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

[Metaphor]

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.

Oh yes. There was a study a while back, was there? What was the study?

The point is not that ZiprHead or rawstory think that Fox lies. The point is that Ziprhead made an OP title making the implication that the authors implied something that they did not.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

It is not. The authors did not say or imply what the thread title says.

 

[Patooka]

The point is not that ZiprHead or rawstory think that Fox lies. The point is that Ziprhead made an OP title making the implication that the authors implied something that they did not. (emphasis mine)

Jesus fucking Christ:



It. Is. The. Exact. Same. Fucking. Title.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

The article does not state that.

Which means they are consistently misinformed if they only watch FOX news. Which makes FOX deceptive. I wonder what a synonym for deceptive is.

I don't know. This board's TOU forbids calling another poster's statement a lie, even if the statement is false.

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 (but typical for you) as it still shows FOX is deceptive and unreliable as a media outlet and leaves its viewers misinformed.

The fact that I am held to a level of semantic "pettiness" for my thread titles but that you are not willing to hold your side to the same level reflects a double standard.

The thread title implies the authors made a claim that they did not make.

 

[Metaphor]

The point is not that ZiprHead or rawstory think that Fox lies. The point is that Ziprhead made an OP title making the implication that the authors implied something that they did not. (emphasis mine)

Jesus fucking Christ:

View attachment 38104

It. Is. The. Exact. Same. Fucking. Title.

Do you read anything I write?

Quoting rawstory's misleading title doesn't get ZiprHead off the hook. If I quoted a FOX headline that made false claims you wouldn't look the other way, would you?

Hold yourself to the same standard you demand of others.

 

[Metaphor]

The article does not state that.

Sorry, I meant the study does not state that.

The article is strongly left biased and does indeed make that false claim.

 

[Patooka]

The fact that I am held to a level of semantic "pettiness" for my thread titles

There's a reason for that, and it's not what you think. I'll give you a hint; remember this dive into pedantry?. Or just go through any of the six trillion gender threads you have started. Obviously, I was being quite literal when I said you have started six trillion threads on gender*.

you are not willing to hold your side to the same level reflects a double standard.

I don't believe semantics and pedantry should be hills to die on. Someone in this thread does, and does it constantly. See, I don't believe precise definitions if context is maintained. In the example of this thread, "FOX news lies" and "FOX news viewers are less likely to believe in lies if they stop watching FOX" mean the same thing. Like I mentioned, a difference without a distinction. No double standard required.

*I wasn't actually. I was being facetious but I suspect I know what would happen if I didn't explain myself.

 

[Patooka]

If I quoted a FOX headline that made false claims you wouldn't look the other way, would you?

Nope, I would attack the article, saying it was horseshit. If you copied the article title verbatim I wouldn't be critical of your thread title at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

 

[Metaphor]

The fact that I am held to a level of semantic "pettiness" for my thread titles

There's a reason for that, and it's not what you think. I'll give you a hint; remember this dive into pedantry?. Or just go through any of the six trillion gender threads you have started. Obviously, I was being quite literal when I said you have started six trillion threads on gender*.

you are not willing to hold your side to the same level reflects a double standard.

I don't believe semantics and pedantry should be hills to die on. Someone in this thread does, and does it constantly. See, I don't believe precise definitions if context is maintained. In the example of this thread, "FOX news lies" and "FOX news viewers are less likely to believe in lies if they stop watching FOX" mean the same thing. Like I mentioned, a difference without a distinction. No double standard required.

*I wasn't actually. I was being facetious but I suspect I know what would happen if I didn't explain myself.

Yeah, you haven't understood a word I've said.

I don't care if you think FOX lies. I don't care if you think FOX viewers are less likely to believe lies after watching CNN.

I care that ZiprHead has misrepresented the conclusions of a study where the authors neither said or implied either thing. Adding the word "study" to the end of his sentence makes a false implication about the contents of the study.

 

[Metaphor]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

No, they didn't use more polite words. They used the words they meant. Your thread title misrepresents the results of the study.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Metaphor]

If I quoted a FOX headline that made false claims you wouldn't look the other way, would you?

Nope, I would attack the article, saying it was horseshit. If you copied the article title verbatim I wouldn't be critical of your thread title at all.

The thread title and the article quoted by ZiprHead are horseshit.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

No, they didn't use more polite words. They used the words they meant. Your thread title misrepresents the results of the study.

Let me get this straight - you are complaining about a misleading thread title? Wow.

 

[Metaphor]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

No, they didn't use more polite words. They used the words they meant. Your thread title misrepresents the results of the study.

Let me get this straight - you are complaining about a misleading thread title? Wow.

I'm complaining about the double standards of the board.

 

[ZiprHead]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

No, they didn't use more polite words. They used the words they meant. Your thread title misrepresents the results of the study.

Let me get this straight - you are complaining about a misleading thread title? Wow.

I'm complaining about the double standards of the board.

There is no double standard. My thread title was a direct quote. Yours are virtually always your own words.

 

[ZiprHead]

Second, our results indicate challenges that partisan media may pose for democratic account-
ability. Our findings suggest that partisan media may affect voters’ choices at least in part because
it hides information about aligned incumbents’ failures and distorts perceptions of political rivals.
This suggests that partisan media does not only present a challenge for the opposing party, it may
present a challenge for democracy which may deserve attention from policymakers.

Polite words from the report. The partisan media is Fox news.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

No, they didn't use more polite words. They used the words they meant. Your thread title misrepresents the results of the study.

Let me get this straight - you are complaining about a misleading thread title? Wow.

I'm complaining about the double standards of the board.

The board does not prohibit misleading thread titles. Do you mean that you are complaining about the different perceptions of "misleading" among some posters? Or are you saying if the thread title is changed to "Another day in the strange death of the USA - Fox viewers are less likely to believe lies after being paid to watch CNN for 30 days"?

As an aside, I don't think any study has enough money to pay me to watch any network's news programming for 60 days.

​

 

[Metaphor]

WTF are you talking about???

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

Semantics. Of course the authors of the study used more polite words but the basic meaning is the same.

No, they didn't use more polite words. They used the words they meant. Your thread title misrepresents the results of the study.

Let me get this straight - you are complaining about a misleading thread title? Wow.

I'm complaining about the double standards of the board.

There is no double standard. My thread title was a direct quote. Yours are virtually always your own words.

I'll keep in mind that criticisms of misleading thread titles only count when they are not a copy and paste.

 

[Tigers!]

Second, our results indicate challenges that partisan media may pose for democratic account-
ability. Our findings suggest that partisan media may affect voters’ choices at least in part because
it hides information about aligned incumbents’ failures and distorts perceptions of political rivals.
This suggests that partisan media does not only present a challenge for the opposing party, it may
present a challenge for democracy which may deserve attention from policymakers.

Polite words from the report. The partisan media is Fox news.

I have noticed that partisan media is always the other mob.