Speaking of Fox; have they ever anywhere at any time mentioned...

that PIPA poll of bush supporters? The one where 3 out of 4 still believe Iraq had WMD, supported al Qaeda, and the majority of the world supported bush's invasion of Iraq?

It also showed the majority of bush supporters didn't know bush's stance on issues;

"Supporters of Bush and Kerry were quizzed about their candidates' positions on 8 issues, and a majority of Bush supporters were wrong about his stand on 6 of them.

...majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).

In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favoured the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to the president.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

And what about the Program on International Policy Attitudes
study, that showed Fox viewers were the most misinformed (80%) pre-invasion?

http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/2003-October/000446.html

I've heard the judge, Andre Napolitano, talk about that.

so WHY are so many bush supporters so misinformed???

WHO is misinforming so many people???!! I mean geeez that is such a rotten nasty dirty thing to do to anyone, Dem or Republican! And especially about a life & death thing like WAR??? People are DYING. They've lost LEGS and ARMS and BRAINS and EYESIGHT!

It is just soooo wrong to be misinforming people about such things.

believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts! Some people ignore facts that don't mesh with their way of thinking and seek out facts that reinforce their point of view!

Because they're stupid. Any questions?

Fact-free.

it's not just that they're misinformed. Didn't the same poll show that not only were the republicans, and fox viewers, the worst informed, but they also considered themselves the most informed?

So not only are the ignorant but they think they're right. *shakes head* Wudda wah?

WHY would ANY media group want to deliberately misinform people???

I dunno if it is or not, and the word has been bandied around so much lately it's pretty meaningless now anyways, but to me that's awful close to treason.

I really hate thinking that...but they HAD to have known it was all bull; WE all knew, so how could the media NOT have known!

I'm not convinced that Fox News DELIBERATELY is trying to turn this country into the 4th Reich and acting as a propoganda wing of the Republican party.

I think they are pretty much what Murdoch has said on occasion. They're sort of the television equivalent of a tabloid paper, in the best English sense of the word.

Go to London and do the same poll with people who primarily or only get their news from say The Guardian a liberal paper, and then people who get their news from The Sun with it's lovely page 3 girls. It's the same concept I think and it belittles everyone. Look at what they cover. Instead of covering specific issues with Iraq or Bush, they covered the Peterson trial pretty extensively. Etc. Tsuami? Asian Sex Worker story.

don't they??? I mean, they gotta know their viewers are being misinformed and by whopping percentages.

When it's National Enquirer and who's doing what to whom, not a biggie, but when it's Americans' LIVES and LIMBS at risk...!

And the UK, very true about the Sun, but still the vast majority of Brits OPPOSED the invasion of Iraq. They KNEW about the lies. They always knew Iraq had nothing to do with 911...ok partly because Blair never used that as his excuse, only the WMD, but the majority of Brits knew before the invasion that the WMD crap was crap.

So what do they have/don't have that we don't/do??? They're not being massively misinformed like we are.

I'm inclined to believe this is more a pure capitalism business is evil sort of thing.

I think that there are people in charge of the media who only care about money. They could give a shit about truth. Money is generated by high ratings. High ratings are generated by shock and shallow journalism. Quick cuts and sexy images.

They say their job is to inform, because thats part of how they get ratings.

I doubt the higher ups and Murdoch give two shakes about the truth. They care only about profit.

Now as far as the UK Sun paper. If I remember correctly they were anti-war, like almost all british press. Are they owned by Murdoch? I wouldn't be surprised if they were. See there in England they felt the pulse and the pulse said..."support the war and people won't read the paper"...whereas here in amerca the same owners might say "americans love patriotism...support the war, it'll be great for ratings"

Evil? Yeah.

As far as what they have? Better educational system. People in their 30's who didn't have good television growing up so they had to read. 20 somethings who read anyway.

It's just going to get worse in this country as the current kids grow up. They hardly read at all spending most of their time in front of the TV and Playstation/X-Box.

Love your posts btw. Just thought I should mention that.

gwarsh :hug:

Media consultant for Nixon, Reagan. Campaign strategist for GHWB. He knows full well what he's doing.

Read the clearly biased internal FNC memos: http://www.fadetoblack.com/lostfoxmemos/

Watch OutFoxed, if you get a chance.

For the most part, the more attention you pay to your media sources, the more informed you are. This study showed that people who paid more attention to Fox were less informed than people who barely watched it. It is an actively negative force, not just randomly innacurate but systematically leading away from truth.