In contrast to Rasmussen that had the highest combined error and bias scores, the top tier firms surveying voter sentiment in this election had error scores below 4 points and most had bias ratings below 1.0. These results were obtained even though Rasmussen conducted far more polls than any of its competition. The methodology employed by FiveThirtyEight was to analyze all the polls for average accuracy in predicting the margin of victory for the top two vote recipients and then to see to what extent the polling consistently missed the trends. Thus a very fundamental question comes to the fore. To what extent are the folks who rely primarily on Fox News for their political views being led astray by consistently faulty information? Or to put it another way, how can anyone who is interested in forming an unbiased conservative political opinion do so if Fox News is his or her primary information source? Don’t these findings call into question the very integrity of Fox’s political and news presentation? How can the Fox News Network continue to display its “fair and balanced” byline given its heavy reliance, if not its incestuous relationship with Rasmussen Reports? Based on the evidence produced by FiveThirtyEight, there is little reason to believe that the conservative audience is being well served if it is spending its evenings watching Fox News in search of fair and balanced programming upon which to shape its opinions. In fact one could conclude that America’s conservatives are being deliberately led astray.
Steven J. Gulitti
11/8/10
Sources:
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA PerformedStrongly;
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n…
emc=eta1
Pollster Ratings v4.0: Methodology; http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)
time slot
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC
Headline News
5 pm
Beck
477
Blitzer
125
Matthews
149
Showbiz
91
6 pm
Baier
345
Blitzer
151
Ed Show
163
Prime
78
7 pm
Shep
372
King, USA
180
Matthews
196
Issues
146
8 pm
O’Reilly
861
ParkerSpitzer
112
Olbermann
218
Grace
93
9 pm
Hannity
569
King
127
Maddow
253
Behar
62
10 pm
Van Susteren
382
Cooper
166
O’Donnell
224
Grace
110
11 pm
O’Reilly
464
Cooper
115
Olbermann
150
Showbiz
116
TOTAL DAY
375
131
137
104
PRIME TIME
604
135
232
86
TV NEWS RATINGS: TOTAL VIEWERS (L +SD)
time slot
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC
Headline News
5 pm
Beck
2018
Blitzer
516
Matthews
566
Showbiz
170
6 pm
Baier
2056
Blitzer
502
Ed Show
677
Prime
261
7 pm
Shep
1815
King, USA
414
Matthews
677
Issues
494
8 pm
O’Reilly
3163
ParkerSpitzer
332
Olbermann
936
Grace
446
9 pm
Hannity
2181
King
419
Maddow
894
Behar
240
10 pm
Van Susteren
1745
Cooper
434
O’Donnell
749
Grace
299
11 pm
O’Reilly
1605
Cooper
296
Olbermann
501
Showbiz
332
TOTAL DAY
1486
403
457
272
PRIME TIME
2365
395
862
319
Truth is not determined by ratings, however. As for your friend Keith Olbermann – He’s baaaack! (as of tomorrow night)
There’s still hope the new owners (Comcast) will review the above numbers and reconsider everyone’s contract.
Before he switched over to Fox, Mr. Beck suffered very low ratings on CNN. At Fox, he’s become a popular prophet and profit.
<
p>The lesson from that is that conservatives watch Fox. Other cable stations cannot improve their ratings very much by trying to sway conservative loyalists away from their media home.
<
p>So I wouldn’t expect MSNBC to become markedly more conservative. Note that they do quite well in the non-Fox demographic.
those numbers show is that conservative thought is monolithic and that centric and progressive thought is more diverse.
Or perhaps, while liberals are poring over social science journals in the quiet of their book-filled studies, conservatives are watching T.V. A lot of T.V.
Maybe they’re the hip young crowd, who watches hulu and streams Netflix and watches Comedy Central online instead of watching traditional television. Maybe it’s the Hispanics, who may be more likely to be working cleaning jobs or farming jobs or laborer jobs and simply aren’t around to watch television during those time periods. Maybe it’s those overeducated folks in their book-filled studies to which KBusch alludes.
<
p>Liberals are far more diverse than conservatives. Maybe for what ever reason, conservatives are very similar when it comes to the time, method, quantity, and style of television they watch… whereas liberals are just plain more diverse in their viewing.
…they’ll value the truth, or at least a different point of view, over ratings. I’ve heard the Comcast CEO donated a lot to Bush, so who knows.
Yes I know you aren’t a conservative and don’t like conservatives slants… but the black/white distinction between Fox (lies, lies and more lies…) and MSNBC (truth which is white as the driven snow) is naive. Watch Olberman tonight is tell me he won’t come off “extremely” partisan and anti-conservative… nothing about truth! He’ll probably enjoy his highest ratings since the last time he had to apologize for something.
<
p>As for differing points of views, watch MSNBC for a week and count how many opposing views are heard on it. Many here have criticized the liberals who do show up on Fox but at least hey have them. All the MSNBC shows would do well to at least get some opposing views since they really are the epitome of an echo chamber with the hosts on the far left and then the guests in the same zone.
…are not mutually exclusive. MSNBC has plenty of opposing views on Ed Schultz, Hardball, Lawrence O’Donnell, and occasionally Rachel Maddow, although what I meant was having a differning viewpoint compared to other networks. At least Olbermann does apologize when appropriate unlike his nemesis Bill O’Reilly. Regardless of viewpoint MSNBC at least has standards of fact checking. You can’t, or I suspect won’t, distinguish between what is opinion and what is fact. MSNBC has plenty of the former without sacrificing the latter; Fox doesn’t – that’s all there is to it! I don’t mind conservatives having and stating conservative opinions; I do mind them not getting their facts straight.
but let’s watch MSNBC tonight and see how many “opposing” views are aired? Let’s see many snarky goofy smiles Rachel Maddow makes talking about George Bush’s book, or Christine O’Donell… and has nobody there to rebuke anythig she says. The only time this happens is when she apperars on Meet The Press which I find so refreshing becuase it’s not the usual echo chamber of her show. I don’t think she knows how to react when someone challenges her partisan snarks or tells half truths.
<
p>But let’s both watch the MSNBC shows tonight and see if there is anything “fair and balanced”? The question is, even if we witness what I refer to, will you blow it off as an “unusual” night?
<
p>Jon Stewart is right, Fox and MSNBC are about the same.
…Ed, Hardball, Last Word almost always have conservative panelists; Keith and Rachel less often, but it’s been known to happen. Check the archives of shows if you have time. Rachel tries to get other viewpoints on her show, but gets declined; I understand Bill O’Reilly has faced similar dilemmas. I had a conservative Republican high school history teacher who drilled into us that opinions are only as valid as the facts used to back them up. So no, I don’t need your challenge, nor am I going to stop defending the journalistic standards that MSNBC has and Fox so often appears not to.
…but here2010 archive_nav is her take on Keith Olbermann and how it demonstrates the difference between Fox and MSNBC. I check neutral factcheck sites when I question an assertion on either side; Fox gets called out a lot more than MSNBC.
<
p>(There appears to be a formatting issue with the link, but it still works.)
According to the New York Times’ most conservative columnist, that lesson is “I don’t know”:
In giving peope the benefit of the doubt in a statement, unless I can cite a reference to show them thir error. That said, when someone tells me they’re “fair and balanced”, that gives me pause for thought.