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

[elucidator]

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

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@elucidator

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]

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.

Australian media take note: the BBC understands balance in climate change...

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]

Well, apparently in Fox world 8.6 is greater than 9. Anyone think this was not intentional?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Fiveyearlurker

Well, apparently in Fox world 8.6 is greater than 9. 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]

Fox is hiding the incline!

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@GIGObuster

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]

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”.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Check out these various maps on Fox News. The Middle East one is particularly stunning.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112130027?frontpage

How can watching this stuff not make a person stupider? They are certainly anti-geography.

And check this one out: who is polling at 17.2% in the Republican Caucus in Iowa?

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201112140011