UPS on MSNBC last night?

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
I'm just glad I'm not naive enough to to absorb Obama's catch phrase ("CHANGE") like a sponge like some people are. People suck it up and don't realize that there is no substance in what he says. Do some research. Investigate the candidates. And don't depend on the news networks or the guys standing around the dispatch office in the morning for your main sources of information.
 

Griff

Well-Known Member
If we all depended on the media to give us information about the candidates then we'd all be leftists. The media is dominated by Liberals that want Obama or Clinton (in that order) in the White House. That's why Fox News does so well because they almost single handedly counter all those networks. That is why they are relied on by more Americans for news and politics than all of the others. I like to look at the voting records of the candidates instead of relying on information from TV. Voting records alone are enough for me but I like to see all the dirt that is dug up on each person. Most of that comes out on the news networks.

Fox News does so well because its a three ring circus. They feed the trough and in return they get ratings. Nobody wants to hear real issues, they want to hear and watch mud slinging. That's all Fox News is, a 24/7 live stream of mud flinging with a cherry of American nationalism on top. Shall I produce a list of things that are highly "rated" and "popular" to prove just how deceiving that claim is? Do you also like Britney Spears's music and think dancing with the stars is a great show? Ratings and popularity are a moot point.

Outfoxed: Fox News technique: "some people say"
 

Leftinbuilding

Well-Known Member
Fox News does so well because its a three ring circus. They feed the trough and in return they get ratings. Nobody wants to hear real issues, they want to hear and watch mud slinging. That's all Fox News is, a 24/7 live stream of mud flinging with a cherry of American nationalism on top. Shall I produce a list of things that are highly "rated" and "popular" to prove just how deceiving that claim is? Do you also like Britney Spears's music and think dancing with the stars is a great show? Ratings and popularity are a moot point.

YouTube - Outfoxed: Fox News technique: "some people say"

Speaking of "real issues", where is Dan Rather these days?
 

tieguy

Banned
Thanks for the brilliant insight, Billy Joe Bob Tommy Frank.

What he said about people clinging to guns and religion is true. Anyone who was "offended" by that statement is probably a closet racist and just fishing for a politically correct reason/excuse to dislike the guy. Either that or they just flat out don't like hearing the truth.

Thats what I love about the liberal whackos when they aren't slamming the conservative right they try to preach tolerance to us.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Fox News does so well because its a three ring circus. They feed the trough and in return they get ratings. Nobody wants to hear real issues, they want to hear and watch mud slinging. That's all Fox News is, a 24/7 live stream of mud flinging with a cherry of American nationalism on top. Shall I produce a list of things that are highly "rated" and "popular" to prove just how deceiving that claim is? Do you also like Britney Spears's music and think dancing with the stars is a great show? Ratings and popularity are a moot point.

YouTube - Outfoxed: Fox News technique: "some people say"

Or maybe everyone just watches Fox because they are sick of the garbage coming from all of your liberal news outlets. But if calling the truth "mud flinging" is how you justify the fact that most people trust Fox news over your boy Wolf Boy Commie Blitzer then you just continue to roll with that one.
 

tieguy

Banned
Yeah, I forgot, Obama is a racist because Fox News says so with their heavily edited propaganda clips of his pastor.

Twenty years of his supporting and listening to a racist priest probably helped. :peaceful:

Griff you're giving me some great material here.
 

Griff

Well-Known Member
A majority of the viewing public choosing Fox for its unbiased reporting is a moot point? :happy-very:

October 6, 2003

Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD


Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am

I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.
The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq — helped fuel support for the war.
While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans’ opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.
As the researchers explained in their report, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.”
Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.”

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their “primary news source” incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more — 17% — of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.
Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression.
Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total.
In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes would have done better in this survey, statistically speaking, if they received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate.
And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.
 

Griff

Well-Known Member
Or maybe everyone just watches Fox because they are sick of the garbage coming from all of your liberal news outlets. But if calling the truth "mud flinging" is how you justify the fact that most people trust Fox news over your boy Wolf Boy Commie Blitzer then you just continue to roll with that one.


You wouldn't know truth if it beat you over the head with a bat.
 

Leftinbuilding

Well-Known Member
October 6, 2003

Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD


Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am

I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.
The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq — helped fuel support for the war.
While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans’ opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.
As the researchers explained in their report, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.”
Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.”

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their “primary news source” incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more — 17% — of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.
Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression.
Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total.
In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes would have done better in this survey, statistically speaking, if they received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate.
And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.

Credibility gone! Demonstrates bias. One of your "perceived realities" Griff. You are believing someone else's interpretation of an alleged study.

Edit--I don't believe "misperceptions" is a word. At least according to spell chek. Gotta watch those sources Griff
 

Griff

Well-Known Member
Credibility gone! Demonstrates bias. One of your "perceived realities" Griff. You are believing someone else's interpretation of an alleged study.

Simple math outlined in that article, those statistics are staggering. Calling someone a "poor dupe" is putting it lightly in reference to what this article speaks of. This isn't a perceived reality, it's simple statistics based off a study. The people who conducted the study aren't the people who wrote the article, so what exactly is the difference? This is what I'm talking about, the three ring circus effect, you need your fix for mud.

This is the same reason why you all harp on the "bitter" comment. This is the same reason why you harp on his pastor. This is the reason why you harp on his wife. This is the same reason why people are up in arms about him not wearing an American flag pin (grotesque nationalism). None of you care about this country, you care about whatever you're told to care about.

Anyone who can watch the highlights from those two videos I posted from youtube and still believe that Fox News is unbiased needs to be committed to an asylum. I mean that whole-heartedly, you are NOT well.
 
Last edited:

Leftinbuilding

Well-Known Member
Simple math outlined in that article, those statistics are staggering. Calling someone a "poor dupe" is putting it lightly in reference to what this article speaks of. This isn't a perceived reality, it's simple statistics based off a study. The people who conducted the study aren't the people who wrote the article, so what exactly is the difference? This is what I'm talking about, the three ring circus effect, you need your fix for mud.

This is the same reason why you all harp on the "bitter" comment. This is the same reason why you harp on his pastor. This is the reason why you harp on his wife. This is the same reason why people are up in arms about him not wearing an American flag pin (grotesque nationalism). None of you care about this country, you care about whatever you're told to care about.

Anyone who can watch the highlights from those two videos I posted from youtube and still believe that Fox News is unbiased needs to be committed to an asylum. I mean that whole-heartedly, you are NOT well.

Did Obama make the "bitter" comment? Is his pastor of 20 years an America-hating racist? Is his wife an out-of-control liability? Is wearing an American flag pin too much to ask of one who wants to run America? The media simply reported these facts. I draw my own conclusions. I am a proud American, I kinda like grotesque nationalism. And frankly, you sound like you are running scared. Your man may not make it.
 

Griff

Well-Known Member
Did Obama make the "bitter" comment? Is his pastor of 20 years an America-hating racist? Is his wife an out-of-control liability? Is wearing an American flag pin too much to ask of one who wants to run America? The media simply reported these facts. I draw my own conclusions. I am a proud American, I kinda like grotesque nationalism. And frankly, you sound like you are running scared. Your man may not make it.

Yes he did make the bitter comment and it was the truth. No his pastor of 20 years isn't a racist. No his wife isn't an out of control liability. Yes wearing a pin is too much to ask when it becomes expected and required. The media only reports what they are told to report, that's why there needs to be reform. A lot of people in Germany were proud and they sure loved waving their flags and glorifying their symbols -- I bet you would of liked it over there too.
 

Leftinbuilding

Well-Known Member
Yes he did make the bitter comment and it was the truth. No his pastor of 20 years isn't a racist. No his wife isn't an out of control liability. Yes wearing a pin is too much to ask when it becomes expected and required. The media only reports what they are told to report, that's why there needs to be reform. A lot of people in Germany were proud and they sure loved waving their flags and glorifying their symbols -- I bet you would of liked it over there too.

That Nazi card is so weak. Be original. You like Obama. Stay with him. Your bitterness will only increase. He will never be President. And you can blame "perceived reality". Have a nice evening.
 

kene1024

Active Member
Unfortnately, regardless of which of the 3 gets elected, we are still screwed. It's sad that in a country this size (with a huge population), these are the choices we are left with.

Of course, there is so much BS involved, no sane person who is qualified for the job actually wants it. So we are left with these 3 hacks to choose from.

We truly do get the government we deserve.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Of the three candidates, I am probably going to have to hold my nose and vote for Obama. I agree with a lot of what he stands for, but the problem is I am also a gun nut/NRA member and his views on that subject are the polar opposite of my own.
I dont think it will matter either way. I hope and pray that I am wrong about this...but I have a sick feeling that if he gets nominated he will suffer the same fate as JFK, RFK and MLK.
 
Top