PDA

View Full Version : The Hazards of Watching Fox News


Billybob
10-03-2003, 12:18 PM
The Hazards of Watching Fox News

By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service
October 3, 2003

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.


And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).


Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.


The report, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.


The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussn's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda.

"This is a dangerously revealing study," said Marvin Kalb, a former television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstn Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.


While Kalb said he had some reservations about the specificity of the questions directed at the respondents, he noted that, "People who have had a strong belief that there is an unholy alliance between politics and the press now have more evidence." Fox, in particular, has been accused of pursuing a chauvinistic agenda in its news coverage despite its motto, "We report, you decide."

Overall, according to PIPA, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at l one of the three misperceptions through September. Thirty percent of respondents had none of those misperceptions.


Surprisingly, the percentage of people holding the misperceptions rose slightly over the last three months. In July, for example, polls found that 45 percent of the public believed U.S. forces had found "clear evidence in Iraq that Hussn was working closely with al Qaeda." In September, 49 percent believed that.


Likewise, those who believed troops had found WMD in Iraq jumped from 21 percent in July to 24 percent in September. One in five respondents said they believed that Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons during the war.


In determining what factors could create the misperceptions, PIPA considered a number of variables in the data.


It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and thr support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war.


More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussn and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found.


Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely" to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor.


The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent. Asked "Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussn was working closely with al Qaeda?" 68 percent of Bush supporters replied affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said no.


But news sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [thr] news.'' ghty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media.

Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks ? NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).


For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. ghty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at l one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.


CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at l one misperception.


As to the number of misconceptions held by thr audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.


PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.


Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it. The study also debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of exposure to news.


Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions. Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.


Jim Lobe writes for the Inter Press Service, AlterNet.org, TomPaine.com, and Forgn Policy in Focus.


________
Herbal vaporizer forum (http://vaporizer.org/forum/herbal-vaporizers/)

Nattydread
10-03-2003, 02:05 PM
One of my pet peeves is this on going mob mentality with the cable/sattelite companies and these media giants. For example I have fox..but I don't really want it

The trouble is if I get cable/sattelite I must have fox as part of the basic package...no matter which company I choose. We have the ability and the technology to provide better choices than what we currently get from these companies. I'm not saying everyone should be able to select thr own channels. Maybe I'll buy the argument that it will be a nightmare for the companies to monitor.

BUT I DON'T NEED 45 CHANNELS AS A STARTING POINT!

I swear 12 to 15 channels is enough for me. If we had these choices I could get my local affiliated stations and maybe ESPN (1 channel) and CNN.

Why must I get MTV, Country video channel, the fishing channel...AND FOX?

Its really pissing me off especially when most of these channels are filled with nothing but garbage and commecials! :">
________
Peach (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Peach/)

gopisback
10-03-2003, 02:53 PM
How come we never hear about CNN, MSNBC, or any other cable television networks??? Im sure it has nothing to do with them spewing forth thr liberal views...

You guys need to get a life and stop posting about Fox. And if it eats you up inside that a conservative news network is so successful, I suggest seng a professional.
________
Cortina (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Cortina)

Billybob
10-03-2003, 03:45 PM
How do you eman conservative news? News is News! What happened? Who did it happen to? What did this person say? When did it happen? The news should be free of political bias.

I really object to your calling CNN liberal. CNN is almost as bad as Fox, since they all cover the same stories the same way. But Fox is so blatant and in your face about thr views, it's hard to ignore. They're all really angry too, I might add.

The reason people focus on Fox news, is because it's the biggest, purest example of exactly what's wrong with American journalism.
________
Honda j engine (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine)

Objectivity is Dead
10-04-2003, 09:56 AM
The concept of "fair and balanced" is a joke when it comes to any news source--from the New York Times (the original "paper of record") down to the local weekly paper in your hometown. As for broadcast media, it's always been fluff. More and more of the TV news is celebrity based on all of the networks (Do I really need to know what happened to Britney and Madonna?). Of course network television has to do this becasue they have nothing else to compete with the cable channels, so they're all a joke (for the most part), and the cable news channels all have thr own editorializing commentators who spin things one way or another.

As far as MSNBC though, have you never watched "Scarborough Country?" That guy is just as angry as Bill O'Rlly, but comes off as more of a rip off. And there's no arguing Ted Turner has had an agenda for CNN all along, just which way it's leaning is debatable. But Fox News, as the article above details with interest, is changing world vws across the nation, in--as you said--a successfully conservative fashion. For those of us whose life IS news, Fox are the ones who need to "get a life" and "seng a professional" is most advised. To bare the label "fair and balanced" on an outlet that even conservatives agree is bias (albt in thr favor)is the absolute biggest hypocracy of all. Maybe the logo should be "you watch, we decide for you."

Of cource, you can even question where the above article came from and what it's underlying slant is, but you can't argue Fox isn't bias, or any other news sources isn't bias ther. Simply chosing what's on the cover of a local weekly requires a subjective decision on the part of an editor. So how about instead of watching and defending Fox news like it is the only thing good and pure beside your own ideals, you see what else there is to offer in this large, information filled world of ours. The news sources are limitless these days. Go consume some of the ones that don't agree with you. Expand your worldvw. Try it, you just might LEARN something.