Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Fox News = Misinformed Viewers

By

You just knew this was true but now we have the study to prove it!

Breaking? Study Finds Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed

To perhaps nobody’s surprise, a study released this week finds that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed of any news consumers.

The University of Maryland study, called “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” looked at “variations in misinformation by exposure to news sources,” among other things, and specifically newspapers and news magazines (in print and online), network TV news broadcasts, NPR and PBS, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin…

The study also found that as exposure to Fox News increased, so did the misinformation.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. Is here (PDF).

    These [misinformation] effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant.  The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it–though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

    • Oh gee the correct answer is always the liberal talking point?  Who would have guessed?

      <

      p>My favorite is that most economists believed Obamacare would reduce the deficit.

      <

      p>An interesting study of misinformation, to be sure.

      • said the health care bill reduces the deficit. Please, please, do not take my word for it.

        <

        p>

        Estimated Budgetary Impact of the Legislation

        CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation-H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal-would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenues (see Table 1). That figure comprises $124 billion in net reductions deriving from the health care and revenue provisions and $19 billion in net reductions deriving from the education provisions. Approximately $114 billion of the total reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.

        CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about $65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal-assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted-would be the difference between the estimate of their combined effect and the previous estimate for H.R. 3590. That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $25 billion during the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget.

        <

        p>Any comment or questions, “demolisher”?

        • Who, I figure, knew that the cbo was being fed a carefully calculated load of garbage so the answer would come out right at the time, right on the 10 year threshold.  Or did you wonder why the benefits don’t kick in for so long?  

          <

          p>Do you really think that intelligent, nonpartisan people would buy this?

          <

          p>What about year 11 and all the years after that?   What about the never- gonna- happen 50% Medicare cut?  What about the promise that costs would not rise?

          <

          p>If you think most economists were on board then you’ve yet to show any evidence.  And now that we know that both costs and deficit go up, I guess the next question would be: “are you smarter than most economists?”

          <

          p>Your ideological purity seems to give rise to a rather appalling level of ignorance, I’m sorry to say.

          <

          p>What is cbo saying now, “Charley”?

          • you would see that its estimates for years 11 and beyond, though necessarily more approximate given the length of time, show even greater deficit reductions than in the first 10 years.

            <

            p>Fortunately for you, I dug out the report, and pointed out some key statistics, months ago.  So you never even have to leave BMG to educate yourself!

            • And I’ve heard it said that the cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates will never happen, which will throw everything off.  I don’t know whether that’s true

              <

              p>Oh well isnt that convenient!  David, that’s only like, HALF OF IT. Care to make a judgement call, perhaps?  You really think the brave politicians are going to slash medicare in half at some future date when they couldn’t do it now?  Yea, right.

              <

              p>What about discretionary spending?  oops

              <

              p>And what about the doc fix?  oops

              <

              p>

              Democrats argued that the doc fix was a separate issue, unrelated to the new law and therefore unnecessary to include in the bill or the cost estimates. But that was pretty hard to believe: Reports indicated that Harry Reid had used the doc fix to buy support for the health care overhaul from the American Medical Association, and an early draft had included a fix. The cost proved to be too much.

              <

              p>(Note to David when trying to think about the Medicare cuts:  consider the doc fix to be a leading indicator…)

              <

              p>It goes on and on, and anyone not blinded by their allegiance to government healthcare could easily see it.

              <

              p>If you are interested, here’s Paul Ryan.  Just because he is a republican doesn’t mean he is wrong:

              <

              p>WSJ summary of Ryan vs. CBO assumptions

              <

              p>

              Yesterday Mr. Obama again invoked the “nonpartisan, independent” authority of CBO, which misses the reality that if you feed the agency phony premises, you are going to get phony results at the other end.

              <

              p>Anyway, nothing in the CBO report speaks to the opinions of “most economists” so unless anyone begins to address that, I’m going to accept the default answer that you admit that study purporting to show people being misled by Fox News, is in fact misleading you directly (and being lapped up, at that).

              <

              p>Well done.

              • You’re saying stuff about the CBO that isn’t true.  I point that out, and then you go off on another topic.  That’s fine, but I’m still right.

                <

                p>As for this,

                <

                p>

                here’s Paul Ryan.  Just because he is a republican doesn’t mean he is wrong

                <

                p>LOL

                • Because you cherry pick something about post year 10 and support it with such weight as “even the CBO says any projections after year 10 are unknowable” and “even though the benefits don’t kick in for a long time, some taxes also don’t kick in immediately?  (Even though they still kick in before the benefits?)

                  <

                  p>David, you are being a propagandist here.  That’s fine, but I think for all your flaws you are smart enough to see through the CBO estimate (fine point about 10 years aside) but yet you choose to support it anyway, and further to somehow conflate that with “most economists”.  

                  <

                  p>That tells me you are out to propagandize, not to find the truth.  Up to you.  But readers of your posts should at least be aware.

            • http://www.ama-assn.org/amedne…

              <

              p>

              Washington — With no Medicare physician pay cuts assured for 2011, organized medicine plans to press for overhauling a payment system based on an economic calculation measure it believes is woefully flawed. Such a move has President Obama’s support.

              In December, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation that will delay for one year scheduled cuts to doctors’ Medicare payments, including a 25% cut slated to go into effect Jan. 1, 2011. The measure keeps Medicare physician pay at its present level, including the 2.2% increase physicians received when Congress overrode an SGR-mandated pay cut in June. Obama signed the legislation on Dec. 15.

              <

              p>Well isn’t that neat.

              <

              p>Claim a bunch of cost reductions that are obvious BS, then fix them in other bills that increase the deficit so yours won’t have to.

              <

              p>Seriously?  I mean, really David?  You really buy this crap?

              • the annual Medicare reimbursement increases have been an annual event for a decade and are not relevant to the discussion about HCR.
                Maybe you’re thinking from something you heard on Fox that the much-better Medicare-For-All had been adopted.

                • if a bill was claiming to reduce medicare costs by 50%.

                  <

                  p>Or not I guess, your choice.  “We’re going to reduce medicare costs by 50% but also increase them every year from current levels…”  yea.  

                • taken more seriously if you stamped your foot, Demolisher. Can you stamp your foot? I think you can stamp your foot.

                  <

                  p>In person, what do you do when someone challenges you, raise your voice? I’m guessing you raise your voice.  

          • You’re unwittingly proving the point.
            The question was:

            Is it your impression that among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years” have concluded.

            <

            p>These economists who have studied the issue are named:
            CBO and Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds.

            <

            p>

            It’s hard to overstate how important the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)-which makes the official judgments on how much bills cost and save-is in Washington. “I consider CBO God around here,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee,

            <

            p>Since you have failed to provide a single study by economists to show there is even a minority opinion of economic studies, I went searching and found none. The handful of articles I read gave the CBO version and oppposition was OPINION from non-economist politicians and political pundits.

            <

            p>If you still believe the majority of economists who have studied the effect of health care reform on the deficit belive it will increase the deficit please name them now. Or possibly you could give us the names of the minority economic studies.

            <

            p>If you are unable to find such, dear Fox viewer, you may realize you are proof of the University of Maryland study.

            As you can imagine I mostly consume right leaning/libertarian news over left leaning / “mainstream” news,

            • Comon Sue.

              <

              p>

              These economists who have studied the issue are named:
              CBO and Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds.

              <

              p>

              “The act will make health care more affordable for Americans,” DeParle said.

              But the head of the nonpartisan economic unit at Medicare that produced the original cost report says the White House number “does not provide a meaningful or accurate indication” of the effect of the health care law.

              “The amounts quoted in the White House blog are not meaningful and cannot be used to calculate the change in health expenditures per insured person,” Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary, told The Associated Press.

              The Obama administration stands by its statistic.

              <

              p>From your very own Huffington Post no less.

              <

              p>And please don’t make me tell you again what the problem with the CBO is.

      • if you think that’s a “crock”, please demonstrate why and how, with links and actual argument, rather than mere scoffing. Your personal incredulity is not a convincing argument in and of itself.

        • …we have this from Page 19 of the WPO report:

          <

          p>

          This suggests that misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.

          <

          p>In other words – NPR listeners can be as mislead as Fox News listeners.

              • drawing attention to the results of the study, it might be more effective for Fox News fans to go after the messenger, e.g. U of Md is a party school and has no credibility or the numbers were falsified because of liberal bias.

              • There’s only one of the studied issues that NPR/PBS significantly increased misinformed people on – the Chamber of Commerce one. On two others, the numbers went up by 1%, and in one case,by 2%.

                <

                p>On the other hand, that Chamber of Commerce issue was the only one that viewers believed less after watching Fox. In all the others, Fox viewers became significantly more misinformed, by much larger percentages.

                <

                p>Those results are at the end of the report, on pp. 20 – 23.  

              • and causation. No question Fox News is the propaganda wing of the GOP; however, it is not valid to say Fox News causes people to be misinformed. It is valid, according to this study, to say that Fox viewers are more misinformed. It could be that they start out misinformed. It could be that more stupid people watch Fox. It could be that Fox News viewers, like MSNBC viewers, watch their programming to have their biases confirmed and massaged. There’s no way to tell from this study.

                <

                p>Claims of Fox News bias or even Fox News as a source of misinformation can’t be proven from this study. Correlation is not causation, and correlation is all this study demonstrates.  

                • the study seems to show that the more Fox news a group watches, the more misinformed they are. It seems like a stretch to claim that being more misinformed makes people watch more Fox.

                • The causality doesn’t really matter to me.

                  <

                  p>I’m perfectly willing to believe that ignorant people who prefer remaining ignorant gravitate towards Fox. It seems clear enough that Fox has created a 24×7 cocoon of lies, stereotypes, and misinformation that provides a safe haven for those who seek such a refuge from reality.

                  <

                  p>To paraphrase James Carville (who once observed that he wasn’t suggesting that Republicans are stupid, but instead that stupid people choose the Republican party), I’m perfectly happy accept an interpretation that willfully ignorant people prefer Fox.

                  <

                  p>The net impact on America is the same.

                  <

                  p>

                • never proves causation. However, a strong correlation offers enough evidence to argue it persuasively.  

      • please share other examples of how your perception of reality (and presumably Fox’s) departs from everyone else’s. I, for one, will try to keep an open mind.

    • It also said the NPR and MSNBC viewers believed Obama signed TARP and that the Chamber of Commerce DIRECTLY donates to GOP candidates in the same way that the MTA does.

      <

      p>Bias occurs on both sides. For everyone distorting facts on FOX, you’ve got Olbermann and Maddow leading the progressive spin on MSNBC.

      <

      p>Trumpeting this story as empirically proving FOX plays with “truthiness” ignores half the story.

      • …MSNBC clarified for its viewers the point about the Chamber that their viewers were confused about, rather than shhoting the messanger.  Not sure why MSNBC viewers would be confused about TARP; they’ve been pretty clear about that.

      • viewer had more misinformation the more they viewed regarding Obama v Bush signing TARP.
        The bank bailout legislation (TARP) was passed and signed into law under Pres. Obama
           

                                      Once     About 2-3      Almost
                    Never Rare  weekly   times week   daily
        Fox News       45   45     47        35           47
        CNN               43   40     54        52           38
        MSNBC           45   43     49        44           38
        Network news 39   41     43        39           51
        (NPR or PBS)   41   47     52        25           48
        Print/Online    44   43     47        41           44

  3. is the response from Fox:

    <

    p>

    Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

    <

    p>Ah, yes. Let’s shoot the messenger. That’s the expected reply from a legitimate news organization, right?

    <

    p>As far as Fox’s “research” regarding the University of Maryland:

    <

    p>

    For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the “Best Northeastern Colleges.” It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of “Best Party Schools.”

    • I think that tells us that the Fox News Department is better at opposition research than at news.

    • the refuge of EdgardtheArmenian and Demolisher. It’s the strategy of the right-wing itself. The sad part is that most of them don’t see these attacks as incapable of proving anything.

      • to restate the various points that I’ve made in this thread, especially the main one that the article never addressed a majority of economists.  I’m not holding my breath though.

        • I don’t usually do research to order, but you may be right on this one, and I’m interested in the answer.

          <

          p>Stay tuned.

          • The poll question:

            Is it your impression that among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years” have concluded.

            My bold.
            In the article these are listed as:
            CBO and Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds

            <

            p>I googled and read the first 2 pages of articles which reference the CBO study and in opposition opinion from politicians or pundits, but no economists or more important economists who have studied the issue.

            <

            p>If you or demolisher are able to find a minority opinion of economists that have studied the issue and came to a different conclusion, please list them. Until such time, I’m with Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee,

            “I consider CBO God around here,”

            <

            p>demolisher says:

            As you can imagine I mostly consume right leaning/libertarian news over left leaning / “mainstream” news,

            and is having some difficulty comprehending they might be misinforming him.

            • The methodology is clearly stated

              In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion.

              The study’s authors went on to say about the WSJ:

              Since 2003, the Wall Street Journal has maintained a panel of 55-60 economists which it questions regularly, in an effort to move beyond anecdotal reporting of expert opinion. The panel was frequently asked questions about the financial crisis as it unfolded. In March 2010 the panel was asked more broadly about the effect of the ARRA on growth. Seventy-five percent said it was a net positive.

              All that sounds reasonable to me.

        • the remarks of other people on BMG, but here’s what the study actually says about economists:

          On a regular basis government economists come to conclusions about the state of the economy. Such conclusions influence key decisions in the private sphere, as well as government decisions. Such government economists should be, and generally are, open to input from experts outside of government in the course of coming to conclusions.

          In the course of this study, to identify “misinformation” among voters, we used as reference points the conclusions of key government agencies that are run by professional experts and have a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences. These include the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Commerce, and the National Academy of Sciences. We also noted efforts to survey elite opinion, such as the regular survey of economists conducted by the Wall Street Journal; however, we only used this as supporting evidence for what constitutes expert opinion.

          • Above I think you are talking about the stimulus, and here it seems is where you are addressing the notion that a majority of economists claim that obamacare would not increase the deficit.  Is that correct?

            <

            p>If so, I would expect this to be rather compelling and well supported – but I don’t see it there.  I see the CBO (which has the GIGO problem, and despite being nonpartisan can only do the math on the specific inputs and assumptions handed to it) and 2 other entities (link to opinion?) and then some supporting evidence (link?).

            <

            p>Not trying to be a hardass about it but the fact that they would use the CBO in the first place, and first in their list I think casts doubt on the position that they are the stewards of truth in this matter.

            <

            p>TO counter that (which, if they are owning the truth on this one, i really should not be able to do) I offered a bunch of stuff above, to which I’ll add:

            <

            p>Steve Levitt:

            ~ On healthcare reform: “Central planning of any kind is bad. It won’t solve the problem and, in fact, will make it worse. Any government program that ignores the fundamental importance of marginal pricing is bound to fail.”

            http://www.istockanalyst.com/a…

            <

            p>and this WND article which, read or don’t read but do look at the graph:

            <

            p>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?p…

            <

            p>Having some understanding of economics myself, this graph tells all the story that needs to be told.  Of COURSE costs go up when demand goes up, even setting aside the absurdity which is the 50% medicare cut.

            <

            p>But even holding all that aside, perhaps you’ve shown that its reasonable to believe that the deficit will not rise, and perhaps I’ve shown it is reasonable to think it will.  

            <

            p>But the article (study) claimed a lock on the truth of the matter, in the eyes of “most economists”, neither of which it came anywhere close to proving.  Then it called people misinformed for disagreeing.

            <

            p>The article is therefore wrong.

  4. He introduced this story by saying, “If ever there were a news story that was handed to MSNBC gift-wrapped and tied with a bow it would be this one.”

    <

    p>Oh, and in the MSNBC-has-more-integrity-than-Fox department, Chris Hayes did point out one piece of misinformation it seemed that many MSNBC viewers have.  Namely, many MSNBC views believed that it had been proven that foreign money had passed directly through the US Chamber of Commerce to efforts promoting Republican candidates.  Hayes clarified that there is no direct evidence of this, but that the real story is that the Chamber has not opened its books so the media and the public can see whether that is true or not.

  5. Tides has worked with individuals and institutions committed to positive social change.

    <

    p>Does anyone think the organization sponsoring something could skew the results? I’ve noticed when any “right leaning” organization does a poll, BMGers generally dismiss the poll outrightly. Does the funding coming from the Tidea Foundation bias this study critical of FOX?

  6. what they’d like to believe with what is. What separates us is ethics: how well we care to differentiate between what is and what we’d like it to be.

    <

    p>Fox News cares more about advancing conservative mythology than it does about informing its viewers. That’s its mission. Roger Ailes knows it. The editors and producers know it. The American Enterprise Institute, absurdly referred to as a think tank, knows that the truth is less important than advancing the myth. The GOP is less a political party than an American tribe with its heart set on assimilating or destroying the rest of us. The truth doesn’t matter, just power, and it has a well-oiled machine dedicated to that process.  

    • Pretty much everyone blends what they’d like to believe with what is. What separates us is ethics: how well we care to differentiate between what is and what we’d like it to be.

      <

      p>For a long time here my sig line was similarly worded saying people had to distinguish between “what was true” and “what they wish was true”… and they still don’t. BMGers are often wrong about what they are proclaiming. Go back to 2008 after dems took the Senate and the POTUS and read about the “Republican party being dead in the US”… guess they have pulled a Lazarus on them.

      <

      p>I have to give credit to some BMGers who have at least mentioned the references in the study to MSNBC being misleading as well. Just because you agree with what MSNBC is spewing doesn’t make it true… either.

  7. A large majority of daily Fox viewers have no idea about how scientists actually view climate change.

    <

    p>Another interesting finding suggested by the thread: those to the right think that Fox is just a mirror version of some other news source preferred by liberals, but no, there is not liberal or progressive equivalent of Fox.  

  8. are well-documented. The network purposely confuses fact with GOP-sanctioned opinion. Fox’s pundits, as pundit are wont to do, traffic and amplify misinformation. It’s a propaganda factory with some news thrown in. MSNBC’s news coverage isn’t biased as far as I can tell, though its pundits are obviously partisan. They play the same role as Fox’s pundits, but as far as I can tell (I rarely watch it), they are reality-based.

    <

    p>NPR’s pundits are at best conventional, e.g. the Queen of Conventional Wisdom Cokie Roberts. Before Daniel Shor’s demise, people filling in for him came from both sides of the spectrum. E.J. Dionne is balanced with David Brooks. NPR isn’t perfect, but it is hardly biased politically. NPR may not pretend–like most of the GOP and Fox News–that there is no global warming. That’s realism, not political bias.

    <

    p>Political reality is like a swimming pool. Fox News dumps in whatever it can to make the water look red. The mainstream media may fail in many regards, but it tries to keep the water transparent.

Archives