This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study - Comments

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Comment 1 by xsjadolateralus

I don't "watch" news. I inform myself and it's a daunting, yet liberating task.

People too lazy to read will naturally gravitate toward something like FOX because it's easy to understand, then again, everything intuitive is easy to understand. Therein lies the problem. Intuition takes the least amount of effort and so does flipping on the TV and getting the "news".

It's pretty obvious when you think about it. The masses follow the path of least resistance. As long as the easy path exists, lazy people will choose it.

It's easier to listen to your intuition, rather than educate yourself. Easier to beat a child, than teach it why it shouldn't do X,Y and Z. Etc.

It's extremely easy to follow your intuition and disregard all sources of valid information. Then hold the intuitions as valid, because of your intentional ignorance.

Like I said, path of least resistance. Simple as that. It takes effort to use your brain and people aren't willing to give the effort.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:58:47 UTC | #892936

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 2 by Neodarwinian

Well, not watching any news, but reading it is much more informative, on average. Besides, Fox " news " is not so much news as opinion. There are several outlets that seem to want to add their own flavor to the news rather than just report it.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:04:45 UTC | #892937

Metamag's Avatar Comment 3 by Metamag

LOL, people are still pretending that Fox News is not a political organization and make studies about it.

Didn't we have this debate like 8 years ago?

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:21:15 UTC | #892939

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 4 by Border Collie

I love "worse than nothing" stories. Hahahahahhaha on FOX.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:25:58 UTC | #892941

DefenderOfReason!'s Avatar Comment 5 by DefenderOfReason!

Then how ignorant does that make Bill O'Reily?

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:35:32 UTC | #892947

wdbailey's Avatar Comment 6 by wdbailey

From what I've observed of FOX they seem to be very much poll driven. They find out what people want to watch and that's what they'll see in the "new". I see this as much worse than even tabloid journalism. As for O'Reilly I suspect that if the powers at FOX did polling that revealed that a transgender marxist would get a few more points in the ratings they'd can him as soon as they could find someone who'd fit the poll. No offense meant to either the transgender or marxist, just that those folks would seem to be the furthest from what FOX currently seems to represent.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:45:55 UTC | #892949

Save me jebuz!'s Avatar Comment 7 by Save me jebuz!

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study


Overall, 53% of all respondents knew that Egyptians successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak and 48% knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government.

And tragic in equal measure!

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:49:15 UTC | #892951

achromat666's Avatar Comment 8 by achromat666

I would be surprised that this is news to anyone.

More importantly, I'm far more concerned that it's still permitted to exist pretending to be news.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 04:03:16 UTC | #892953

Metamag's Avatar Comment 9 by Metamag

Comment 8 by achromat666 :

I would be surprised that this is news to anyone.

More importantly, I'm far more concerned that it's still permitted to exist pretending to be news.

Yeah, I think USA is the only country besides North Korea and Iran where such organizations are allowed to exist.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 04:24:05 UTC | #892958

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 10 by alaskansee

I'd like to put a shout out for how bad CNN is too, not nearly as blatantly partisan but deeply trivial and with mind blowing tunnel vision. Living in North America you HAVE to look elsewhere for real news let alone any "world news."

This is surely why the Republicans field of candidates is nothing more than a bunch of idiots with some stupid catch phrases.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:01:39 UTC | #892959

Functional Atheist's Avatar Comment 11 by Functional Atheist

Comment 9 by Metamag :

Comment 8 by achromat666 :

I would be surprised that this is news to anyone.

More importantly, I'm far more concerned that it's still permitted to exist pretending to be news.

Yeah, I think USA is the only country besides North Korea and Iran where such organizations are allowed to exist.

Your comparison makes no sense, and is completely false.

Britain, to cite but one example, has had blatantly partisan press for centuries. Fox News is the cable TV equivalent of a trashy, strongly pro-Tory UK tabloid, and is not in the slightest comparable to the state-controlled media of North Korea and Iran.

In addition, Fox News requires no broadcasting license--they do not use the public airways. So even if the 'fairness doctrine' was still US law--and it is not--it would not apply to Fox News or to any other cable/satellite channel.

In addition, you clearly have no conception of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would be flagrantly and wildly unlawful for Fox News to be banned or subject to government censorship.

[edited by moderator to bring within terms of use]

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:06:15 UTC | #892961

andersemil's Avatar Comment 12 by andersemil

... and Bill O'Reilly has almost 500,000 fans on :(

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:36:56 UTC | #892963

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 13 by alaskansee

Oops, forgot to add, Huff Po the Bastion of Science

Sorry that should read Huff Po the Bastardization of Science

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:56:10 UTC | #892965

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 14 by Laurie Fraser

Let's face it - very few people have a "very good" grasp on events and issues, simply because the majority do not read extensively, or know how to source reliable information. The average Fox News consumer is only marginally less well-off than his Daily Mail-reading counterpart. One of the biggest-selling newspapers in Australia is the Sydney Daily Telegraph - a Murdoch rag that feeds a constant stream of right-wing propaganda to mainly working-class people. Obviously, we would be better off without any of these nasty, ideological "news" organs, but we live in mainly capitalist societies where "freedom of the press" is a holy writ that allows abject mendacity to be reported as truth.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:13:30 UTC | #892966

Perfect Tommy's Avatar Comment 15 by Perfect Tommy

In other news the sky is blue.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:41:12 UTC | #892967

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 16 by Alan4discussion

Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

We often have "Foxologists" turning up in discussions, determined to pass on their purveyed ignorance of science, life, the universe and all that!

What is the IQ level the "deep thought" of Fox, is aimed at? Was it the "Hitch-Hikers' Guide" which suggested the answer was 42 ? It takes quite a long time to work it out too!

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:56:35 UTC | #892971

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 17 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Fox News Fux Views.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:09:42 UTC | #892973

thebaldgit's Avatar Comment 18 by thebaldgit

The fact that people who do not watch news on tv know more about news than fox viewers is not a surprise, there are many ways to assimilate news without watching a tv as i know from personal experience. The fox news viewers probably know less about current world news than my washing machine.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:12:24 UTC | #892974

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 19 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

Overall 48% [of all respondents] knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government.

That's really weird!

The direct implication is that 52% do not know that a government has not been overthrown!

How many other things do they not know have not happened?

Do they not know that the sky has not fallen down?

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:14:59 UTC | #892975

Stephen of Wimbledon's Avatar Comment 20 by Stephen of Wimbledon

As the full story points out the University of Maryland told us this last year.

Yet Fox continues as before ... things that make you go 'hmm'.

It is surely no surprise that Fox is the enemy when it comes to critical thinking and evidence-based understanding. TV is exceptionally powerful in the political arena - it is the central medium for changing the zeitgeist.

The English-speaking peoples of Europe narrowly escaped a Fox fate when Murdoch made a bid for the half of Sky he does not own, and failed.

That danger is not yet passed. News Corp. have made it clear that they will return.

Although the police investigations and enquiries continue to generate anti-News Corp. stories on a daily basis many people are ignorant of what is happening because they read News Corp. papers, listen to News Corp. Radio and while Sky News is only half on the News Corp. payroll they certainly sing a different tune to the independent media. They are also blanket-covering their own parent company's story to ensure people get bored and the story can be shelved as soon as the major enquiries are over.

The allegations against News Corp. still need to be processed. But it seems highly unlikely - given the money News Corp. paid in out-of-court settlements to try and hide their wrongdoing, the apologies from the most senior execs, other senior execs resignations, the evidence given under oath that piles up every day, that News Corp. will ever come out of this smelling good. But that is to be complacent.

You have to be here in the UK to see the power of a cornered media conglomerate. Mix with the ordinary people and they are often little more than vaguely aware that evidence continues to emerge that touches very high up in the News Corp. hierarchy.

To me it seems axiomatic that the time is overdue for Western societies to question: What is the value of the media conglomerates? From a socio-political perspective these Fox surveys, and the horrors of News Corp. in the UK, mean that we should be actively breaking up these entities and imposing rules of governance on the smaller media companies that result.


Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:44:31 UTC | #892982

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 21 by drumdaddy

The sad thing is that FOX Noise is ubiquitous. Murdoch is a very successful de-educator.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:57:08 UTC | #892984

locka's Avatar Comment 22 by locka

It would not surprise me at all that people who selectively choose their news outlet to suit their politics would end up with a distorted picture of current events. Probably applies as much to people who use Huffington Post as their primary news source as it would Fox though the topics where ignorance is shown probably vary between groups.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:59:19 UTC | #892986

ina.j's Avatar Comment 23 by ina.j

I do not watch any news except for Jon Stewart and Have I Got News For You. I wonder, do I belong to the group of "watchers" or "non-watchers"?...

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:21:34 UTC | #892993

The Notorious B.I.N.G's Avatar Comment 24 by The Notorious B.I.N.G

I imagine I shall be alone here in admitting to absolutely loving Fox News. Not, I should hasten to add, for its news (there isn't any), nor for its views (which I despise for the most part), but for its entertainment value. There's simply no place on earth quite like Fox HQ.

I find it interesting that many on the liberal/left would like to see it banished from the airwaves for being "biased". (This despite their avowal of free speech.) So what if it's biased? I am adult enough to cope with the fact that people in the media have - sometimes extreme - biases. I can make up my own mind.

The real objection come from surveys like this one, which tend to support the liberal bias that organisations like Fox are "brainwashing" the credulous masses. The accusation of brainwashing is a useful one: it allows those doing the accusing to avoid the difficult truth that people may disagree with them. Not because they are automatons powerless to resist the pull of that sexy siren Bill O'Reilly, but because they have their own inclinations. If only people got their news from the right sources like me, runs the implication, if only they followed the media I like, then they wouldn't be so right-wing and stupid.

The idea that people watch Fox because they are right-wing, and are not right-wing because they watch Fox, is simply lost on those critics.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:35:35 UTC | #892995

DavidMcC's Avatar Comment 25 by DavidMcC

I watch a whole range of news channels: BBC world service, Euronews, Al Jazeera (English service) and even Russia Today. (Sometimes a bit of CNN international, but that isn't what it used to be.) Anything they all say must be true! RT is a bit of an odd one out, because of its preference for interviewing MEPs from UKIP on the Euro crisis, but both Al Jazeera and RT seem to be better at "digging the dirt" on Western Europe and the US.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:35:39 UTC | #892996

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 26 by Steven Mading

To be meaningful it would have to compare Fox viewers to viewers of other TV news, rather than comparing them to viewers of no TV news. The problem with comparing them to viewers of no TV news is that you haven't isolated the variables by doing that. Is it FOX, specifically, that is responsible for their poor performance at the test or is it simply viewing TV news in general that is responsible for it?

(In other words, is it that act of getting your news from non-television sources the real reason for the better scoring on the questions?) Do'nt' get me wrong, Fox news is awful. But to prove that you have to isolate the variables better and compare like with like. How about a test of, say, Fox versus MsNBC rather than Fox vs no TV at all.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:40:24 UTC | #892997

peter mayhew's Avatar Comment 27 by peter mayhew

Figures. Tide goes in; tide goes out.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:50:11 UTC | #893001

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 28 by rod-the-farmer

........Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study......... ??????

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People

There. Fixed.

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:51:34 UTC | #893003

andyb001's Avatar Comment 29 by andyb001

This is their aim isn't it? I thought that the purpose of Fox News (I use the word "News" in its loosest sense) was to keep the viewers in the dark, that way they won't ask any awkward questions... Or is that the church? Hmmm....

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:10:53 UTC | #893005

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 30 by Stafford Gordon

Yup! "tide comes in; tide goes out.". What more does a person need to know?

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:45:14 UTC | #893020