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

[Metaphor]

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.

They are describing selective coverage, something that the authors also accuse CNN of.

By this definition of 'lying', your thread title could have been 'FOX viewers less likely to believe FOX lies after being exposed to CNN lies'.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

That's probably because you are in the global top 1% for income.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

They are describing selective coverage, something that the authors also accuse CNN of.

By this definition of 'lying', your thread title could have been 'FOX viewers less likely to believe FOX lies after being exposed to CNN lies'.

True. I think an even better thread title would be "FOX viewers are so fucking stupid they will believe any network that they repeatedly watch".

 

[Metaphor]

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.

They are describing selective coverage, something that the authors also accuse CNN of.

By this definition of 'lying', your thread title could have been 'FOX viewers less likely to believe FOX lies after being exposed to CNN lies'.

True. I think an even better thread title would be "FOX viewers are so fucking stupid they will believe any network that they repeatedly watch".

The authors do not claim it is anything specific about FOX viewers.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

That's probably because you are in the global top 1% for income.

Nope - I have a short attention span for anything on TV. It would have been true when I was eligible (and received ) the earned income tax credit.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

They are describing selective coverage, something that the authors also accuse CNN of.

By this definition of 'lying', your thread title could have been 'FOX viewers less likely to believe FOX lies after being exposed to CNN lies'.

True. I think an even better thread title would be "FOX viewers are so fucking stupid they will believe any network that they repeatedly watch".

The authors do not claim it is anything specific about FOX viewers.

What does that have to with a thread title?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

They are describing selective coverage, something that the authors also accuse CNN of.

By this definition of 'lying', your thread title could have been 'FOX viewers less likely to believe FOX lies after being exposed to CNN lies'.

True. I think an even better thread title would be "FOX viewers are so fucking stupid they will believe any network that they repeatedly watch".

The authors do not claim it is anything specific about FOX viewers.

What does that have to with a thread title?

If you think it's a better thread title, you are again endorsing a misleading thread title. The authors do not make any claims about the 'stupidity' of FOX viewers versus anyone else. In fact from my brief reading they intend to make a far more general claim about human psychology.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

That's probably because you are in the global top 1% for income.

Nope - I have a short attention span for anything on TV. It would have been true when I was eligible (and received ) the earned income tax credit.

I mean: no study has enough money to pay you because you are in the global top 1% for income.

Now, if a study paid me $1,000/hr to do so, I'd watch almost any news coverage.

 

[Elixir]

Alt Thread Title:
Propaganda Works

 

[Derec]

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

 

[Toni]

Fact Checking a Claim That Fox News Says Its Programming Is ‘Entertainment,’ Not News

The claim is misleading.

factcheck.thedispatch.com

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by a woman who said she had an affair with President Trump.

www.npr.org

 

[Metaphor]

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

Derec, there is no such thing as left-biased selective coverage or leftist lies. There's only The Truth vs right-wing lies.

 

[Metaphor]

Keep the links coming! Not one of them can make ZiprHead's thread title truthful, because ZiprHead's thread title makes a false implication about what study authors said, not what Fox news did or didn't say.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 38105
View attachment 38106

You may need to explain what this is (in particular, what the horizontal axis is supposed to be), and then explain how this makes your misleading thread title--that falsely makes a claim about something the authors of a study implied--somehow not misleading.

 

[ZiprHead]

They are describing selective coverage

And distortion. Funny you didn't address that part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Derec, there is no such thing as left-biased selective coverage or leftist lies. There's only The Truth vs right-wing lies.

Yes meanwhile, Cleveland, OH was in flames because a single house caught on fire.

The post above seems to not be able to understand that CNN HAS ACTUALLY COVERED THAT violence did occur... it is right there in the background. They are also reporting that most of the other areas of protests didn't have fire.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

They are describing selective coverage, something that the authors also accuse CNN of.

By this definition of 'lying', your thread title could have been 'FOX viewers less likely to believe FOX lies after being exposed to CNN lies'.

True. I think an even better thread title would be "FOX viewers are so fucking stupid they will believe any network that they repeatedly watch".

The authors do not claim it is anything specific about FOX viewers.

What does that have to with a thread title?

If you think it's a better thread title, you are again endorsing a misleading thread title. The authors do not make any claims about the 'stupidity' of FOX viewers versus anyone else. In fact from my brief reading they intend to make a far more general claim about human psychology.

It is a more accurate description of the general Fox viewer based on Fox's own programming. It is consistent with the findngs of the study.

 

[laughing dog]

Keep the links coming! Not one of them can make ZiprHead's thread title truthful, because ZiprHead's thread title makes a false implication about what study authors said, not what Fox news did or didn't say.

I read the article. From your posts, it appears you did not read the article with any normal level of comprehension.

From the article summary

Despite regular Fox viewers being largely strong partisans, we found manifold effects of changing the slant of their media diets on their factual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of issues' importance, and overall political views. We show that these effects stem in part from a bias we call partisan coverage filtering, wherein partisan outlets selectively report information, leading viewers to learn a biased set of facts. Consistent with this, treated participants concluded that Fox concealed negative information about President Trump.

And from page 34 of the study

. We also found that participants in the treatment group underestimated Fox News' degree of bias, as they were more likely to agree that if Donald Trump did something bad, Fox News would not cover it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Washington Post article on this.

Speaks on 'both sides' filter angle. The issue, however, is that the example used in the CNN interview was lack of coverage in Israel "peace deals", which really weren't much of anything on CNN, but Fox News had bigly coverage on it.

 

[Trausti]

Washington Post article on this.

Speaks on 'both sides' filter angle. The issue, however, is that the example used in the CNN interview was lack of coverage in Israel "peace deals", which really weren't much of anything on CNN, but Fox News had bigly coverage on it.

Cool. Now do Hunter Biden’s laptop.