Fox viewers are less likely to believe lies after being paid to watch CNN for 30 days: study

[ZiprHead]

Fox viewers are less likely to believe lies after being paid to watch CNN for 30 days: study

A groundbreaking new study paid viewers of the Fox News Network to watch CNN for 30 days. What they found is that the viewers ultimately became more skeptical and less likely to buy into fake news. The early impacts, after just three days, showed that the viewers were already starting to change...

www.rawstory.com

A groundbreaking new study paid viewers of the Fox News Network to watch CNN for 30 days. What they found is that the viewers ultimately became more skeptical and less likely to buy into fake news. The early impacts, after just three days, showed that the viewers were already starting to change.


The findings of the study, written by David E. Brockman and Joshua L. Kalla, explained that the experiment used content analysis comparing the two networks during Sept. 2020.

"During this period, the researchers explained that "CNN provided extensive coverage of COVID-19, which included information about the severity of the COVID-19 crisis and poor aspects of Trump's performance handling COVID-19. Fox News covered COVID-19 much less," said the study. The coverage of COVID-19 it did offer provided little of the information CNN did, instead giving viewers information about why the virus was not a serious threat. On the other hand Fox News extensively but highly selectively covered racial issues, and its coverage of these issues provided extensive information about Biden and other Democrats' supposed positions on them and about outbreaks of violence at protests for racial justice in American cities. CNN provided little information about either. The networks both covered the issue of voting by mail, but again dramatically different information about it (in addition to offering different frames)."

"It's far from obvious," they surmised, that viewing different networks would affect the beliefs and attitudes of the viewer. In fact, it wasn't so much that viewers were tuning in because they already felt that way, their attitudes were actually being formed from the Fox network.

 

[Metaphor]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

 

[ZiprHead]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

 

[Metaphor]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was recently in a condo where Faux was playing on one TV, Newsmax on the other. I wasn't paying much attention but what I saw was deceptive at best.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

What are you talking about? Study proves CNN needs people to be paid to watch it.

 

[Metaphor]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

The paper does not use the term 'fake news'. That is a product of the left-biased article.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

The authors point out multiple ways that each network is selective in its news coverage.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

The authors explain they chose Fox viewers because the President was Republican, and had there been a Democrat President they would have designed the experiment the other way.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

The paper does not use the term 'fake news'. That is a product of the left-biased article.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

The authors point out multiple ways that each network is selective in its news coverage.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

The authors explain they chose Fox viewers because the President was Republican, and had there been a Democrat President they would have designed the experiment the other way.

There’s “selective”, and there’s “lying out your ass”.

 

[Metaphor]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

The paper does not use the term 'fake news'. That is a product of the left-biased article.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

The authors point out multiple ways that each network is selective in its news coverage.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

The authors explain they chose Fox viewers because the President was Republican, and had there been a Democrat President they would have designed the experiment the other way.

There’s “selective”, and there’s “lying out your ass”.

If you wish to make your own arguments about Fox, make them. But don't attribute to the study things the authors never said. ZiprHead decided to do that with his misleading thread title.

 

[ZiprHead]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

The paper does not use the term 'fake news'. That is a product of the left-biased article.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

The authors point out multiple ways that each network is selective in its news coverage.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

The authors explain they chose Fox viewers because the President was Republican, and had there been a Democrat President they would have designed the experiment the other way.

There’s “selective”, and there’s “lying out your ass”.

If you wish to make your own arguments about Fox, make them. But don't attribute to the study things the authors never said. ZiprHead decided to do that with his misleading thread title.

I C/P'd the thread title from the article. Makes me wonder if you've actually looked at it.

 

[Metaphor]

Neither your thread topic headline, nor the headline from the strongly left-biased rawstory, are justified from the findings of the study.

Can you cite the places in the report you think support your point?

I would have to know the places in the report that rawstory believes supports their headline.

The report actually says that people's knowledge and beliefs change after switching from one source with political coverage bias (Fox) to another source with political coverage bias (CNN).

So we need a study that pays CNN watchers to watch Fox for 30 days, to see if they become more susceptible to believing fake news. That seems logical.

The paper does not use the term 'fake news'. That is a product of the left-biased article.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the result of that study would find a much weaker effect. I'd also predict that the results of the studies would not see the light of day on Fox.

The authors point out multiple ways that each network is selective in its news coverage.

There's also the difficulty of finding people who would actually watch Fox for any amount of money that such a study could afford to pay.

The authors explain they chose Fox viewers because the President was Republican, and had there been a Democrat President they would have designed the experiment the other way.

There’s “selective”, and there’s “lying out your ass”.

If you wish to make your own arguments about Fox, make them. But don't attribute to the study things the authors never said. ZiprHead decided to do that with his misleading thread title.

I C/P'd the thread title from the article. Makes me wonder if you've actually looked at it.

Yes, I know you copied the thread title from the article. I made that clear from post #2. I also made clear that the title you copied was strongly left-biased and wrong.

It is correct to say the Fox viewers grew more skeptical of certain claims and developed certain beliefs. The article does not claim they were less likely to believe 'lies' or that Fox puts out 'lies'.

"Not covering Trump's failures" is not a "lie", any more than CNN giving hardly any coverage to the violence of racial protests is a "lie".

 

[ZiprHead]

It is correct to say the Fox viewers grew more skeptical of certain claims and developed certain beliefs. The article does not claim they were less likely to believe 'lies' or that Fox puts out 'lies'.

Everyone except Fox viewers and apparently you knows Fox lies.

 

[Metaphor]

It is correct to say the Fox viewers grew more skeptical of certain claims and developed certain beliefs. The article does not claim they were less likely to believe 'lies' or that Fox puts out 'lies'.

Everyone except Fox viewers and apparently you knows Fox lies.

Do not attribute to the study authors words they did not say

 

[ZiprHead]

WTF are you talking about???

 

[Metaphor]

WTF are you talking about???

The authors did not say "lies". That is your invention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The authors point out multiple ways that each network is selective in its news coverage.

Faux Noise is far beyond merely "selective". There was a study a while back that found that the majority of what they say is false. That's a pretty incredible accomplishment if you're doing anything resembling actual news reporting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you wish to make your own arguments about Fox, make them. But don't attribute to the study things the authors never said. ZiprHead decided to do that with his misleading thread title.

Since most of what Faux says is lies the title is reasonable.

 

[Patooka]

The authors did not say "lies". That is your invention.

A difference without a distinction really. The article states FOX viewers are less likely to believe lies after watching another media outlet. Which means they are consistently misinformed if they only watch FOX news. Which makes FOX deceptive. I wonder what a synonym for deceptive is.

Maybe what Ziprhead should have said was, "Everyone except Fox viewers and possibly the authors of the article but most likely not as this is fucking FOX news we are talking about and this level of pedantry precision is really fucking childish and apparently you knows Fox lies", would be more accurate. Honestly I think that level of semantic pettiness is superfluous [remved] as it still shows FOX is deceptive and unreliable as a media outlet and leaves its viewers misinformed.

 

[Patooka]

I mean for fucks sake, this isn't the first time it's been shown FOX is completely full of shit.

STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All

A study finds that watching Fox News may leave viewers less informed than not watching news at all, raising concerns about media influence.

www.businessinsider.com

Jon Stewart 1, Politifact 0: Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed

I have a lot of respect for political fact checking sites. I think they play a critical role, especially in our misinformation-saturated political and media environment. However, sometimes these sites fall for the allure of phony bipartisanship. In other words, in an environment in which...

www.desmog.com

Fox News viewers not well informed on war says survey

LONDON – Fox News may have proved the most popular news channel in the US during the war in Iraq, but a study has shown that viewers of the channel may have been better informed if they had paid less attention to it.

www.campaignlive.co.uk

There have been literally decades of polls and surveys that show watching FOX makes you consistently less informed. And it is because they fucking lie.