FOX News: not just bad news, but ANTI-news? [Archive]

Lobohan

11-26-2011, 12:31 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/fox-news-viewers-informed-current-events-don-t-watch-news-study-finds-article-1.981257#ixzz1epv4V4zS

Is it *really* that bad?

This sounds a lot like that "IE users are dumb" hoax from a few months back. But the university seems legit.It's that bad in that it informs people about things that are not true. So there is a set of "conservative facts" that don't actually reflect our actual universe. Someone who doesn't watch any news wouldn't have those incorrect facts distorting their view of the world.

Derleth

11-26-2011, 01:01 PM

It's that bad in that it informs people about things that are not true. So there is a set of "conservative facts" that don't actually reflect our actual universe. Someone who doesn't watch any news wouldn't have those incorrect facts distorting their view of the world.Reality has a well-known Liberal bias; creating 'conservative facts' is a way to Balance that out, ensuring the news is Fair And Balanced.

Revtim

11-26-2011, 01:04 PM

It's not clear to me, though, what they mean by "don't watch news at all" in that survey.

I barely watch television news at all—whether it's FOX or CNN or MSNBC or the nightly network broadcasts—but i still read plenty of news, mainly online.Good point, that describes me as well.

Scylla

11-26-2011, 02:23 PM

Rhythmdvl

11-26-2011, 03:16 PM

RickJay

11-26-2011, 03:54 PM

Irrespective of the sampling issue, I was instantly skeptical as a result of the same point mhendo makes; "watching news on TV" does not mean "unaware of news."

I almost never watch news on TV. I certainly never watch TV news at home, except live election coverage, which isn't a frequent occurrence; I can only say I watch TV news in the sense that I sometimes catch it when I'm in a public place with a TV tuned in to a news channel.

But I am in fact reasonably well informed, because I read newspapers, both paper and online, and keep abreast of the news that way.

It's entirely possible FOX viewers are less informed than people who watch no news at all for the simple reason that people who don't spend much time watching TV spend more time reading and such.

Derleth

11-26-2011, 04:00 PM

"watching news on TV" does not mean "unaware of news."I believe you dropped a 'not' here.

Anyway, to bolster your point, the median age of TV viewership was 50 as of 2008 (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988273?refCatId=14) and there's absolutely no reason to think it's come down since then. TV simply isn't relevant to the coming generation; much like how the Boomers utterly failed to switch from TV to radio when they hit middle age, the people who will hit middle age in a few decades are not going to switch from the Internet to TV when they do.

Derleth

11-26-2011, 04:12 PM

I believe you dropped a 'not' here.Or not.

Dewey Finn

11-26-2011, 04:18 PM

I don't think it's a coincidence that this was reported in the New York Daily News. It has a long-standing rivalry with the New York Post, which is also owned by News Corporation. Whatever the merits of this study, I'll bet that the editors of the Daily News were quite happy to publish these results.

John Mace

11-26-2011, 04:56 PM

And what about people who non-critically read an article that reinforces their point of view and immediately rush into the BBQ Pit to proclaim their superiority?

But this was the best part:

Those surveyed also struggled with current events closer to home. Just 47% were able to identify the Occupy Wall Street protesters as predominantly Democratic, while 11% thought they were Republican. Here it was MSNBC viewers who got it wrong the most - watching the left-leaning network was linked to a 10-point increase in the likelihood of misidentifying the demonstrators.

I watch lots of news, almost never FOX, and I can't tell you how many Occupiers who were interviewed and made a point to say they were not affiliated with any party, or that they represented a true cross section of the political spectrum.

BigT

11-26-2011, 05:28 PM

I watch lots of news, almost never FOX, and I can't tell you how many Occupiers who were interviewed and made a point to say they were not affiliated with any party, or that they represented a true cross section of the political spectrum.

And the Tea Partiers claimed not to be all Republican.

It's just an in thing not to identify with any party. But when you look at the issues given, they clearly are more in line with the Democratic Party.

And, anyways, it's been shown before that Fox News watchers are less informed than other news watchers, so I don't find this so hard to believe. Not knowing about Egypt and Libya is inexcusable for anyone who actually watches the news.

And the stuff about people being stupid enough to answer the survey doesn't work as long as there is still a clear correlation. Because that means that even the stupid people who don't watch Fox News are more aware.

Still, I'd like to see the actual questions. That website is weird. You go to the main page, which has a link to the article, rather than any research. And then a link in the article tells you to go to their main page. So there doesn't appear to be any way to actually get more information. Unlike the other stuff mentioned, that is enough for me to be suspicious.

ElvisL1ves

11-26-2011, 05:32 PM

Old story.

Kent Brockman: Excuse me, did you see the six o'clock news?
Comic Book Guy: No, I get my news from the internet, like a normal person under seventy. Farewell, dinosaur.

Grumman

11-26-2011, 05:37 PM

Is it *really* that bad?
Yes. Forget the smug bullshit about reality having a liberal bias - Fox is devoted to the production of lies. That's all it comes down to, an organisation that deliberately fabricates evidence. Whether they're mislabeling Republicans as Democrats, creating caricatures and portraying them as stock photos, or declaring that people who like a particular TV show are actually committing fraud, Fox News is about lying their asses off to anyone stupid enough to believe them.

aruvqan

11-26-2011, 05:38 PM

Wasn't there a study/survey done within the past year or so that found the opposite result? Something like Fox viewers are more likely to recognize certain political terms or situations or somethingorother... I can't recall it so don't know if it's germane to this thread.
OK, sort of like the average German preWW2 hearing the term Jew and recognizing it as a dirty, mutant evil baby killing and eating scum who has as their entire purpose stealing as much as possible from the noble Aryan Germans.

Unfortunately, honest understanding comes from unbiased reporting. Every news broadcast or publication has a bias. Some are more biased than others. Who was it that said that history is written by the winners? We think of Nazi era Germany as all evil but there was a fairly large amount of the population that were only Nazi in name, they had to join the party to keep their job, most kids were forced into the 2 Nazi organized youth movements. Men were pretty much universally conscripted into the military unless they were physically unable to. The Soviet Union were not all evil communists, wanting to destroy capitalism, the USA and the American Way - most people wanted to have families and get on with living. Not all Muslims want to destroy the US, many are perfectly happy to live here.

Revtim

11-26-2011, 05:42 PM

And what about people who non-critically read an article that reinforces their point of view and immediately rush into the BBQ Pit to proclaim their superiority?Saying it reminds me of a hoax isn't considered critical? Not even a little?

Hal Briston

11-26-2011, 07:07 PM

Still, I'd like to see the actual questions.Then scroll down on Scylla's link (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/).

Rhythmdvl

11-26-2011, 07:13 PM

OK, sort of like the average German preWW2 hearing the term Jew and recognizing it as a dirty, mutant evil baby killing and eating scum who has as their entire purpose stealing as much as possible from the noble Aryan Germans.

No, sort of like the average news report of a survey does a lot of conclusion-making on behalf of the survey without regards to any semblance of journalistic rigour.

Please don't make it sound like I'm defending Fox viewers (in general) as in touch with facts and capable of perceiving the network's frequently tortured logic to promote the Repbulican/conservative agenda. I need a shower.

GIGObuster

11-26-2011, 08:11 PM

I was going to refer to the constant attempts at discrediting climate science, but this blast from the past should be enough:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3936056/moon-landing-hoax/

Yep, FOX news still relies of false equivalence to mislead viewers, and notice how Gerardo does not mention that it was thanks to FOX network that the Moon hoax TV special from several years ago, was a big reason why the levels of support for this "theory" are what they are nowadays.

Now the kicker, this bit comes from early this year. Kudos for Bill Nye in his attempt to be the voice of reason, but unfortunately Gerardo and FOX gets the last, and most influential bit of the false equivalence to be believed by their viewers.

Joey P

11-26-2011, 08:37 PM

If you go to the methodology only 64 people of the 612 surveyed watched Fox news at some point.

So, that's your sample

So, what you really have is a survey of people who will answer their phone when they don't recognize the number, and who will hang on and wait for the autodialer to connect them to a human being who will attempt to coerce them into taking a survey, and who will then spend the next five minutes or so answering multiple choice questions from a stranger.

Than, this is apparently normalized for demographics.

I'm not impressed:

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

I just flipped through that very quickly and one of the questions caught my attention:

K1. Americans now have more ways than ever before to get their news about politics and world
affairs. I’m going to read you a list of news sources. As I read the list, just say “yes” if you got news
from that source any time in the past week. [ROTATE within categories]
NPR
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
CNN
Fox News
MSNBC
NJ-TV
A National News Broadcast
A Talk Radio Show
A Local TV News Broadcast
A Sunday Morning Political News Show
A Local Newspaper
A National newspaper, like the New York Times or USA Today
A Political Blog or News Website

I probably wouldn't have said yes to anything and would have been one of the people listed as not watching any news. But going through the survey questions (and being honest with myself) I'd probably get about half of them right. Clearly I'm picking up my information somewhere. I mean, if I just sat in a sensory deprivation box all day I wouldn't be able to answer any of them. I suppose I get a few tidbits from whatever random (local) news channel happens to be on in the background, a little from Yahoo* and the rest probably comes from here, but I don't go out of my way to watch the news, I don't make a point of checking out news websites, I really don't purposely do anything to acquire my knowledge of the world around me but it seems unfair to group me in with people that seem to magically attain the political news from the ether...unless of course they're specifically talking about people that don't watch news on TV. I suppose I could be grouped in with those people. When I do watch the news on TV, it's just the local stuff.

*As much as I hate Yahoo! I keep it as my home page at work so that each time I fire up my browser I get a few random local/US/world headlines...then I go over to Google.

monavis

12-09-2011, 07:19 AM

I wonder if Obama isn't re-elected if Fox news will go out of business;most of their news is criticism of what ever Obama does or says, if something good happens they try to discredit that.

joebuck20

12-09-2011, 07:30 AM

I wonder if Obama isn't re-elected if Fox news will go out of business;most of their news is criticism of what ever Obama does or says, if something good happens they try to discredit that.

No they'll just become a cheerleader for the new president, just like they did during the Bush administration.

Ludovic

12-09-2011, 07:30 AM

unfortunately Gerardo and FOX gets the last, and most influential bit of the false equivalence to be believed by their viewers.They just did it so they could become rico. (And not have to buy Suave.)

Budget Player Cadet

12-09-2011, 09:15 AM

Hmm... Fox news is biased, full of shit, incredibly misinforming, and not even technically news (the correct title is "Entertainment")...

...Speaking of things that aren't news...

GIGObuster

12-09-2011, 10:18 AM

To me it will be always the false equivalence that they bring day in and day out. Sure, they can say that they are fair and balanced, but it is a crazy balance what they have there.

You can have 99.9% of expert historians, scientists, technical people saying that humans did go to the moon, but FOX will balance that with .1% pure denier idiocy, a clearly false counterbalance; but never mind, they make money in the effort (It was the Fox entertainment division the ones that made the Moon Hoax special, but FOX news was and is still there with their patented "?" headlines citing the show).

elucidator

12-09-2011, 10:39 AM

But is it falsifiable?

GIGObuster

12-09-2011, 06:47 PM

But is it falsifiable?

Surely you jest you maker of enlightened ones! I know that you are riffing the poster named as the one that performed spectacular feats of stratospheric skill, never before attempted by civilized man, but that hot air balloon of a poster failed to return to the fair... :)

elucidator

12-09-2011, 11:00 PM

You can't know that for sure! Hasn't gotten back yet, thats the most you can say! Unless you can predict the exact instant that the ballon doesn't return, your conjecture is not falsfiable, and therefore, not really science! Its like that famous blimp that maybe did or did not crash and burn in New Jersey? You remember, it was called the Heisenberg. Pretty sure that's it.

monavis

12-10-2011, 06:21 AM

Gagundathar

12-10-2011, 06:37 AM

I could be wrong, but I think it was the Hindenberg.

But until you can determine both its velocity and location, how can you truly know?

Ravenman

12-10-2011, 07:59 AM

If you go to the methodology only 64 people of the 612 surveyed watched Fox news at some point.

So, that's your sampleYou must be a Fox News viewer.

Because that's 64%, or about 390 people, who were surveyed and watched Fox News.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-10-2011, 09:03 AM

You can't know that for sure! Hasn't gotten back yet, thats the most you can say! Unless you can predict the exact instant that the ballon doesn't return, your conjecture is not falsfiable, and therefore, not really science!

Even for a straw man, that's too much of an exaggeration. We all know that reasonable people can be satisfied with predictions that modestly stick to "within twenty years," or the like; surely you realize I'd stick up for GIGO against anyone who claims his latest conjecture isn't falsifiable?

heatmiserfl

12-10-2011, 02:17 PM

But is it falsifiable?

:D

heatmiserfl

12-10-2011, 02:29 PM

If you go to the methodology only 64 people of the 612 surveyed watched Fox news at some point.

The negative and affirmative of each of those questions added up to 100, so I'm guessing that 64% of the people in the survey watched FOX news, not 64 people.

Anyway, the survey only asked questions on 3 topics. Not informative either way. I'd like to see a survey that really demonstrates the effect of FOX false propaganda on a wide variety of important topics. I take that back, I don't want to see the results of that survey.

GIGObuster

12-10-2011, 04:53 PM

You see elucidator ? The hot air balloon is still in the land of Oz. :)

Of course the item here is the infamy of FAUX news, not what the hot air balloon wants, and there is no worse source IMHO than the one that lies to their viewers via the false equivalency method.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-10-2011, 08:13 PM

You see elucidator ? The hot air balloon is still in the land of Oz.

You're a strange one, GIGO. I'm the guy who got everything he wants, who agrees that your latest prediction is falsifiable, and still you're acting like there's some distance between our positions. Why is that?

Of course the item here is the infamy of FAUX news, not what the hot air balloon wants

Again, since I already got what I wanted, I'm mystified as to why you persist with the insults. Aren't we currently on the same side?

GIGObuster

12-10-2011, 09:05 PM

You're a strange one, GIGO. I'm the guy who got everything he wants, who agrees that your latest prediction is falsifiable, and still you're acting like there's some distance between our positions. Why is that?

Again, since I already got what I wanted, I'm mystified as to why you persist with the insults. Aren't we currently on the same side?
If that was the case you should had come already with the sources that gave you the foolish lines of ideas and tactics that were so pitiful, so off with those sources.

It has already pointed out that not even the "falsify" fetish you have is of not much use regarding climate research as it has already falsifications and just plain misuse of that tool have been proposed many times before by deniers (once again I was right, your ideas are of the 10:20:30 variety), already proposed, and even more sad, you still act like if they have not been dealt with before.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/falsifying_theories.php

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-10-2011, 09:31 PM

If that was the case you should had come already with the sources that gave you the foolish lines of ideas and tactics that were so pitiful, so off with those sources.

The idea and tactic for some reason under discussion in this thread is -- me asking for falsification criteria when folks make predictions. If you're asking for the source of that, I can but mention that the college I attended was as keen on that stuff as the high school before it and the grad school that followed.

It has already pointed out that not even the "falsify" fetish you have is of not much use regarding climate research as it has already falsifications and just plain misuse of that tool have been proposed many times before by deniers (once again I was right, your ideas are of the 10:20:30 variety)

How are they of the 10:20:30 variety? I'm not supplying one of my own; I merely asked for yours, and you eventually supplied one.

already proposed, and even more sad, you still act like if they have not been dealt with before.

Again, your replies mystify me: I'm merely acting as if you've supplied a perfectly good falsification criterion. I acted the same way when you offered your original criterion; I kept acting the same way once you'd shifted the goalposts to a different falsifiable criterion; I'm still acting the same way now that you've moved the goalposts to the current falsifiable criterion. I'm simply and only acting as if I find no fault in it.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/falsifying_theories.php

From that link: "Climate denialists are fond of arguments regarding the falsifying of hypotheses. There are two main thrusts they use here, (ironically enough mutually exclusive thrusts**). The first is that global warming is an "unfalsifiable" theory and therefore not a true scientific construct."

And then: "The second "falsification" angle taken by the denalists is that real world observations have contradicted AGW theories"

The former clearly doesn't apply here, as I don't claim it's an unfalsifiable theory; the latter doesn't apply either, as I'm not claiming that real world observations have contradicted said theories. I therefore don't know why you posted so irrelevant a link, sure as I don't know why you insist we're on different sides of the issue; I'm not entirely sure what you think we currently disagree about, or what "10:20:30" claim you think I'm making. From my perspective, your claims seem satisfactory and I'm in apparent agreement; I can't imagine what you'd like to change about that.

GIGObuster

12-10-2011, 10:05 PM

The idea and tactic for some reason under discussion in this thread is -- me asking for falsification criteria when folks make predictions. If you're asking for the source of that, I can but mention that the college I attended was as keen on that stuff as the high school before it and the grad school that followed.

The rest can be ignored as just pap and not related.

No, this is not the point of this discussion so do not make it your show. As it was pointed out before, and this related to FOX too, you did "come" with the "original" idea that "they call it climate change now" that actually came from Frank Luntz" and his research to make talking points for Republicans, FOX and other followed with the meme and it mutated to the claim that climate researchers did that, unless you can claim Frank Luntz was your high school teacher. :)

But this goes to one point I made many threads ago, many of the ones that continue to claim that they had a clever or show stoppers ideas in reality are reheating year old baloney.

If you can not admit you got the lousy ideas from somewhere, you are the one that is admitting that you are lousy yourself; one of the things I do, specially in discussions on media, is to point out that we need the sources that you use to get those lousy ideas (and applying falsification the way you did was boiler plate standard issue) for two reasons:

To assign blame and condemnation for misleading people, and to advise others to dump them as sources of information.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-11-2011, 05:19 AM

The rest can be ignored as just pap and not related.

You're the one who made the 10:20:30 accusation; how can it be unrelated for me to point out that (a) you supplied a perfectly good criterion, and (b) I merely agreed with you? You stated that I'm acting like this hasn't been dealt with; how can it be unrelated for me to reply that I'm merely acting like you've supplied a perfectly good criterion? You posted that link; how can it be unrelated for me to point out that neither of its claims apply here?

If you can not admit you got the lousy ideas from somewhere, you are the one that is admitting that you are lousy yourself; one of the things I do, specially in discussions on media, is to point out that we need the sources that you use to get those lousy ideas (and applying falsification the way you did was boiler plate standard issue)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by "applying falsification the way you did"; that's the way I always apply falsification. I asked for your criterion, and you supplied one; I was then satisfied, and you then -- accused me of going the 10:20:30 route, which makes no sense.

you did "come" with the "original" idea that "they call it climate change now" that actually came from Frank Luntz"

You're misquoting me; I said that "we call it climate change now," because we in fact do: I call it climate change, and you call it climate change, and the IPCC -- calls it climate change to the point of naming itself accordingly; were I to tell my younger self what was in store for the better part of two decades and counting, I'd need to specify that it's not "global warming" but "climate change" to keep him from mistakenly jumping to the wrong conclusion.

You're simply mixing up causation and correlation: Luntz thought his idea would have traction because it's what jumps out at anybody who hears both terms: the climate changes regardless of whether the globe warms, such that folks pretty much can't help but note the difference: one encompasses the other, and includes the opposite of the other, and is for that reason preferred by bodies like the IPCC, and people like me, and the aforementioned "we".

Luntz was right about how people react to the term, and sensibly recommended its use; the term, however, predates Luntz, and is sensibly used by all sorts of people.

BigT

12-11-2011, 06:20 AM

Then scroll down on Scylla's link (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/).

That is weird, as I am certain I couldn't scroll past the first page before. But the questions make me sure that having gotten the news from the web is not an excuse, as that's one of the news sources allowed.

And Joey P's problem isn't relevant, as the question is "Why do Fox News viewers seem to absorb less via osmosis"

And, Waldo, the problem with Deniers is that they go around finding the holes in peoples arguments, full well knowing that there are other arguments without such holes in them. They will attack the people with the weakest arguments, the ones that they know will not be able to work within their "rules," and then act as if they have defended their own arguments. It's the same tactics creationists and hoaxers use.

And I'm sorry, but your debate techniques seem awfully similar. I don't blame GIGO for misinterpreting you.

monavis

12-11-2011, 07:09 AM

But until you can determine both its velocity and location, how can you truly know?

The movie of the crash proved a lot!

GIGObuster

12-11-2011, 09:15 AM

Euphonious Polemic

12-11-2011, 02:29 PM

You're the one who made the 10:20:30 accusation;

and more blah blah blah.

Could you please take your climate change hoax crap, moon landing conspiracy and/or Kennedy was killed by space lizards crap to another thread please?

You are a tiresome little moron.

Mosier

12-11-2011, 06:28 PM

And what about people who non-critically read an article that reinforces their point of view and immediately rush into the BBQ Pit to proclaim their superiority?

Somebody rushed into the BBQ Pit to proclaim their superiority, but it sure wasn't the OP.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-11-2011, 08:15 PM

And, Waldo, the problem with Deniers is that they go around finding the holes in peoples arguments, full well knowing that there are other arguments without such holes in them. They will attack the people with the weakest arguments, the ones that they know will not be able to work within their "rules," and then act as if they have defended their own arguments. It's the same tactics creationists and hoaxers use.

And I'm sorry, but your debate techniques seem awfully similar. I don't blame GIGO for misinterpreting you.

But I don't limit it to "the people with the weakest arguments," or those I know "will not be able to work within their 'rules'"; I put the same question to everyone who offers up a prediction, asking any and all for their falsification criteria of choice. I put the same question to creationists and hoaxers; I'd put it to anyone who predicted global cooling instead of global warming, I'd put it to anyone who predicts the outcome of a Super Bowl or a presidential election -- and I praise GIGO for having supplied a fine response.

In his original post, and the following ones, he is clearly still full of "his younger self" And the context does show that the idea is indeed to claim that it was changed and the change needed to be ridiculed

But I didn't believe "the change needs to be ridiculed"; I believed that failing to change should be ridiculed. You have my position exactly backwards.

You're the one who made the 10:20:30 accusation;

and more blah blah blah.

Could you please take your climate change hoax crap, moon landing conspiracy and/or Kennedy was killed by space lizards crap to another thread please?

Leaving aside that I believe climate change is real, and have never called it a hoax, simply note who brought this tangent into this thread to begin with. You dismiss the 10:20:30 point as "blah blah blah"; who, here, first mentioned it? To whom did I merely reply?

GIGObuster

12-11-2011, 08:54 PM

I put the same question to creationists and hoaxers; I'd put it to anyone who predicted global cooling instead of global warming, I'd put it to anyone who predicts the outcome of a Super Bowl or a presidential election -- and I praise GIGO for having supplied a fine response.
Yeah, yeah, we are all against Eurasia.

But I didn't believe "the change needs to be ridiculed"; I believed that failing to change should be ridiculed. You have my position exactly backwards.
And you did this maneuver before, in the end you do want your cake and eat it too.

The point here is that even your escape hatch is a flawed one too, similarly to what happened with the "no warming" "it is not cooling" points, both were flawed. Likewise claiming that I have your position backwards is not saving you from realizing that you were talking nonsense, the point was that even "failing to change" was a stupid point to assimilate from the denier media as no change was needed or made by the scientists.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 06:52 AM

The point here is that even your escape hatch is a flawed one too, similarly to what happened with the "no warming" "it is not cooling" points, both were flawed.

There was no flaw when your original falsification criterion was in effect; it was, then, entirely relevant to mention how many years had gone by with "no warming" -- because each one that passed kept bringing us closer to falsifying it. But once you moved the goalposts to a new and different prediction, the mere lack of warming stopped being relevant; a lack of warming -- for decades or even centuries -- wouldn't have counted against it; I then dropped the point as a result.

As you've now moved the goalposts to a third criterion, the past lack of warming remains irrelevant -- except insofar as asking whether (a) the next fourteen years will play out like the last fourteen, and whether (b) it'll keep on keeping on like that.

The flaw appears only if you ignore that I moved on when you did. Bring back your first test and I'll of course reply with the same point -- but so long as either of your all-new and all-different tests are in effect, my response changes accordingly.

Likewise claiming that I have your position backwards is not saving you from realizing that you were talking nonsense, the point was that even "failing to change" was a stupid point to assimilate from the denier media as no change was needed or made by the scientists.

Quite right: the scientists were naming the IPCC after "climate change" rather than "global warming" long before Luntz came on the scene and reached the same conclusion they had.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 09:20 AM

Bulls eye, "we were always at war with Eurasia"

You are not fooling anyone, it is not that you are now in the more accurate camp (and this will remain doubtful until you do not come forward with the sources that gave you those peculiar ideas), it is that you are inept on your claims that you were not influenced by media and sites that misguided you early.

The impression one gets now is that you are also continuing ad nauseaum to claim that you were correct all along, and that in itself is not necessary, but the longer someone goes repeating a moot point, the longer it is clear that someone is really butt hurt. :)

The main issue here is that FOX news not only can be condemned for misleading many with the Moon Hoax issue, but they were and they are still seeding doubts not only on climate science but defaming the scientists themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 09:44 AM

The impression one gets now is that you are also continuing ad nauseaum to claim that you were correct all along

About what?

I requested a falsifiable prediction from you; you supplied one; it hasn't yet been falsified, and I haven't claimed otherwise.

You later moved the goalposts to a new and different prediction; it also hasn't been falsified; I likewise haven't claimed otherwise.

You've now moved the goalposts to yet another prediction, which also hasn't been falsified; I again haven't claimed otherwise.

So what do you think I'm crowing about being "correct all along" about? You were the one who offered up each prediction; I haven't yet bothered to offer up a claim of my own about whether your predictions were correct or incorrect. There's precious little for me to have been "correct all along" about -- or, at that, 'incorrect all along' about; I'm not the one making a bunch of predictions; that's your job; I'm just the guy who never yet claimed you got even one of 'em wrong.

it is not that you are now in the more accurate camp (and this will remain doubtful until you do not come forward with the sources that gave you those peculiar ideas)

Surely you don't believe further sources are required for the "peculiar idea" that predictions, to be taken seriously, should be falsifiable?

The main issue here is that FOX news not only can be condemned for misleading many with the Moon Hoax issue, but they were and they are still seeding doubts not only on climate science but defaming the scientists themselves.

It is, as you say, the main issue; why you and elucidator discussed some other issue before I weighed in likewise is a question only the two of you can answer.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 09:56 AM

It is, as you say, the main issue; why you and elucidator discussed some other issue before I weighed in likewise is a question only the two of you can answer.
It is called a joke son, others did get it, so stop with your silly chips on your shoulder.

But just like before, your constant efforts do betray yet another lousy tactic of yours: to concentrate on the personal so as to avoid touching the matter at hand, so what do you think of FOX's efforts on the false equivalency and even direct accusations that there is a conspiracy among scientists?

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 10:00 AM

It is called a joke son, others did get it, so stop with your silly chips on your shoulder.

Hey, I thought elucidator's first post was funny; I just thought his reply to your reply was bizarre, and so merited a quick response.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 10:02 AM

Hey, I thought elucidator's first post was funny; I just thought his reply to your reply was bizarre, and so merited a quick response.

Let me get an expert to reply to this:

[Foghorn Leghorn]
That was also a joke, son.
[/Foghorn Leghorn]

:)

But once again, your quick response avoided the matter at hand, I wonder why?

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 10:07 AM

Ah, I see you've now edited the post in question.

But just like before, your constant efforts do betray yet another lousy tactic of yours: to concentrate on the personal so as to avoid touching the matter at hand, so what do you think of FOX's efforts on the false equivalency and even direct accusations that there is a conspiracy among scientists?

As I don't watch FOX News, I'm not especially able to comment. From what's been said, it seems they deal in both and should be called out for both.

But once again, your quick response avoided the matter at hand, I wonder why?

Because you went back and edited that part in.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 10:24 AM

As I don't watch FOX News, I'm not especially able to comment. From what's been said, it seems they deal in both and should be called out for both.

As you are not especially able to comment then you should not make this your show.

Regarding the misinformation of FOX, it is important to notice that they, like many bloggers that mislead so many on climategate, did rely on people like Bob Carter.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/43/xvMmPtEt8dc

FOX and others did advise many to then use reheated baloney arguments from Carter on the surface data and the scientists, and as mentioned in several threads before, many were fooled on following their sorry advise on what to use for also sorry and dumb debating tactics.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 10:33 AM

As you are not especially able to comment then you should not make this your show.

Wouldn't have, if not for the off-topic hijack that continued for one post too many.

At which point I offered an oh-so-brief correction that should've been the end of it, as you lot could've swiftly gotten back to the subject at hand.

Regarding the misinformation of FOX, it is important to notice that they, like many bloggers that mislead so many on climategate, did rely on people like Bob Carter.

I'm not sure why you're including this in a response to me; I don't rely on FOX, the bloggers, or Bob Carter. I rely on those who make predictions right in front of me, and do so by asking them to specify as needed; they've always done so.

Robot Arm

12-12-2011, 10:39 AM

Let me get an expert to reply to this:

[Foghorn Leghorn]
That was also a joke, son.
[/Foghorn Leghorn]You're built too low, the fast ones go over your head! I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em! You got the keep your eye on the ball! EYE. BALL. Eyeball! Almost had a gag there; joke, that is.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 10:43 AM

I'm not sure why you're including this in a response to me; I don't rely on FOX, the bloggers, or Bob Carter. I rely on those who make predictions right in front of me, and do so by asking them to specify as needed; they've always done so.
Meh, played like a fiddle and even with the evidence shown you still pretend that it was your idea, grow up.

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 10:51 AM

Meh, played like a fiddle and even with the evidence shown you still pretend that it was your idea, grow up.

Again, you really need to specify -- if you for some reason want to continue this hijack. I certainly don't pretend that it's my idea to ask for falsification criteria when folks make predictions; it's taught in all sorts of schools. I'm likewise not the one who made the predictions in question; none of them were my idea, each prediction came from you. Sensible folks ask, and people like you give one answer after another after another; it's like playing a fiddle, or something.

elucidator

12-12-2011, 10:53 AM

These "sensible folks" of which you speak? Outside of yourself, who are they?

The Other Waldo Pepper

12-12-2011, 10:56 AM

These "sensible folks" of which you speak? Outside of yourself, who are they?

Well, to recap, GIGO put his original prediction out there, and later backed away from it; I asked for his new prediction; he refused to give one; Bricker asked likewise, and GIGO supplied it. GIGO later backed away from that prediction; I asked for his new prediction; GIGO supplied it. So, full marks to Bricker, for starters.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 11:23 AM

Meh, stratospheric acts unknown to man to make it his show. :)

As pointed before, that FOX news is also relying on denier sources to make their so called news is really reprehensible, they also need a dose of the medicine recommended by the BBC to avoid false equivalency to crop up or to continue to use that as an excuse to mislead the people.

http://theconversation.edu.au/australian-media-take-note-the-bbc-understands-balance-in-climate-change-coverage-2462
So why when reporting a scientific finding relating to climate change would we equally value the opinion of another person who may be an expert in economics (as they often seem to be), or a politician with no scientific background?

The BBC Trust report did not say the voice of scientific institutions should be taken at face value – far from it. It stated that the BBC had “an over-reliance on a narrow range of external information sources”.

The analysis of two years of reports found three quarters of the broadcast news items about scientific research related to stories where the institution was the source.

So the report is recommending that journalists do what they should always have done – investigate and verify.

By all means ask another expert’s point of view, determine whether the latest finding is in fact good science or what its implications are.

But we need to move away from the idea of “balance” between those who believe it is all a big conspiracy and those who have done some work and looked at the actual evidence.

The report concludes that in particular the BBC must take special care to continue efforts to ensure viewers are able to distinguish well-established fact from opinion on scientific issues, and to communicate this distinction clearly to the audience. In other words, to remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Australian media, are you listening?

And the "Australian media" they refer here is the denier one controled by Rupert Murdoch, that is FOX in the USA. Are you listening FOX news?

Fiveyearlurker

12-12-2011, 08:51 PM

Euphonious Polemic

12-12-2011, 08:57 PM

Well, apparently in Fox world 8.6 is greater than 9. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-unemployment-chart-better-graphics/2011/12/12/gIQAUVgNqO_blog.html) Anyone think this was not intentional?

Priceless.

This really does help explain the OP. Viewers of this FOX news graphic will actually be MORE ignorant of the facts that those who watch no news at all.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 09:52 PM

Fox is hiding the incline! :)

Euphonious Polemic

12-12-2011, 10:15 PM

Fox is hiding the incline! :)

That's the thing.

Fox news (and fans) feel that it's perfectly acceptable to screw with visuals like graphs, in order to promote a particular political agenda. This is why they think that others must be capable of doing the same thing, and they assume that they probably do.

This is why they assume that those "on the left" must necessarily be making shit up - because they think it's just the way everyone operates in life.

GIGObuster

12-12-2011, 10:31 PM

I also want to point out that my joke was referring to the fact that this "magic" with graphics was done also on Climategate, for example:

FOX news does think that 100% is not the limit a survey can have.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912080002
What happened? Well, here's the Rasmussen poll Fox & Friends cited. They asked respondents: "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?" According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren't sure).

Fox News' graphics department added together the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent, and called that new group "somewhat likely." Then, for some reason, they threw in the 35 percent "very likely" as their own group, even though they already added that number to the "somewhat likely" percentage. Then they mashed together the "not very likely" and "not likely at all" groups, and threw the 15 percent who were unsure into the waste bin. Voila -- 120 percent.
After 3 years of investigations and the BEST survey (done by skeptics, mind you) showed that there was no falsification, a snowball still has better chances in hell than seeing FOX news ever correcting the misleading information that they provided during that "affair".