Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That study was totally flawed. Here is why:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-news-viewers/

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

None of the other news outlets are going to defend Fox. Fox is beating them all in the ratings. The other news outlets were thrilled with the story. Why would the other news outlets try to show that the study was flawed?

Anyway, after reading some of the questions that were asked in the study, I don't know how anyone could think that study was reliable.

And yes, when a company or person is accused of something, I'm going to want to hear their defense. After listening to their defense, I may or may not think they won the argument, but I will at least listen to their argument. You can't find someone guilty of something without listening to their defense.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

None of the other news outlets are going to defend Fox. Fox is beating them all in the ratings. The other news outlets were thrilled with the story. Why would the other news outlets try to show that the study was flawed?

Anyway, after reading some of the questions that were asked in the study, I don't know how anyone could think that study was reliable.

And yes, when a company or person is accused of something, I'm going to want to hear their defense. After listening to their defense, I may or may not think they won the argument, but I will at least listen to their argument. You can't find someone guilty of something without listening to their defense.

there are groups who 'judge' all the media outlets. what do they have to say?

foxes ratings have been significantly down for some time, with seniors being their core-you know, just like the republican party.

and they should have to remove their 'fair and balanced' tag,because everyone knows they're just a shill for the republiecans.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I'm supposed to take a fox defense by fox seriously?

This piece is a classic look at typical FOX misinformation to try to make its point. From the piece:

"Question #4: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?" (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org's report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims."

Note how in the second half of this, the Op-ed switches the terminology from "climate change" (what the original question was about) to "man-made global warming." It's verbal sleight-of-hand and is quite common when someone wants to mislead without appearing to do so. The two terms are not synonymous. So, FOX can say, "Look! There are scientists who dispute man-made global warming!" when the survey question was "Do most scientists believe climate change is occurring, not occurring, or evenly divided?" The original question makes no claim as to cause of climate change, but FOX is happy to impose one in order to misinform.

For that matter, "climate change" and "global warming" (regardless of man-made or not) are not the same thing, either.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This piece is a classic look at typical FOX misinformation to try to make its point. From the piece:

"Question #4: "Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?" (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org's report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims."

Note how in the second half of this, the Op-ed switches the terminology from "climate change" (what the original question was about) to "man-made global warming." It's verbal sleight-of-hand and is quite common when someone wants to mislead without appearing to do so. The two terms are not synonymous. So, FOX can say, "Look! There are scientists who dispute man-made global warming!" when the survey question was "Do most scientists believe climate change is occurring, not occurring, or evenly divided?" The original question makes no claim as to cause of climate change, but FOX is happy to impose one in order to misinform.

For that matter, "climate change" and "global warming" (regardless of man-made or not) are not the same thing, either.

As the author says, nobody disputes that temperatures have risen from hundreds of years ago. There is no controversy about that. If someone asked me a question about whether I believe in global warming, I would assume they were asking me about the controversy, not simply about whether there has been any rise in temperature over the last few hundreds of years. And I assume that is what most people would think if you asked them that question.

If they really wanted to know if people were informed, they should simply ask people simple questions that can't be misinterpreted. Ask them who the vice-president is. Ask them who the Prime Minister of Israel is. I know those questions are simple, but I'd much rather have a non-subjective question that can't be misinterpreted.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As the author says, nobody disputes that temperatures have risen from hundreds of years ago. There is no controversy about that. If someone asked me a question about whether I believe in global warming, I would assume they were asking me about the controversy, not simply about whether there has been any rise in temperature over the last few hundreds of years. And I assume that is what most people would think if you asked them that question.

The question was whether they thought most scientists believe climate change is occurring, is not occurring or is evenly divided. It had nothing to do with what the question taker's opinion on climate change is. And you didn't address the point I made, either, which is that the terminology changed halfway through the op ed paragraph on this section.

If they really wanted to know if people were informed, they should simply ask people simple questions that can't be misinterpreted. Ask them who the vice-president is. Ask them who the Prime Minister of Israel is. I know those questions are simple, but I'd much rather have a non-subjective question that can't be misinterpreted.

The Fairleigh Dickenson quiz (this is the one we're talking about, right?) did ask questions like that- it asked which nation spent the most money bailing out the financially troubled nations of Europe, for example (a question that has only one right answer). Fox News viewers were more likely to (incorrectly) say the US, than someone who didn't watch the news at all. A regular viewer of the evening news was more likely to know the correct answer than someone who didn't watch news. People who tuned in regularly to NPR were the most likely to know the correct answer.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The question was whether they thought most scientists believe climate change is occurring, is not occurring or is evenly divided. It had nothing to do with what the question taker's opinion on climate change is. And you didn't address the point I made, either, which is that the terminology changed halfway through the op ed paragraph on this section.



The Fairleigh Dickenson quiz (this is the one we're talking about, right?) did ask questions like that- it asked which nation spent the most money bailing out the financially troubled nations of Europe, for example (a question that has only one right answer). Fox News viewers were more likely to (incorrectly) say the US, than someone who didn't watch the news at all. A regular viewer of the evening news was more likely to know the correct answer than someone who didn't watch news. People who tuned in regularly to NPR were the most likely to know the correct answer.

The terminology change in the op-ed was what the author's point was. His point was that what most people probably assumed they were being asked about was about the global warming controversy.

This article explains what a complete joke the Farleigh "study" was. It explains exactly how the "study" was done. By the way, the study did not identify which people got their news from only Fox News.

http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/20...coherent-mess/

Newsbusters has an article talking about some of the other supposed studies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...-people-stupid

[joeydb]

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.