I think most of already suspected this to be the case but nice to have it confirmed.
Apparently they are not watching the right show, Bill O’Reilly has the fewest viewers in the low knowledge level group. Here are the breakdowns . Online news discussion blogs had the highest percentage in the low knowledge level group, not suprising at all.
The study to which OP links contains some startling (and very sad) facts about FoxNews viewers, e.g.
There are some intelligent right-wingers who post at SDMB. I do hope they will appear and answer simple Yes/No questions:
Does Doper believe FoxNews’ approach to “news” is good for America?
Does Doper believe MSNBC’s or NPR’s “leftish” slant is comparable to FoxNews “rightish” propaganda?
(Browser question: I had to view the page with Firefox, as IE-7 initially displays it, puts up an “Unable to load … aborted” Alert box a second later; reverts to “Cannot display” when I click away the alert. This often happens for my at alternet.org, sometimes at nytimes.com. Anyone know why? It’s another good reason for me to transition to Firefox, but I’m still curious.)
What’s next? “Study Confirms That Children Like To Play”?
No; “Study Confirms That Water is Wet.”
Raining on the parade: this study doesn’t prove anything of the kind. It only shows a correlation between Fox News watchers, and being ill-informed. I don’t see where it proves that one comes before the other. Or did I miss that part?
See, the recent tax cut extention/hostage crisis DIDN’T include any “tax cuts”…the Republicans set it up that way years ago, by making the largest tax cuts in history to the upper 3% so that when they expired (wow, right around mid-term, what a coincidence :rolleyes:) that expiration could be cast as the LARGEST tax increase ever. :eek:
Yeah, people who watch and believe everything they hear on Faux or any of the other right-wing media outlets are stupid/non-critcal thinkers. What else is new. Where do I get some of that research money to conduct my own studies to prove what we already know?
Well, Fox News clearly doesn’t cure them of their ill-informedness, does it?
I have seen studies which controlled for education and even political alignment which reached a similar conclusion about FoxNews viewers. Sorry, no cite (My google-fu is poor and lazy), but you can believe me(!) or Google for it yourself if your question is sincere.
I don’t think the study creates quite the monster you’re suggesting.
For example, “Most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created a few jobs or caused job losses.”
Of the people that watch Fox News every day, a staggering 91% got this wrong, believing the statement. Yet so did 90% of the people that get their news from the “Big 3” network news broadcasts, and so did 87% of those who get their news from PBS and/or NPR.
Neither the article or the OP claimed that only Fox News makes you stupid.
However both do attribute the cause to the effect. Any such study has to account for the fact that 100% of the people who rely on the accuracy of TV news broadcasts are stupid.
You get this kind of result by testing a right wing viewership for right wing oriented falsehoods. If you would test a left leaning group for left oriented falsehoods you would get the same result.
Roderick Femm was not arguing that the correlation doesn’t exist. Only pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. It hasn’t been proven that Fox News viewers are “made” stupid by watching Fox News. They might be that way to start with.
I think it is scientifically safe to assume that Fox News does not make one stupid. People sometimes act like filling people with knowledge makes them smarter. It doesn’t. If you forced Sarah Palin to study at MIT for four years, she would still, at the end, be just as poor at general thinking as she is now. By a similar token, if you took the sludgy-brains who watch Fox News and fed them accurate information, they would not be made smarter.
I realize I’m being anal about the usage of terms, but I get annoyed when the concepts of knowledge and intelligence are conflated. There are tons of 10-year-olds in the world who are literally smarter than the average Fox News viewer, in the sense that they are better at learning, memorizing, and reasoning logically.
Do you understand “controlled for education and even political alignment”?
What do you mean by this?
I mean, how is this question of yours relevant to his remark?
Are you asking what “controlled for education and even political alignment” means?
Or asking what I mean by asking if someone understands it?
(I’m not trying to be pedantic or troublesome; I’m truing to cut through communication confusion.)
I’m asking the latter. No worries about pedantry.
Peeta Mellark wrote, in response to my post about controlled studies “Roderick Femm was not arguing that the correlation doesn’t exist. Only pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. It hasn’t been proven that Fox News viewers are “made” stupid by watching Fox News. They might be that way to start with.”
Stupidity and education are not antonyms; nevertheless my impression is that Peeta Mellark missed the point about controlling for educational level.
Causality is hard to prove with 100% confidence. We might imagine a gene which causes even educated people to have stupid political ideas, and which also causes them to watch FoxNews. However, one builds controls into experiments to increase one’s confidence in possible causal relationships.
Fotheringay-Phipps wrote “You get this kind of result by testing a right wing viewership for right wing oriented falsehoods…”
Again, do you disagree that he is ignoring studies which controlled for political alignment? (Mr. Phipps may not be “at fault”, as OP’s study lacked such control. I prefer to deflect attention to more meaningful studies.)
My Google-fu is poor. Here’s the first link Google showed me; I seem to recall seeing even better studies.