't even matter, because the problem is more fundamental than that: the questions themselves are slanted, as I described above.

The researchers cite their sources.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you're not paying attention to me. Their sources aren't the problem (well, not the main problem). Having perfect sources wouldn't eliminate the systematic flaw in their methodology. The fact that you keep harping on this point (and incorrectly too, as it turns out) is yet more proof that you have yet to grasp what it is I'm saying.

If you want to support your argument the study had a political bias in what was considered a fact

That's not my argument AT ALL.

Jeeze. Start paying attention.