News, perception, party lines

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Fri May 07, 2004 7:01 pm

Sorry if this was posted before; I've been out of the DBB loop for a little while now, but when a coworker showed me this article, I knew this was EaC material:

A new study has revealed that people who rely on television to get their news are more likely to be misinformed on the facts about Iraq, WMD's and Iraq's ties to 9/11 than those who get their news from other sources or even who don't follow the news at al.

It also confirms that, at least among the news networks, liberal bias is a complete fabrication which, because of this report, is easier to believe since a significant percentage of viewers believe liberal media bias exist because they heard it on TV news.

...and the crowd-pleaser, which I'll paraphrase:

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% {would vote} Bush and 23% Kerry, while those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq did not have WMD, 23% Bush and 74% Kerry.

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al Qaeda, 62% Bush and 36% Kerry. ...those who perceived Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, 13% Bush and 85% Kerry.

This poll clearly indicates that George Bush's electoral success depends on the American public continuing to be wrong about the facts. Wrong about WMD's. Wrong about Iraq and 9/11. Wrong about Iraq and al Queda.

Yeah, there's a liberal bias to this site, and yeah, for every study is another study debunking the value of studies.... and yet I would find the above not surprising to be true.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 07, 2004 9:31 pm

MehYam wrote:This poll clearly indicates that George Bush's electoral success depends on the American public continuing to be wrong about the facts. Wrong about WMD's. Wrong about Iraq and 9/11. Wrong about Iraq and al Queda.

Couldn't the breakdown of where voters loyalties lie still be acurate but change the above statement to:

This poll clearly indicates that George Bush's electoral success depends on the American public continuing to be right about the facts. Right about WMD's. Right about Iraq and 9/11. Right about Iraq and al Queda.

Because lately we're getting more and more info that supports the connection of al Queda>Iraq and Bush's support is strong in spite of battlefield setbacks.
Maybe because America is more confident in it's own common sense than in leftwing election year spinmeistering.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 07, 2004 11:50 pm

grr bandwidth exceeded

so here's google's cache of it here

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat May 08, 2004 12:12 am

wow, an interesting read.
the verbal association of "misinformed" to "bush supporter" could have been a bit more justified in the article though. it felt rather... arrogent.

i saw this at the bottom though:

We've got the file on the corporate hacks that call themselves journalist these days. One by one we will be accumulating the facts on the toe-ers of the corporate line. The internet is turning out to be a revolution in so many ways. Least among them is the ability to point and click your way right back in time to original transcripts, articles and on-the-record statements. This is where we catch our favorite hacks in their lies and idiocy.

we have a short weekly TV show here, (on a government funded station no less! (ABC)) called "MediaWatch", it only goes for 15minutes or so. it's amazing content is prettymuch exactly as described in teh quote above. it's mainly focused on australian issues, but i think you'd still find it quite interesting, if not inspirational.
these guys are EXTREMELY transparent so all their stuff has to be heavily researched and absolutely correct, or they get chewed out. it's one of those rare shows that is so "holy" that they are completely immune to slander laws, because everything they say is absolutely researched, true and justified

.
(slander is only legally "slander" if it's false)

it's website is here http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/
and you can view the show anytime streaming online here http://www.abc.net.au/broadband/ . highly reccomended.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat May 08, 2004 11:01 am

All that article really proves to me is that the general American populace equates to a very large herd of sheep. Which, as we all know, is old news.

That thing isn't just biased though, it's extremely biased. It doesn't even read like it might be even somewhat non-partisan. I'm not sure exactly how they can say that the media is misleading viewers to be Pro-Bush when the majority of news reporting has been negative towards the war and towards Bush. So, I'm not sure what tv they have been watching.

Course, right from the start you'll notice this site wasn't intended to be fair to BOTH parties.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun May 09, 2004 9:35 am

Both the construction of the original survey and the *conclusions* by the biased blogger are too flawed to even bother dissecting.

But to sum up the *findings*:
If you vote for Bush you are dumb, and conversely, if you are dumb you will vote for Bush.

More intellectual elitism. On a simplistic level, it's not far from the gamer who consistently loses but starts making ludicrous rationalizations for their performance. Often making winning appear to be the result of undesireable attributes. Yea, yea.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun May 09, 2004 3:43 pm

Well, I don't know. Just the other day, I was bored and watched Fox News. And I was more than a little dismayed about how I was getting the "rapid-fire" edition of the worldly events. What's their little segment - "Around the World in 80 Seconds"? How can one really learn anything about complicated foreign affairs in 80 seconds?

Alas, mainstream media is very much into its sound bites. And all politicians work around getting that 5-second snippet on record. Take Kerry's campaign commercial, for a moment. Paraphrased:

"Let me tell you what I'll do to better America. First, I'll create new jobs. Second, I will increase funding to education. And third, I will support health programs for those who need them. My concerns are jobs and healthcare."

What have we learned? If you reply with anything other than "absolutely nothing," you make too many assumptions. How will he create new jobs? Does the government have some magic button that Bush isn't pressing to create them? How will his policies promote jobs? How will he actually stem the outsourcing of jobs? Where will the money for funding education come from? What education institutions will benefit? Will you equalize schools across the board in terms of funding? How will you save Medicare and Social Security? What will you say to the importation of drugs from Canada? Where will the money come from? How would you address the overarching power of the FDA and the pharmaceutical lobby?

These are the questions that have to be answered. But they are also the ones people aren't asking. Because, sadly, the majority of Americans are probably content with the 30-second commercial spot. And that's troubling when you're talking about the fate of our country.

Do I think the average American voter is misinformed? Damn straight. But it's true of both parties and is symptomatic of our impulsive society as a whole.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:39 am

How will he create new jobs? Does the government have some magic button that Bush isn't pressing to create them? How will his policies promote jobs? How will he actually stem the outsourcing of jobs? Where will the money for funding education come from? What education institutions will benefit? Will you equalize schools across the board in terms of funding? How will you save Medicare and Social Security? What will you say to the importation of drugs from Canada? Where will the money come from? How would you address the overarching power of the FDA and the pharmaceutical lobby?

Most Americans couldn't comprehend the answers, much less know why the questions were asked. You really can't put anything that requires an intellect over 15yo on the mainstream channels.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:56 am

And that's a problem, isn't it?

The whole act of voting is predicated on the people being well informed about the government. Today, it seems we have very few people who can even be bothered to exercise this basic right. Elections in Oregon, which may or may not represent the country as a whole, tend to fall well below 50% participation. That means more than half of the people in the state are too busy with their lives to dedicate a couple hours to voting.

If people are voting based on buzzwords and invariably broken promises, with no education over the actual issues, they are doing a grave disservice to our country and way of democracy.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Mon May 10, 2004 12:36 pm

Can you honestly say that most people give enough of a damn to keep themselves truely informed about things?

The eaverage person really doesnt care until the system directly screws him over.

Its a harsh reality, but its been true all along. Its part of the reason we have an electoral collage instead of a popular election for the president. The founders decided (And too often it seems, rightfully so) that the general populace was too ignorant and uninformed to make such an important decision. Same reason on why Senators were appointed by the state legislatures or Governors until the mid 1800s.

If 90% of the populace gave a damn about things, this country, and in fact, the whole world, would be a MUCH different place.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon May 10, 2004 2:05 pm

I think more of hte populace would concern themselves with government if governemnt wasn't so big. It's been allowed to have free rein and has grown far too big for anyone who's not in college as a Politics major to really get a grasp of what's going on.

Which could be amended by the local gov doing a better job of informing the public of things. I never see anything from the city/munincipality about it's activities. Where do they put it? Some obscure part of a newspaper (which one??) that nobody reads.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:08 pm

Have to remember we live in a time where information is more readily available and in all actuality people are MORE informed on matters instead of less informed on matters.

Most of us that don't fall for the BS though do realize that what has happend is the media controls what the people are informed on. As technologies bring new information to the attention of the mainstream though, you will eventaully see a change in how active people participate in how our own country is run. This is, of course, a slow process. Just like everything else, it takes time to assimilate

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 10, 2004 3:09 pm

Way back in October, opinionjournal.com referenced this study here

"Heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as media consumers who rely on National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System, according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs," reports the Baltimore Sun.

This "study," however, turns out to be pure propaganda. (It's here, in PDF form.) The "untrue positions" the survey measured are these:

* "Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."

* "Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq."

* "World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

Here are some demonstrable untruths the survey didn't ask its subjects about:

* President Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent" threat.

* Bush claimed Iraq had bought uranium from Niger.

* America's intervention in Iraq was unilateral.

Would not a fair survey have included examples of the misperceptions on both sides?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue May 11, 2004 4:34 pm

btw, the company that did the original survey also issued this caveat after its release:

The purpose of the study was to analyze the role of misperceptions in policy attitudes about the Iraq war. The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions.

Beat ya to it, Lothar.