Image of the day

Captured by
RICHARD COFER

Comet 2022 E3 ZTF

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

An interesting piece of research

Started by rpasken, 09/24/2008 07:08PM
Posted 09/24/2008 07:08PM Opening Post
In 2003 a study found that viewers of Fox News were significantly more misinformed about the Iraq war, with far greater percentages of viewers erroneously believing that Iraq possessed WMDs or that there was a credible link between the 9/11 attack and Saddam Hussein than those who got their news from other outlets like NPR and PBS. This has lead to the rise of websites like FactCheck and SourceWatch.

Attached Image:

rpasken's attachment for post 43888
Posted 09/24/2008 07:44PM | Edited 09/24/2008 07:48PM #1
Robert Pasken said:

In 2003 a study found that viewers of Fox News were significantly more misinformed about the Iraq war, with far greater percentages of viewers erroneously believing that Iraq possessed WMDs or that there was a credible link between the 9/11 attack and Saddam Hussein than those who got their news from other outlets like NPR and PBS. This has lead to the rise of websites like FactCheck and SourceWatch.

Hi Robert:

2003 kind of taints these questions. Things were a lot less certain back then, (if I recall correctly? Maybe not??)

Nonetheless the above is not my point. The righty bias of Fox is not news. Of course neither is the lefty bias of certain other news outlets.

Therefore, I'd be interested in seeing how many viewers of various news outlets believe that Clinton was impeached for having sex with an intern. Or how many viewers of CBS etc. think that the final count of all hanging chads by the major news organizations clearly showed Gore winning Florida 8 years ago. I imagine that you might see a similar misinformation "correlation" in reverse. Did the source of this study ask any questions where a Democratic predisposition and bias might lead the respondees to more readily accept selected commonly held misinformation?

I'm not excusing the ignorance of those who are holding fast to misinformation and propaganda by the way. I am suggesting that this study might have had a bias/agenda which is apparent from the particular misinformation they chose to explore.

Jim