15 February 2012

Where's America Getting Their Opinions?


CABLE NEWS RACE
NITE OF FEB 13, 2012

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,292,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,117,000
FOXNEWS BRET BAIER 1,908,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,811,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,788,000
FOXNEWS THE FIVE 1,744,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,632,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,509,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 944,000
CNN PIERS MORGAN 901,000
MSNBC MADDOW 901,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 861,000
CNN COOPER 825,000


Stats from the Drudge Report. That can't make the ruling elites very happy. Colbert comedian beats out Matthews and Maddow. Poetic justice. All 3 have the same news value. Colbert's just more entertaining.

28 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

Heh.:) Posted.

Lindsay said...

Good, this makes me feel better about America :)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

It is a bit encouraging.

dw said...

That's bad news for America, since a Fairleigh Dickinson study has confirmed what many have long suspected -- those who use Fox News as their principal source of information are demonstrably less informed than people who watch no news at all. http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1090791

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Right Dave, we all know, the great unwashed masses are so stupid and ignorant. Fortunately, for all of us ignoramuses, well-informed academics issued this brilliant and well-reasoned endorsement and gave us all "The One."
http://hnn.us/articles/44958.html

How's that workin' for you?

Yes indeedy, those "well-informed" academics sure hit it out of the park, didn't they?

Let's see, the majority of academia supported Obama - arguably the worst President in American history. Yet, they are the well-informed? That's a joke.

Let's look at results (facts), what d'ya say?

dw said...

Hi Richard,

I don't have an opinion on the "unwashed masses," or even know what that means when you use the phrase. Nor do I have any insight into your apparent disdain for them.

Likewise, your emotional denigration of academia is noted, but beside the point. It's curious that your reaction to the Fairleigh Dickinson study was to launch an attack on the president. Bit of a non sequitur there, Richard.

The point of the article I linked to was that people who rely principally on Fox News for information tend to a larger degree to end up misinformed. This fact is born out by any number of examples we've all personally experienced in our day to day lives. Fox News watchers are more likely to have thought Sadam was behind 9/11, despite all evidence to the contrary. Fox News watchers are more likely to think Obama was born in Kenya, even though the notion was thoroughly debunked.

David

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hey David:

"unwashed masses," or even know what that means"

Ok, let me help:

"The collective group ("mass") of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker's elite circles." ~ Wiktionary

Isn't that what the "study" is suggesting? "Poor dumb people don't listen to the more 'enlightened' outlets like PBS, MSNBC, and NPR." Uh-huh.

I don't disdain them. Elites do. Need to flip that my friend.

"your emotional denigration of academia is noted"

Once again, you need to flip the charge of emotionalism. My "denigration of academia" is based on facts, not emotion, though it's denigration needs little assistance from me. They're doing quite a bang-up job on their own. The emotionalism is owned by much of academia for it's version of utopia, led by "the one" and for their illogical support of Marxist/socialist programs. Facts are stubborn things. Marxism just doesn't have a lot of success to boast about, does it? Study that.

If you don't see the connection between an academic study attacking Fox and academia's lovefest with the one (despite the facts), I can't help you.

Sorry, I have little faith in academic studies like this which begin with a conclusion and then cherry pick facts to support the conclusion. I've seen this movie before and didn't care for the the first time. Man-made global warming would be a recent one that I recall.

I believe you would be the one who's misinformed David. Thanks for reading and commenting.

dw said...

"Poor dumb people"? I think in your reflexive defensiveness, you're reading too much into it. The level of education of the people involved was not discussed, as far as I know. Indeed, other studies have shown that more educated Republicans are most likely to disbelieve global warming, or to believe that Obama is not a citizen.

Your responses are telling. The one thing you didn't do was address the particulars of the Fairleigh Dickinson poll itself. Perhaps inadvertently, you have validated the conclusions.

The very mention of Fox News being unreliable caused you to 1) adopt the mantel of victimhood (one of the ordinary folk besieged by big bad elites), 2) engage in general character assassination of academia, as if your blanket condemnation of a vast and varied group weren't precisely the kind of irrational pigeon-holing you decry with reference to the "unwashed masses," and 3) launch a partisan, emotional attack on President Obama..

None of this refutes a single thing concluded by the FD polling. The conclusions from the poll were not surprising. For example, we know, indisputably, that the last GOP administration used Fox News commentators as virtual spokesmen for talking points delivered to the network by the WH press secretary (as Scott McClellan plainly admitted). This would explain why people who over-relied on that network held some of the opinions they did.

That's got nothing to do with intelligence, or education. It has to do with the reliability of the sources they choose to listen to.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"address the particulars of the Fairleigh Dickinson poll"

You're right. I couldn't care less. Waste of time. It's an academic "study" pushing an agenda. I read the piece. Pure garbage. Are you suggesting the other outlets aren't just as biased as Fox - in the other direction? This is ridiculous. If anything, the others I mentioned are far more biased than Fox which, accepting your premise, makes those viewers even less-informed. Personally, I don't watch Fox. I watch PBS for news most of the time (when I can stand it) - I like to see what the other side is doing.

"a vast and varied group"

Vast, yes, varied, not so much.

"The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1."

More here - not from biased Fox but from the objectively pure New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

6 to 1. 12 to 1.

And you call that varied? Very funny.

You have your "studies", I have mine. Again, not emotional, factual. The record shows Obama is either:

a. a radical ideologue
b. grossly incompetent

Yet, academia overwhelmingly supported him and his policies and, I believe, still do. Those are facts, not emotion.

Regarding Fox and GOP news feeds - that doesn't really surprise me. Would you like to talk about Stephanopoulos and the incestual relationship between the Obama administration and the mainstream media? Both sides work the media as much as they can. The left just has more players on their side - in the 3 networks and NPR/PBS anyway.

Yet you folks get all worked up over FOX when the left owns the 3 major networks, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and PBS. Kinda stingy, ain't you?

These outlets created a vacuum of mainstream conservative perspective and Fox filled it. Freedom of choice for viewers. Isn't it grand? I think those on the left are just upset that most folks aren't choosing them. So they do these silly studies attempting to impugn Fox viewers. Nice try but most folks see right through that scam.

Now, I gotta rush home in time to watch the PBS News Hour so I will be better informed.

Have a nice weekend. ;o)

dw said...

>>It's an academic "study" pushing an agenda. I read the piece. Pure garbage.<<

And apparently your only refutation of that poll is to engage in gratuitous character assassination of groups you deem to be on the other side of the partisan divide from you. I'm afraid that tactic is not very convincing. The story was not about your personal likes and dislikes. It was about the reliability of a news source.

>>If anything, the others I mentioned are far more biased than Fox which, accepting your premise, makes those viewers even less-informed.<<

It's not my premise, but it does affirm my experience. The poll did not address "bias" in the media. It simply gauged the reliability of certain news sources. The poll results confirm what is patently apparent to any casual observer. Someone who relies principally on Fox News is more likely to believe demonstrably false assertions, such as the nonsense about Obama's citizenship.

As for the percentage of Democrats on college faculties, what possible relevance does that have to the discussion at hand? It's just one more example of your deeply emotional dislike for people who teach at the college level. The story I cited was about news sources. Your personal feelings about professors suggests many things, but is of no interest to me.

Even your focus on my use of "varied' speaks volumes. To you, that meant Democrats and Republicans, but that never entered my mind. I was speaking about a wildly diverse community of 10s of thousands of people who make up "academia." Your blanket write off of them is pretty ridiculous.

As for Fox News being a choice, of course it is. The point was that the people who CHOOSE to rely principally on Fox for their news come away as deeply misinformed.

dw said...

>>The record shows Obama is either:
a. a radical ideologue
b. grossly incompetent<<
------

Ironically, it takes a radical ideologue to claim the record shows only these either/or propositions. Thanks for clarifying that.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

You're welcome Dave. If I look radical compared to Obama and his supporters, I'm quite satisfied. Others suggest incompetence. I don't think so. I think he's quite intentional and competent in what he's trying to do.

(And an admission and correction on my part - I used the term "incestual." I meant incestuous. I was in a bit of hurry when posting that.)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"your only refutation"

Oh I could post at least a dozen or so other polls/studies, but we both know it wouldn't matter. You're every bit as hardened in your position as I am in mine.

"your deeply emotional dislike"

Again, you need to flip the "emotional" charge. Only those connected to Obama emotionally with thrills up their leg, etc could support such radicalism. And my postings have nothing to do with "disliking" anyone personally. I like and am friends with several academics. I base my posts on the facts and many outside the ivory towers of academia have come to the same conclusion. Do the research. It's readily available.

"To you, that meant Democrats and Republicans, but that never entered my mind."

More left/right than party specific, but I think we all understand the connection. The whole point of your rebuttal was that Republican leaning Fox misinforms. That's political and the references I made were simply political. I think you're splitting hairs.

"Your blanket write off of them
is pretty ridiculous."

It's a given there are exceptions - oh yeah, there are, remember? 1 in 12, 1 in 6?

And I also think it's a given when I make these criticisms that its of academia institutionally. I've acknowledged before and I'll do it again for your sake that there are many teaching who keep their classes as apolitical as possible. But,again, there is a large and growing body of Americans who are quite aware of the environment. That you and others continue to downplay and/or deny that is quite telling to me. Even many within academia have admitted it. I've posted on that before. Is Eugene Genovese lying?

"The point was that the people who CHOOSE to rely principally on Fox for their news come away as deeply misinformed."

Not near as much as those who listen to the government financed propaganda which emanates from PBS and NPR.

As I said, I watch the PBS Newshour more than any other news program. I don't even get Fox. You actually get plenty of information from both sources but often its as much as what you don't get as what you do.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

And, speaking of misinformation, let's get the "rest of the story" -

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/20/study-claiming-fox-news-viewers-misinformed-fraught-errors

Brock Townsend said...

Not that we are surprised.:) There is no one on the government news channels who remotely approaches the intelligence of the Judge. Pathetic useful fools, all.

dw said...

What's that got to do with the Fairleigh Dickinson poll? It's no coincidence that "birthers," Iraq apologists, anti-science climate change deniers, Obama-is-a-Muslim types, etc., are avid followers of Fox News. There's a pattern there.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

DW - Same garbage, different can. Same fallacies as well. No cause and effect shown. Moreover, these were New Jersey residents, so one could also come to other conclusions. The poll mentioned that this focus was on New Jersey, you didn't.

And there are other points of "misinformation" included in the poll which you left out:

"Fox News, however, wasn't the only cable news network to confuse some of its viewers. Watching MSNBC, for instance, was associated with a 10-point increase in the likelihood of misidentifying the Occupy Wall Street protesters as predominantly Republican."

It is a bit of a stretch to indict all viewers of Fox News from a poll of 612 people from one state in the Northeast.

I think the real point you and other are crowing about is that "conservatives" are just aren't as bright as leftists. Once again, I'm results oriented and we have rather stunning evidence - cause and effect - right before our eyes. You go with polls, I'll go with results.

Case in point: "anti-science climate change deniers"? The earth's climate has been changing since creation. History shows that. The problem is the false, politically motivated "science" that says global warming is man made. That myth has now been thoroughly debunked. Where have you been?

Brock Townsend said...

Dr. Robinson Myth Of Global Warming
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=2219&highlight=robinson
More than 31,000 American scientists have signed the following petition which Dr. Art Robinson initiated. His Power Point Presentation below compares their findings against the opposition, and lists the names of the scientists who signed.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Global warming is to these academics what black Confederates are to certain members of the Southern Heritage community. I don't quite understand why folks are simply afraid to follow the facts where they lead.

Is there global warming - quite possibly, but so what? It's happened before and its been a natural phenomenon. The science does not lead one to believe it's man made.

Were there black Confederates? Yes, there were some. Were there tens of thousands? No one can point to any records showing that to be the case. Did some serve simply because they were slaves? Yes. Did others serve for other reasons, i.e. hope of freedom, an attachment to their owner's family, to prove themselves? Yes.

Hmmm . . . I never thought I'd be discussing black Confederates and global warming in the same post. ;o)

Brock Townsend said...

Hmmm . . . I never thought I'd be discussing black Confederates and global warming in the same post. ;o)

Really.:)

dw said...

Brock proves the point with respect to Fox News, which actually cited the so-called Oregon Petition Project (Dr. Robinson's bit of internet fraud), before it was exposed as a feeble stunt.

As for black Confederates, the difference is that a claim about large numbers of them flies in the face of the documentary record, whereas, with global warming, there is overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject. Obviously nobody knows for sure the extent of the problem, or how much man may be contributing to it -- but the evidence is compelling enough to prompt us to err on the side of caution until the science advances.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Brock didn't prove any point. We've got out and out fraud and junk science everywhere, but you say there's overwhelming consensus. There is no consensus. That's pure nonsense. If there were, they'd be no debate among scientists. Even if there were, so what? There was once overwhelming consensus that the earth was flat. The whole notion of man made global warming has been soundly debunked. It gets more obvious with each passing day. The real goal of the movement is to redistribute wealth and extract money from wealthy nations.

Brock Townsend said...

Global warming is a complete hoax, but I imagine there is no point debating Collectivists.:)

Numerous articles including:

1. Nobel laureate resigns from American Physical Society to protest the organization’s stance on global warming

2.Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

3. The Global Warming Hoax In Charts & The newest hockey stick

4.Top Scientist Resigns And Admits Global Warming Is A Scam
http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Brock - I know, every day gets worse for the "flat-earthers" of man made global warming. Doesn't matter - its almost a religion to them.

Brock Townsend said...

Richard:

Got to redistribute the wealth, you know.:)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Follow the money. Always.

dw said...

I'll give you guys the last word on this, since we all know that no minds are changed in the comments section of a blog. But suffice it to say all suspicions are confirmed. Without even engaging in discussion, I knew it was a virtual certainty that you would reject the concept of man-made global warming, because it's part and parcel of the same political philosophy that rejects science in general (e.g., evolution). And as I said, it's no coincidence that this same anti-science crowd embraces a broad range of debunked conspiracy theories, particularly those regarding our secret Muslim, Kenyan president with his secret socialist designs.

The "Fox News Effect" is born out in issue over issue. Ponder these five other studies that corroborate the Fairleigh Dickinson poll. http://tinyurl.com/86wyf6u

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

DW:

"since we all know that no minds are changed in the comments section of a blog."

We do agree on that. Why do we torture ourselves so?

"suffice it to say all suspicions are confirmed."

As were mine.

"Without even engaging in discussion,"

Hmmm ... what have we been doing? It does take two, you know?

"I knew it was a virtual certainty that you would reject the concept of man-made global warming"

Cha-ching! And surprise, surprise, I don't believe in the tooth fairy either. And I knew it was a virtual certainty that you would open wide and swallow whatever the ruling elite spoon feeds you.

"it's part and parcel of the same political philosophy that rejects science in general (e.g., evolution). And as I said, it's no coincidence that this same anti-science crowd embraces a broad range of debunked conspiracy theories, particularly those regarding our secret Muslim, Kenyan president with his secret socialist designs."

You left out Peter Pan. But I would hasten to point out that the President's socialist designs aren't really a secret, as is the case with man made global warming being a hoax. You should broaden your horizons a bit. BTW, I was once a hardcore Darwinist.