's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Watching Fox makes you stupid.(24 posts)

Watching Fox makes you stupid.dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 8:07 AM

So, which liberal media outlet does the best in informing its viewers about the FACTS? Which media outlet does the worst?
Assumes a normal distribution of intelligenceTJeanloz
Oct 4, 2003 8:40 AM
I would argue that anybody who watches Fox News is an idiot before they turned the T.V. on - just on the basis of the Fox network's general programming. And PBS and NPR have a better educated audience. Because the sample is biased in this way, I don't think it's as valid as you might want it to be.

Also, I am rather sure that people tune to the news slant that they want to hear. Liberals are more likely to tune to PBS/NPR, and rabid conservatives are more likely to tune to FoxNews. People like to be right, and they like it when their views are affirmed by the media.
Testing assumes a normal distribution of intelligence.dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 12:38 PM
It is an assuption of all standardized measures. That's besides the point. I'll grant that people who rely on FOX are idiots :)

What disturbs me about this study is not Fox being on top, but that the numbers are so high across the board. Opinions about policy, what should be done, how to improve the economy, etc can all be diverse with no problem. People can, do, and should disagree about that. But when the basic FACTS are not getting through to viewers, and falsehoods are, a democratic society is in big trouble.
I don't think it doesTJeanloz
Oct 6, 2003 5:18 AM
Good testing shouldn't assume a normal distribution of intelligence, because intelligence, or rather, education level, is not normally distributed.

I was actually most amused by how many PBS/NPR watchers/listeners answered yes. But thinking about it, it would depend very much on the precise wording of the question. If it was: Has the U.S. found evidence of WMD in Iraq? I would say yes, because there definitely is evidence - just nothing spectacular. I think the questions were not as black-and-white as the survey writers might have thought they were.
This is a TROLL, but I'll play alongLive Steam
Oct 4, 2003 9:48 AM
"Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries." Very scientific. We should just take their word for it? They didn't post what represents "large majorities" in real numbers. They didn't say what countries they conducted the poll in or what criteria was used to select the polling sample.

"While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program. Don't you think it would have been difficult to ask "Did the US find WMD in Iraq after the war?" - PRIOR TO THE WAR STARTING? It's a slanted article and study, plain and simple. Talk about collecting data after the fact to support your argument.
If you want to play, you have to buy a ticket.dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 12:58 PM
You can get your ticket by reading the pdf

Of course, you could have done that BEFORE spouting off. See, reading a news story about research is not the same thing as reading the research.

"It's a slanted article and study, plain and simple."

And you know that without reading it? Do you know who did it? Who backed them? What their agenda is? What their methods were and how they were "slanted"?

You must have psychic powers!

FYI, page 10 give a summary of the gallup results, but if you want the exact numbers for each country you will have to follow the link in the pdf to the original Gallup poll. The whole paper is 23 (about 20 pages of text).

Get back to me after you've read it.
If you want to play, you have to buy a ticket.Live Steam
Oct 4, 2003 1:32 PM

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

I, unlike yourself, am not an expert on interpreting statistics or manipulating them for that matter, but I know when I am being bamboozled. I read the results of their questionnaire and find that the majority of people have a pretty good understanding of the facts. That rather surprised me. Most idiots one can encounter on the street couldn't tell you who the Vice President is.

The author of the article made a contradictory statement that I pointed out to you, but you have yet to respond to. The article was slanted. Also, since I cannot find it, please show me where the correlation between the respondents news source and their misconceptions. There isn't any way to determine that from the information supplied in the link above.
Something is WRONG with their numbers!Live Steam
Oct 4, 2003 1:53 PM
I guess there is no need to be accurate ...Live Steam
Oct 4, 2003 2:34 PM
when it doesn't fit your supposition! After all what's in a number anyway! I should clarify where the tables came from. The first is from the questionnaire .pdf and the second is from the report .pdf. Please feel free to check to see that I did not manipulate them in any way :O) I am sure there are a lot more inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this "report", but these are glaring "mistakes"? and I don't need to look into it further to see that it is compromised.

Oh the link to the source for the Gallup International poll is broken. I can't verify their findings. Too bad :O( The other poll was directed in countries whose population is primarily Muslim. Gee I wonder what the results were there? :O) No this isn't a biased, slanted report that fits the liberal agenda! LOL!
Something is wrong with your brain.dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 3:05 PM
The first poll question asks what people think was the actual connection. 20% on feb 3 thought there was a direct connection between iraq and 9-11.

The second chart shows SUPPORT for unilateral action for the people in each group, as of feb 3. So of the 20%, 58% supported unilateral action.

This is a great example of your abilities and style. Sad that when you actually TRY, you still come up short.
Something is wrong with your brain.Live Steam
Oct 4, 2003 3:14 PM
From the questionnaire
Iraq was directly involved in
carrying out the September 11th attacks.....22 21 20 25 20

From the report
Iraq was directly involved in carrying
out the September 11th attacks 58%

I don't think there is anything ambiguidous about this. Do you read?
Oops, typo! Crucify me! nmLive Steam
Oct 4, 2003 3:20 PM
Do you wear a helmet when you ride?dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 3:39 PM
I think the density of your head might be sufficient protection from impacts.

You are comparing two different statistics, that measure different things, broken down in different ways.

The first table is asking people to state what they thought the CONNECTION between Iraq and 9-11 was.

The second chart is asking if people SUPPORT unilateral us action.

Connection =/= support of unilateral action.

Get it?

The SECOND chart is a breakdown BY belief of the connection between iraq and 9-11. So, given your answer to the first question, did you support UNILATERAL ACTION.

OF THOSE THAT BELIEVED Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks (20% of the sample) 58% approved of unilateral action.

Of those that thought Iraq gave substantial support but not directly connected to 9-11 (36% of the sample) 37% supported unilateral action.

Of those that saw few connections (29% of the sample) 32% supported unilateral action.

Of those that saw no connection (7% of the sample) 25% supported unilateral action.

Get it?

Probably not.
You're a piece of workLive Steam
Oct 4, 2003 4:11 PM
I understand what the tables mean, but I do not see where they got the data from. The questionnaire does not ask, of those poeple that support the war, who believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Where is that question? I don't see it. Did you read the questionnaire? The second table is in the report, not the questionnaire. The report is based on the questionnaire. It is their findings. How did they arrive at this conclusion? Show me specifically where they asked what you said they asked. There is no data for that. There is also no direct link between one's source of news and your original posts about Fox News. Show me where that data is. I need your help :O)

You're right. The helmet comment was way off.dr hoo
Oct 5, 2003 4:03 AM
I should know you wear a helmet 24-7.

They don't have to ask that question. They asked 2 separate questions and then broke down the data in a specific way. It's this high falutin' concept called "analysis". Simple analysis, but analysis none the less. You can do more with data than simply report the answers people gave, you know.

They asked one question on the link between Iraq and 9-11.

They asked another question on support for unilateral action.

They then took the answers to BOTH of these questions and used the answers to generate the second table.

Think of it this way. I could ask what state you live in. I could then ask if you support the way the president is doing his job. I could then compare those who live in red vs. blue states (bush vs. gore states in 2000) in terms of their approval of the president. The assumption is that there is some relationship between the two, and if so a pattern in the results should show up.

You see how I could take answers to the first two questions, and generate a similar table to the one in the report, even if I never asked the question "For those of you that live in states that voted for Bush in 2000, do you support the job the president it doing?"

You rose to the bait, and the hook was set deeply, but you are more of a bullhead than a bass, so I am going to have to throw you back.
I like fishing!Live Steam
Oct 5, 2003 12:19 PM
If this is true then I am sure there is more than one way to interpolate the data. I'll bet that someone else could put a vastly different spin on this by making different assumptions. Like I said, it was SLANTED!
Clearly you like it better that learning...dr hoo
Oct 5, 2003 1:35 PM
... things like the definition of "interpolate". (To insert or introduce between other elements or parts. To fit a curve by filling in missing data points between known points). Maybe they don't teach those kinds of words to people on the short bus.

Perhaps you meant "interpret"? Go ahead, interpret things however you like, if you can actually READ the report and understand what it is saying. Try not letting your BIASES lead you to make stupid errors like the one you made about the two tables. Pick a result from the study and spin it to your heart's content.

How is the author biased? What is it about Steven Kull that makes him biased? He seems to be someone who makes his name by investigating public attitudes about international issues. If you can find errors or lies in his article, you will destroy his career. Seriously, you will. Go for it.

What is biased about PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes? Is it a liberal political action group? Is it funded by Clinton? What?

What is biased about Knowledge Networks? Do you know something about them?

*bang bang bang* "IT'S SLANTED!"

Saying it doesn't make it so. I'm not saying all involved are totally neutral (I don't know), but if you claim bias the burden of proof is on you.

From the brief look I took at it, it seems to be a very rigorous study. Much better than most public opinion polls that get reported in the press.
interpolate - v 1: estimate the value of; in mathematicsLive Steam
Oct 5, 2003 2:49 PM
in·ter·po·late - To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material. I chose my words correctly as far as I'm concerned.

PIPA's Foundation Sponsors

Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
German Marshall Fund of the United States
Compton Foundation
Carnegie Corporation
Benton Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
Circle Foundation

Looks like quite a liberal bunch to me.
great. Now show how they bias the study.dr hoo
Oct 5, 2003 4:53 PM
I'm waiting. Point to the bias in the study.

I could easily say that since they have a person from the US Naval War College on their board of advisors that they are biased towards the miltary industrial complex. But I can't point to how that connection biases the STUDY.

You don't like the results of the study, so you say it is worthless. Good dittohead! The world MUST be as you think it is, and any evidence to the contrary MUST be wrong! You may not be able to say WHY. You can't say why any PART of the study is flawed. No suprise from someone that can't even read simple TABLES.

You are an exemplar of the irrational right. Bravo!
Something is wrong with your brain.Live Steam
Oct 4, 2003 3:34 PM
Q4: Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the
Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda. [ORDER
6-9/03 9/03 7/03 6/03 2/03
There was no connection at all ....................7% 7 7 7 7
A few al-Qaeda individuals visited
Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.......30 31 35 26 29
Iraq gave substantial support to
al-Qaeda, but was not involved in
the September 11th attacks .........................35 35 33 36 36
Iraq was directly involved in
carrying out the September 11th attacks.....22 21 20 25 20
(No answer) .................................................6 6 6 6 8

Ther is no relationship between this question and those who answered they supported unilateral action. None!
Take off your shoe and bang it on the table.dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 3:43 PM
Hey, it worked for Kruschev, and it seems to be in your style.


*bang bang bang*
better check the definition of "contradiction". (nm)dr hoo
Oct 4, 2003 3:09 PM
and yet you have used the tale of one judge who was in iraqrufus
Oct 4, 2003 2:30 PM
and his comments based on the limited number of people he has met that are friendly toward, and grateful to the US, as proof that everything in iraq is far better than is being portrayed by the major media.
But does watching Stupid make you a Fox? nmContinental
Oct 4, 2003 6:51 PM