<p>“Be very careful here. Simply because a source is partisan does not make it automatically wrong on everything.”</p>
<p>Absolutely true, it doesn’t, but that does make it suspect and makes one expect more documentation. I’d at least like to have seen the guts (pardon the expression) of the survey. I’ve seen much more detailed surveys taken apart here and totally discredited for method. In any case, my ultimate point to Kluge that his habitual statements to dissenters that their opinions are invalid because of his opinion of the sources of their information – when the sources aren’t even presented – stands. The point being that he is the arbiter of his opinions and sources, others of theirs, and his opinions/sources are no more valid than anyone else’s.</p>
<p>1 of 42 you are very smart and well written, but you are a high school or college kid. You don’t have the experience and knowledge that comes with age.</p>
<p>Citing a Wiki for anything also is unreliable. If you are at Princeton, and you haven’t been taught that, it doesn’t say much for Princeton.</p>
<p>I’m citing Wiki not because it has any intrinsic value in and of itself, but rather because the section I linked to contains something on the order of 20 citations and additionally a number of quotes. I do not have the time nor the inclination to reproduce those citations here, and I see no need.</p>
<p>In the same way Wiki has no intrinsic value, there is also no intrinsic problem with referring to it. It is a highly useful source of information for many things, but its best utility is in its extensive citations. That’s why I linked to it, and I explicitly said that’s why I provided it as some material to read over. You can distrust Wikipedia all you want, but even if you read every sentence in that Wikipedia section and assume that they are wrong, the beauty is that you can go directly to the cited works to see whether that is the case or not. Put in some critical effort to reading it, or your mileage will certainly vary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Valid points, but that’s not what you said in your last post. You said (I could quote, but since it’s just a couple of posts back, there’s no need), that the facts were garbage because they were produced by a partisan group, which is obviously false.</p>
<p>I as much as you would like to see kluge’s source, and a more extensive examination of the surveys methods, etc., but until then I will not make a determination of the accuracy of the survey. On a personal level I suspect that is accurate insofar as I think there probably is a statistically significant heightened propensity for Fox viewers to believe certain things vs. other major network viewers. But I cannot say that for sure, and will not until I see the real data.</p>
<p>“Valid points, but that’s not what you said in your last post. You said (I could quote, but since it’s just a couple of posts back, there’s no need), that the facts were garbage because they were produced by a partisan group, which is obviously false.” </p>
<p>But it IS what I said several posts before that. It’s an ongoing thread, 1of42, and I also stand by my statement that the facts ARE garbage because of their source. You may disagree, that’s fine, but don’t twist. As far as Fox viewers, of course there is a statistical propensity for those viewers to believe certain things, just as MSNBC viewers are statistically likely to believe propaganda from the hard left. THAT is not in dispute because one could say that about any group of people who shares a common interest in anything.</p>
<p>"I as much as you would like to see kluge’s source, and a more extensive examination of the surveys methods, etc., but until then I will not make a determination of the accuracy of the survey. "</p>
<p>Without that data, my position that it’s garbage is just as valid as the positions of others on this thread that it’s determinative, but I don’t see you questioning those posters.</p>
<p>Alright Garland, we’ve had a meeting of the minds on other things and I know you to not be vicious here. I have read the survey. Explain to me (no, really, explain to me because I’m open to your information) exactly how one would determine which views were held by Fox viewers or any other specific network? I am respectfully asking you to explain how one could get from the data presented to determining exactly what viewers of each network believed. I fully acknowledge that I’m not as educated as many others here and if you can politely explain this to me, I am willing to listen and learn. I will not, however, tolerate abuse or disrespect. (That last not directed to Garland.)</p>
<p>Also, I think some of the questions weren’t (pardon the expression) fair and balanced, and if you are a person who parses, the “misperceptions” might not be.</p>
<p>The reason I don’t question kluge on it is because saying “I don’t believe your opinion is backed up by your study” is exactly the same as asking for the data, which I already did. It would be redundant to ask twice. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, which is why I’m slightly confused by your initial push-back against kluge’s survey. Does it not also seem reasonable to you that as a network with more conservative viewers, Fox viewers as a group might be statistically more likely to believe certain inaccuracies more widely propagated in that sector of society?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re getting dangerously close to 9/11 conspiracy theory territory here, where a study or survey carried out by an educational institution is dismissed because funding comes from a party viewed as partisan to the debate (with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it’s the government). Are you expecting this to be taken as a serious point?</p>
<p>The issue of who funds a study is tangential at best to questions of its bias. A survey funded and carried out by a partisan group may be predisposed to being over-partisan, but simply pointing out the bias of those carrying out the survey is entirely inadequate as a criticism of the survey itself.</p>
<p>In this case, we don’t even get that far, since you can’t even provide significant criticism of partisanship at UM, the institution that actually carried out the surveys.</p>
<p>Are you or are you not actually taking issue with any specifics of the survey, or just generally railing against the partisanship of those you perceive to be related to it? Is it that you don’t like the results? Or what?</p>
<p>“Exactly, which is why I’m slightly confused by your initial push-back against kluge’s survey. Does it not also seem reasonable to you that as a network with more conservative viewers, Fox viewers as a group might be statistically more likely to believe certain inaccuracies more widely propagated in that sector of society?”</p>
<p>You are confused because you are missing the point of my posts to Kluge. I’m not going to repeat because my words are there, but you’re completely on the wrong track.</p>
<p>1of42, I think you are smart and insightful, but I’m just too old and cranky to reiterate what’s there for the reading. The issue of funding (as proved by Soros whom I know) is enormously important.</p>
<p>If you go to the PIPA website you can see the full body of work - rigorous, academic, and “fair.” It’s not just one survey about one issue on one occasion - they survey thousands of people on multiple topics on an ongoing, recurring basis, and do it in a scientifically valid manner. Not just Iraq, not jusr media - all kinds of stuff. How boring. How “academic.” Must be a bunch of “liberals” - after all, funding from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations - eeew. </p>
<p>Except - it’s actual, valid research. The kind of thing that happens if you go out to find the facts, instead of deciding what your answer should be first, and then declaring it to be the truth, and attacking anyone who dares to disagree.</p>
<p>And that’s the link to the topic of this thread. Why are Republicans in the minority on most college faculties? Because
isn’t an academic approach to the world. To thrive in academia you really need to accept that “the facts” are “the facts” and base your analyses on “the facts” whether you like them or not. And the current ideologically-based true believers of the right have been insulated from that mode of thought for too long to be comfortable in that environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Academia: “reality-based” Boring, but that’s just the way it is.</p>
<p>Zoos–re your question on methodology. It seems pretty obvious that each person fills out a questionnaire, in which his/her perceptions are listed, coupled with choice of news source. What would make it difficult to correlate the perceptions/misperceptions of each respondent to their news source? </p>
<p>Or, are you saying that, after gathering that information, they then randomly assigned answers to each viewer? That makes no sense–the study clearly linked the two sets of variables. Or, are you suggesting they then made up the final tally? I’m really not getting what you are hinting at. The questions are out in the open, the method of data collection is clear, why do you think they would then make up the results?</p>
<p>“So let’s stick to the things we do know, okay? There were no WMD’s in Iraq in 2003. But a majority of Republicans whose primary news source was Fox News not only thought there were, but actually thought they’d been found after our invasion.”</p>
<p>The “experienced Democrats” - Biden, Levin, Dodd, Gore, Lieberman - not only thought there were WMDs in Iraq in January 1998, but thought it was imminent that they were going to be used and that, furthermore, the U.S. should take preventive military action against the threat. The lie was not created by George Bush, but by Bill Clinton and George Tenet (to cover up their genocide, and to cover up the use of CIA agents to infiltrate the U.N. Weapons Inspections teams, which had just been found out.) George Bush didn’t have to “reconvince them” - he only had to present to the American people what the “experienced Democrats” already “knew”.</p>
<p>Let’s just remember who created the “WMD reality”. And it wasn’t because the “experienced Democrats” were watching Faux Gnus.</p>
<p>“Or, are you saying that, after gathering that information, they then randomly assigned answers to each viewer? That makes no sense–the study clearly linked the two sets of variables. Or, are you suggesting they then made up the final tally? I’m really not getting what you are hinting at. The questions are out in the open, the method of data collection is clear, why do you think they would then make up the results?”</p>
<p>What I’m getting at (actually asking) is when you look at the data that says X% of respondents watch Fox, X% watch CBS, etc. how do you know how the specific media affiliation of the resondents to individual questions? I don’t mean the surveyors, I mean a lay person reading that data. How can I, personally, know when X person says he believes X what X person’s media affiliation is. Please note that I’m not SAYING anything. I’m asking.</p>
<p>So, in reality, if Fox viewers answered yes to this question based on this information it is they who were properly informed and those who answered no were misinformed. Obviously, the people who did the survey were also uninformed - or deceptive in the way they conducted the survey.</p>
<p>A more objective way of asking the question would have been:</p>
<p>“Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction of the order of magnitude that the intelligence community projected that there would be?”</p>
<p>The answer to that would be an unambiguous “No”.</p>
<p>“Finally, the one group in which a majority - over 50% - falsely believed that such weapons not only existed but had actually been found - was Republicans whose main source of news was Fox”</p>
<p>These viewers may have believed this whether Fox existed or not.</p>
<p>Fox may have influenced these viewers incorrectly.</p>
<p>The U.N. had little responsibility. It’s biggest contributor sent its biggest liar (Colin Powell) to tell its biggest lies in front of its largest body. The U.N. never endorsed Clinton’s bombing of the wastewater treatment plants; they never endorsed embargoes on simple medical supplies, antibiotics, or wastewater treatment equipment. In fact, one of it’s leading spokespeople, Denis Halliday, called it genocide even as it was happening, and finally resigned as a result. </p>
<p>Excuse me, but you seem to forget that Bill Clinton DID pull the trigger, in the largest bombing of a sovereign nation since Viet Nam, following on his killing of a million people. He did this by choice. I think it is likely that Monica saved us from a Clinton invasion of Iraq. But there was already a war - a hot war - waged against Iraq. What was different was the use of ground troops. </p>
<p>Bill Clinton could have chosen differently (as could have Pol Pot or Idi Amin). And, like the latter two, I’m sure he had his reasons. All mass murderers do. </p>
<p>And the “experienced Democrats” could have chosen differently. The wise and experienced Hillary, voted for the invasion and occupation without even bothering to read the intelligence reports (a great recommendation for a future President.) She probably felt she didn’t need to - either she had already bought the Big Lie, or she (being so experienced) was one of its creators. She could have chosen differently.</p>