DHS Shutdown; NOT political, fact or lack of

[angusruler]

Consuming TV news is like spending your entire life eating nothing but junk food.

 

I liken it more to football.  

 

The Republicans on the Dems' 47.  2nd and 8.  The ball is snapped.  Thrown.  Intercepted!  Wait!  The Dems fumble again!  Unbelievable!  It's just a game of *** for tat.

yep tell the populace what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

[angusruler]

buh bye. ill leave while im still civil.

[Dr Morbius]

I've seen 'em all, and the one person that really tries to keep the news fair for both sides is Rachel Maddow, whose a stickler for getting facts correct. May not be as pretty as Fox women but she is fair. If she gets something wrong, which happens sometimes, the next night she comes on red faced and flustered and spends a few minutes explaining how she got it wrong. I've also watched Fox news but I found out The owner of Fox, Rupert Murdock is an Australian that absolutely hates America (something to do with Australia not being a superpower) and is the main source of causing hatred of the 2 political parties.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

All TV news is pretty much worthless for understanding the world. But in particular, FOX viewers are less informed than most others according to various surveys like this one. http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

 

It's not saying much. TV news all around is pure pabulum, and primarily just used to keep the public excited and malleable for election purposes. There's no charter to educate the population.

wow, a poll done in new jersey!? is that really the best you can do lol! nothing fromca. or nyc?

sorry that this thread drifted to fox news bashing. as usual the bashing is done by people who offer not one example of how fox misinforms its viewers, followed by personal attacks that the attacker swears isnt a personal attack! im so use to it it doesnt even get me riled anymore. the matter is closed as far as im concerned....until fox starts sending me checks.

 

 

I gave you  perfectly good example. Why would it matter that the university conducting the survey was in New Jersey?

 

I used to think that this sort of "knowledge" was a good measure of people who can make good decisions.  I have learned over many years of observation (anecdotal, of course) that this is not even remotely true.  

 

How is it, for example, the college finance professor is broke, but an uneducated buffoon will make all the money?

 

We really need to be more careful in the way we judge people.  The problem with being fair and not rushing to judgment is that it is confusing.  How apropos!  People are more complicated than we educated simpletons want to believe.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[teaman]

 

heard ALL of the sides on fox news. 

 

I giggled at just this sentence, nothing personal at all.  Being Canadian here, Fox can't even get into the "news" category up here to broadcast. It's been categorized as "entertainment" with our regulation body the CRTC. I think when you have to go to court to get permission to embellish, that should reveal their intentions when "reporting".

 

(The claimed distinction that Fox News is only allowed in Canada due to its being classified as an "entertainment" channel rather than as a "news" channel is a meaningless one, as those classifications only apply to Canadian media outlets, and Fox is an American company.)

 

Should probably educate yourself further...

[teaman]

I've seen 'em all, and the one person that really tries to keep the news fair for both sides is Rachel Maddow, whose a stickler for getting facts correct. May not be as pretty as Fox women but she is fair. If she gets something wrong, which happens sometimes, the next night she comes on red faced and flustered and spends a few minutes explaining how she got it wrong. I've also watched Fox news but I found out The owner of Fox, Rupert Murdock is an Australian that absolutely hates America (something to do with Australia not being a superpower) and is the main source of causing hatred of the 2 political parties.

Seriously, are you not embarrased to admit this? Fox employs Liberals and Conservatives to explain their views on the same show, at the same time. Google Bob Beckel and Juan Williams to see where they stand....yet they are on Fox every day to give their opinions. This is called discussion. Being a fan of the Lib scene, you are probably never shown the other side.

 

Let's look at the whole MSNBC as a network. Chris Hayes....possibly retarded. Rachel Maddow only agrees with the libtards and follows the other sheeple on the network, and Chris Matthews still getting a thrill up his leg every time Obama speaks. Can't forget Al "not so rev" Sharpton. Possibly the biggest one sided racist in America. All run by Brian "I have done everything and lived to tell about it" Williams....where is he anyways....lol!

 

Yep....you are right they tell the truth....wow....

[Jeff Matthews]

Who was judged incorrectly?

 

The people who you lump into a group that you call "uninformed."   Or did you not attach any value to that label? 

Edited February 28, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Fox employs Liberals and Conservatives to explain their views on the same show, at the same time.

 

I had to chuckle on that one. Do employees seek to please their bosses, or displease them? That's ok, you don't need to answer.

 

Having employees spout off in a for profit business is not at all the same as trying to come to understand some important social, economic or political issue. I am amused that this passed the smell test.

 

I think you might find the real boss is the viewing public.  Without ratings, Fox is nobody.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

Who was judged incorrectly?

 

The people who you lump into a group that you call "uninformed."   Or did you not attach any value to that label? 

 

 

I see. Well, as it turns out, there is such a group as evidenced by the study. Make of it what you like. It was a simple statistical analysis. Now, I don't think I said a think about their ability to make money, did I? I could care less. I know you never read links, so I am guessing you didn't see on what they were less informed about, right?

 

 

No, nor did I really care all that much.  The reason is that you are injecting a sort-of social prejudice by pointing out who is or is not "informed" as if this somehow is a measure of value of the competing classes of people.  It might be that the so-called "informed" ones are the ones who are dysfunctional and less valuable to society.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

Fox employs Liberals and Conservatives to explain their views on the same show, at the same time.

 

I had to chuckle on that one. Do employees seek to please their bosses, or displease them? That's ok, you don't need to answer.

 

Having employees spout off in a for profit business is not at all the same as trying to come to understand some important social, economic or political issue. I am amused that this passed the smell test.

 

I think you might find the real boss is the viewing public.  Without ratings, Fox is nobody.

 

Nope. The paychecks come from the company, not the public.

I never claimed the public didn't ENJOY and LOVE this pabulum, they obviously do. So what? They like ice cream and pizza too. Doesn't mean they are healthy.

 

 

So, you don't think Boss's first order of command is to maximize viewer ratings?

[Jeff Matthews]

Here's from your article, Mark:

 

"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)."

 

(Emphasis added)

 

After spotting this critical non-disclosure, you can put me in the "uninformed" group, too.  Obviously, they played with the data.  You know how that tends to go.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jeff Matthews]

I don't know the bosses orders, do you?   Here's what I do know. Employees are not known for their independent positions on matters, whether they work for the State Department, a political campaign, FOX news, or Google.

 

You'd think you would know that the boss's first priority is viewership ratings, but then again, there are bosses, apparently, at CNN and MSNBC, too, and looking at their performance, I'd have to start questioning that, as logical as it first seemed.  

 

As far as your general observation about "employees," I suppose it's sufficient to say that they are all lacking independence, no matter which way you turn. That puts us back at essentially a level playing-field whenever there are employees involved.  Except for the most rinky-dink, self-employed reporters who count almost for nothing, the argument/observation you are making has now deteriorated into a meaningless issue.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Jeff Matthews]

he expectation of gaining meaningful knowledge of the world through TV news is misplaced. They are all rubbish. And "employed analysts" is just the beginning of the reasons why.

 

Define "meaningful." 

[teaman]

Oh wait, I forgot. The whole "Hands up don't shoot" movement that is still broadcast on MSNBC as fact, even though it has been cleared by a grand jury and the cop that they say targeted and shot an unarmed teen has been cleared by the AG. Say what you want about a grand jury or AG but that is the justice system here in the US....faults and all.

 

CNN and MSNBC may well be trying to compete against the likes of TMZ as they regularly report findings that totally disqualify the facts at hand. They have more fruitless shows than anywhere else on broadcast news. For the fact alone that Obama went on a nationally televised show and said there was not a "smidgen of curruption in the IRS" was bizarre upon itself. Jump two years later and there are endless trails of emails and paperwork leading to the higher ups in the agency cooking the books to suit their needs and political bias. Even opinion shows on Fox have more credibility than these networks and their job is able to provide bias.....they are not reporters.

 

The job of a news agency or reporter in general should be to investigate the facts to draw a storyline. Not insert their bias to suit the liberal prez they all adore. If everyone simply did their job without bias we would see news stories we will probabaly never even hear of.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

he expectation of gaining meaningful knowledge of the world through TV news is misplaced. They are all rubbish. And "employed analysts" is just the beginning of the reasons why.

 

Define "meaningful." 

 

 

Do we really need to get that silly? Each word has to be defined for you? That's a bit tedious Jeff. Let's play like big boys.

 

Of course, we do. Fox viewers don't know what happened in Egypt. MSNBC viewers think Occupy Wall Street is dominated by Republicans.  Which group has more "meaningful" knowledge?

 

I pointed out to you, as well, how they say they adjusted for all sorts of factors, but failed to disclose the methodology.  It was hokum!  You got caught in your own trap.  You read an article in the media and took it as "meaningful."  What happened is, like the Fox and MSNBC viewers, you came out deluded and misinformed.  Pick your poison.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[OO1]

George Carlin  said it best  

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

he expectation of gaining meaningful knowledge of the world through TV news is misplaced. They are all rubbish. And "employed analysts" is just the beginning of the reasons why.

 

Define "meaningful." 

 

 

Do we really need to get that silly? Each word has to be defined for you? That's a bit tedious Jeff. Let's play like big boys.

 

Of course, we do. Fox viewers don't know what happened in Egypt. MSNBC viewers think Occupy Wall Street is dominated by Republicans.  Which group has more "meaningful" knowledge.

 

I pointed out to you, as well, how they say they adjusted for all sorts of factors, but failed to disclose the methodology.  It was hokum!  You got caught in your own trap.  You read an article in the media and took it as "meaningful."  What happened is, like the Fox and MSNBC viewers, you came out deluded and misinformed.  Pick your poison.

 

What?  It's all on the web page I linked to. See "Methodology." http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

Nothing weird or out of the ordinary there. Standard statistical methods.

 

 

"... (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors)"

 

Please kindly show how they "controlled" for partisanship, education, other "demographic" factors.  I saw how many people they polled and how they used random dialing.  Whoop-te-do.

 

You do realize that question selection is extremely important in any poll, especially of this nature? It would be extremely easy to design results I wanted through question selection.

[Jeff Matthews]

Jeff,

In post #26 - very early - this is what I said:

 

QUOTE

There's no shortcut from independent research. It's work, and it's not convenient, but it's the only path to understanding how the world works. TV/Radio and newspapers are just gross propaganda of the most idiotic kind- no value other than entertainment.

Yah gotta dig it out on your own.

 

END QUOTE

Well, I would not give one iota to getting my news solely in this forum without checking it with the mainstream media.  Seriously, the media is paid to not look as stupid as you say they are.  There's a reason people aren't informed as you would prefer them to be (which is "informed" against the status quo, obviously).  It's simple:  They don't want what you want or care about what you care about.  

 

Do you realize what percentage of our colonial population actually made an effort to join in our revolution?  This is the way people work.  And if some are like the Quakers, so be it.

[rummy]

Bob Beckel is pro life, how can you be a liberal and pro life? He is just collecting a check from a corporation, plain and simple.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

 

 

he expectation of gaining meaningful knowledge of the world through TV news is misplaced. They are all rubbish. And "employed analysts" is just the beginning of the reasons why.

Define "meaningful."

Do we really need to get that silly? Each word has to be defined for you? That's a bit tedious Jeff. Let's play like big boys.

Of course, we do. Fox viewers don't know what happened in Egypt. MSNBC viewers think Occupy Wall Street is dominated by Republicans. Which group has more "meaningful" knowledge.

I pointed out to you, as well, how they say they adjusted for all sorts of factors, but failed to disclose the methodology. It was hokum! You got caught in your own trap. You read an article in the media and took it as "meaningful." What happened is, like the Fox and MSNBC viewers, you came out deluded and misinformed. Pick your poison.

What? It's all on the web page I linked to. See "Methodology." http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

Nothing weird or out of the ordinary there. Standard statistical methods.

"... (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors)"

Please kindly show how they "controlled" for partisanship, education, other "demographic" factors. I saw how many people they polled and how they used random dialing. Whoop-te-do.

You do realize that question selection is extremely important in any poll, especially of this nature? It would be extremely easy to design results I wanted through question selection.

They didn't publish the statistical math, only the technique, which was logistical regression, a statistical method. I'm not a statistician, but these are typical methods used when sample size is small as you have with phone surveys.

 

Too bad you're not a statistician, or you would see what I am saying.