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

[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.

Cool. Now do Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The one that Giuliani was talking about or the one the FBI have?

 

[Elixir]

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.

Once again it leads to questioning Meta’s sources. Someone is telling him that CNN isn’t covering what they’re covering.

 

[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.

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.

Way to miss the point, again.

I don't care what you think FOX viewers are like or what ZiprHead thinks they are like or that either of you express your opinions on them. Just don't attribute to the study and authors your opinion of FOX viewers, and other claims the authors did not make.

 

[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.

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.

Once again it leads to questioning Meta’s sources. Someone is telling him that CNN isn’t covering what they’re covering.

You clearly have not read the OP, anything else in the thread, or the linked study.

I did not make any personal claim whatever about what CNN covered or didn't cover. I repeated the claims made by the study authors in ZiprHead's OP as an example of what the study authors actually said versus what ZiprHead's linked rawstory article said they said.

 

[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.

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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

 

[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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

Yes - it is called lying by omission.

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

You pulled that claim about CNN lies right out of your ass. You have no evidence that Fox viewers were lied to by CNN during their viewing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies.It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

"Degree of bias" in the case of Fox equates to lying.

 

[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.

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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

Yes - it is called lying by omission.

Then all networks everywhere lie by omission, because all of them select what they are going to report.

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

You pulled that claim about CNN lies right out of your ass. You have no evidence that Fox viewers were lied to by CNN during their viewing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

No. It was the claim that the authors claimed FOX news lies that was pulled out of Rawstory's ass and repeated by ZiprHead.

The authors claim CNN has selective bias coverage just as FOX does, and by your 'lie of omission' criterion, it too is lying.

It is the result of your own position on the issue, not mine.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies.It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

"Degree of bias" in the case of Fox equates to lying.

Once again, whatever you think about FOX, the authors did not say FOX lies to its audience. And if you think degree of bias is relevant, then mediabiasfactcheck.com (a favourite of ZiprHead's when he wants to dismiss a story) rates CNN at least as left-biased as it rates FOX as right-biased.

By all your own standards, if FOX lies by omission and bias, so does CNN.

I think the study itself is interesting. It's too bad rawstory misrepresented it and the views of its authors, ZiprHead repeated the misrepresentation unapologetically, and the left-bias of the board has endorsed the misleading thread title and doubled down on its anti-FOX mania, and completely missing the point.

 

[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.

The one that Giuliani was talking about or the one the FBI have?

Nice dodge.

 

[Patooka]

Nice dodge.

Nice hoax.

 

[Trausti]

Nice dodge.

Nice hoax.

Wow. They say the Fox News watchers are gullible. But wow. How many other media lies have you fallen for? Pee tape? Russian bounties?

Washington Post joins New York Times in finally admitting emails from Hunter Biden laptop are real

The Washington Post on Wednesday became the second major news outlet to reverse course and admit that emails from the infamous Hunter Biden laptop are authentic.

nypost.com

 

[Patooka]

None of which compromise Joe Biden. Like I said, nice hoax.

 

[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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

Yes - it is called lying by omission.

Then all networks everywhere lie by omission, because all of them select what they are going to report.

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

You pulled that claim about CNN lies right out of your ass. You have no evidence that Fox viewers were lied to by CNN during their viewing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

No. It was the claim that the authors claimed FOX news lies that was pulled out of Rawstory's ass and repeated by ZiprHead.

The authors claim CNN has selective bias coverage just as FOX does, and by your 'lie of omission' criterion, it too is lying.

It is the result of your own position on the issue, not mine.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies.It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

"Degree of bias" in the case of Fox equates to lying.

Once again, whatever you think about FOX, the authors did not say FOX lies to its audience. And if you think degree of bias is relevant, then mediabiasfactcheck.com (a favourite of ZiprHead's when he wants to dismiss a story) rates CNN at least as left-biased as it rates FOX as right-biased.

By all your own standards, if FOX lies by omission and bias, so does CNN.

I think the study itself is interesting. It's too bad rawstory misrepresented it and the views of its authors, ZiprHead repeated the misrepresentation unapologetically, and the left-bias of the board has endorsed the misleading thread title and doubled down on its anti-FOX mania, and completely missing the point.

I would need a fulltime chiropractor to deal with all the contortions you have going through to justify your complaint.

 

[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.

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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

Yes - it is called lying by omission.

Then all networks everywhere lie by omission, because all of them select what they are going to report.

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

You pulled that claim about CNN lies right out of your ass. You have no evidence that Fox viewers were lied to by CNN during their viewing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

No. It was the claim that the authors claimed FOX news lies that was pulled out of Rawstory's ass and repeated by ZiprHead.

The authors claim CNN has selective bias coverage just as FOX does, and by your 'lie of omission' criterion, it too is lying.

It is the result of your own position on the issue, not mine.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies.It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

"Degree of bias" in the case of Fox equates to lying.

Once again, whatever you think about FOX, the authors did not say FOX lies to its audience. And if you think degree of bias is relevant, then mediabiasfactcheck.com (a favourite of ZiprHead's when he wants to dismiss a story) rates CNN at least as left-biased as it rates FOX as right-biased.

By all your own standards, if FOX lies by omission and bias, so does CNN.

I think the study itself is interesting. It's too bad rawstory misrepresented it and the views of its authors, ZiprHead repeated the misrepresentation unapologetically, and the left-bias of the board has endorsed the misleading thread title and doubled down on its anti-FOX mania, and completely missing the point.

I would need a fulltime chiropractor to deal with all the contortions you have going through to justify your complaint.

Well chiropractors are fake and so is your charge against me.

 

[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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

Yes - it is called lying by omission.

Then all networks everywhere lie by omission, because all of them select what they are going to report.

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

You pulled that claim about CNN lies right out of your ass. You have no evidence that Fox viewers were lied to by CNN during their viewing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

No. It was the claim that the authors claimed FOX news lies that was pulled out of Rawstory's ass and repeated by ZiprHead.

The authors claim CNN has selective bias coverage just as FOX does, and by your 'lie of omission' criterion, it too is lying.

It is the result of your own position on the issue, not mine.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies.It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

"Degree of bias" in the case of Fox equates to lying.

Once again, whatever you think about FOX, the authors did not say FOX lies to its audience. And if you think degree of bias is relevant, then mediabiasfactcheck.com (a favourite of ZiprHead's when he wants to dismiss a story) rates CNN at least as left-biased as it rates FOX as right-biased.

By all your own standards, if FOX lies by omission and bias, so does CNN.

I think the study itself is interesting. It's too bad rawstory misrepresented it and the views of its authors, ZiprHead repeated the misrepresentation unapologetically, and the left-bias of the board has endorsed the misleading thread title and doubled down on its anti-FOX mania, and completely missing the point.

I would need a fulltime chiropractor to deal with all the contortions you have going through to justify your complaint.

Well chiropractors are fake and so is your charge against me.

You are wrong on both counts.

 

[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.

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.

I've read that paragraph more than once. What precisely do you think it implies? Is "concealing negative information about Trump" a lie?

Yes - it is called lying by omission.

Then all networks everywhere lie by omission, because all of them select what they are going to report.

We've been through this. If concealing negative information about Trump is a lie (which the authors do not claim, despite Rawstory's misleading headline), then CNN's selective coverage is also a lie. In other words, as I've said, the headline could have been:

FOX viewers stop believing FOX lies when they are exposed to CNN lies.

You pulled that claim about CNN lies right out of your ass. You have no evidence that Fox viewers were lied to by CNN during their viewing. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't.

No. It was the claim that the authors claimed FOX news lies that was pulled out of Rawstory's ass and repeated by ZiprHead.

The authors claim CNN has selective bias coverage just as FOX does, and by your 'lie of omission' criterion, it too is lying.

It is the result of your own position on the issue, not mine.

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.

I read that too. What do you think it implies?

This shows that they gained a new perspective from watching something that had a different perspective. It doesn't say anything about lies.It doesn't say anything about lies. Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you were lied to about it. It means you were ignorant of it.

"Degree of bias" in the case of Fox equates to lying.

Once again, whatever you think about FOX, the authors did not say FOX lies to its audience. And if you think degree of bias is relevant, then mediabiasfactcheck.com (a favourite of ZiprHead's when he wants to dismiss a story) rates CNN at least as left-biased as it rates FOX as right-biased.

By all your own standards, if FOX lies by omission and bias, so does CNN.

I think the study itself is interesting. It's too bad rawstory misrepresented it and the views of its authors, ZiprHead repeated the misrepresentation unapologetically, and the left-bias of the board has endorsed the misleading thread title and doubled down on its anti-FOX mania, and completely missing the point.

I would need a fulltime chiropractor to deal with all the contortions you have going through to justify your complaint.

Well chiropractors are fake and so is your charge against me.

You are wrong on both counts.

Everything I've said is accurate. The fact that you can't counter them and instead accuse me of acrobatics cements my belief that my case is quite solid.

Also, even your figurative language was strained. If I was doing the contortions, I would need the chiropractor. Except I wouldn't because chiropractors are witch doctors who scam people out of money while damaging their spines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Completely full?? They keep stuffing more in somehow!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Fire is not always violence. Fiery but peaceful is possible.

Bonfire: Fiery but peaceful party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well chiropractors are fake and so is your charge against me.

Chiropractors are most certainly real. Doesn't mean they can accomplish anything more than crack joints, but they certainly do exist!

 

[Metaphor]

Well chiropractors are fake and so is your charge against me.

Chiropractors are most certainly real. Doesn't mean they can accomplish anything more than crack joints, but they certainly do exist!

Chiropractors are fake in the same way psychics are fake. Don't pretend you were confused and thought I meant to imply they didn't exist.

 

[laughing dog]

Well chiropractors are fake and so is your charge against me.

Chiropractors are most certainly real. Doesn't mean they can accomplish anything more than crack joints, but they certainly do exist!

Chiropractors are fake in the same way psychics are fake. Don't pretend you were confused and thought I meant to imply they didn't exist.

I am not the one here who is either confused or ignorant. Nor am I the one here who is pretending anything. While chiropactors are not physicians, they can be helpful in some instances.

Everything I've said is accurate.

I realize you either really believe what ou spout or that you are unwilling to admit error, but you are mistaken.