19
   

MSNBC's top programs provide more than 18 times as much coverage of Haiti earthquake as Fox News' to

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 08:06 am
We have Shamwow and Dollars for Gold to sell, don't trouble us with irrelevancies such as news reading . . .
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 08:12 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

I think Setanta has been underplaying the influence of Fox News in America.

His argument has basically been that it may be true that Fox has the highest ratings - but that's because they cater to a relatively small minority of loyal "dittohead" repeat viewers and viewers who come for the sensationalism. Most Americans, when it comes down to it and they need reliable news, would rather go to a station like CNN.

Most Americans do not go to cable news for news, they go to network news (ABC, CBS, NBC). Fox News gets the highest cable news ratings.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 09:11 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The information you are posting about Fox being the most trusted news source was posted in another thread here, and when i tracked down the source, it was an unapologetic, partisan web site filled with sensationalist stories about the horrors of the socialism which is now taking over the country under Mr. Obama. I have been unable to find any information on Public Policy Polling, which doesn't meant there is anything wrong with their polling methods or data, but it is unusual among polling organizations, for which it is typically easy to obtain background information.

Whether the report about the poll you saw linked in was from some partisan, sensationalist site of course says nothing about the poll itself. It's gotten a lot of media coverage from all kind of sites.

I'm surprised that you have been unable to find any information on Public Policy Polling. What about just starting with its Wikipedia entry? It will tell you that PPP is actually a Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm - and there's no need to rely on Wikipedia's volunteer editors on this either, if you'd rather not. Just go to PPP's own website, which has a useful list of its clients, the overwhelming majority of which are Democrats and Dem-leaning organisations.

Setanta wrote:
I did not say that Fox caters to a "relatively small minority," that's a straw man argument, but unfortunately, i don't think we can expect better from Habibi.

You wrote that those attracted by Fox News coverage "don't represent a significant fraction of the population". They are, you wrote, "by no means the majority, and not even a significant fraction." How, then, is it a straw man to say you described them as a relatively small minority?

Quote:
With this current snit of Habibi's

All I did was collect a number of quotes summarising the argument you made I disagree with; say I disagreed with it; and provide a poll that would suggest you were indeed wrong. I included no snide asides or personal put-downs in my post; you included a number in your response. So I'd say you're the only one exhibiting the rhetorical flourishes of someone in a "snit".
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 09:34 am
@nimh,
"Snit" from Setanta is almost invariably a projection on his part. Just an observation.

It's also designed to get you on the defensive.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 09:43 am
@nimh,
Regardless of your allegations about the reliability of the polling source, you have not explained how it is that a greater percentage of Americans consider Fox to be the most reliable news source than the percentage of the viewing audience which is attributed to them in ratings. Is one to assume that the difference between the percentage of the ratings audience attributed to Fox and the alleged 49% are simply liars?

If you speak of the number of people who can guess a series of numbers between one and ten (this was long done in "ESP" research), and the number of correct guesses is less than 40%, statistically it is an insignificant number because 40% represents the statistical probability of guessing correctly by accident. Therefore, in that situation, 40% is not a significant fraction, but neither is it a "small minority," relatively or otherwise. So for me to say that the number of regular Fox viewers is not a significant fraction of the potential viewing audience is not at all the same as saying "a relatively small minority."

If you don't twist what i say, if you just quote it directly, you'll be free from the charge of erecting straw men.

Please quote for me the personal remarks you allege that i made about you in my post. This is, otherwise, just another straw man.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 09:46 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
"Snit" from Setanta is almost invariably a projection on his part. Just an observation.

It's also designed to get you on the defensive.


Comments of this type from DD are almost invariably an example of DD's inability to resist an opportunity to make a slighting remark, especially when he otherwise lacks an entré to the conversation. I suspect that it is an attempt on his part to "get me on the defensive."

Just an observation.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 11:23 am
@Robert Gentel,
Rush Limbaugh apparently said:
Quote:
I am a very bad person. And, to tell you the truth, I don't really want to be alive anymore.


This is one of the most interesting things he's ever said and as much as he's counting on everyone to listen to his tone - I'm listening to his words. I truly believe he believes this. It would explain a lot in terms of his behavior.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 11:26 am
@aidan,
I believe this was satire.
aidan
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 11:29 am
@Setanta,
I know he MEANT it to be satire - but I don't believe it is. He's definitely got issues.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 12:14 pm
@Robert Gentel,
"
Quote:
The irony is that, even if I did die, the hell I would surely be sent to could not possibly be any worse than the bottomless pool of excrement I already paddle around in like some demented, s*#t-covered walrus.
"
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 01:31 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
I know he MEANT it to be satire - but I don't believe it is. He's definitely got issues.

The Onion.

Quote:
The Onion is an American news satire organization. It features satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news as well as an entertainment newspaper and website known as The A.V. Club. It claims a national print circulation of 690,000 and says 61 percent of its web site readers are between 18 and 44 years old.[2] Since 2007, the organization has been publishing satirical news videos online, as the "Onion News Network".[4]

The Onion's articles comment on current events, both real and imagined. It parodies traditional newspaper features, such as editorials, man-on-the-street interviews, and stock quotes, as well as traditional newspaper layout and AP-style editorial voice. Much of its humor depends on presenting everyday events as newsworthy items, and by playing on commonly used phrases, as in the headline, "Drugs Win Drug War."
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 01:36 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Regardless of your allegations about the reliability of the polling source, you have not explained how it is that a greater percentage of Americans consider Fox to be the most reliable news source than the percentage of the viewing audience which is attributed to them in ratings. Is one to assume that the difference between the percentage of the ratings audience attributed to Fox and the alleged 49% are simply liars?

If you speak of the number of people who can guess a series of numbers between one and ten (this was long done in "ESP" research), and the number of correct guesses is less than 40%, statistically it is an insignificant number because 40% represents the statistical probability of guessing correctly by accident. Therefore, in that situation, 40% is not a significant fraction, but neither is it a "small minority," relatively or otherwise. So for me to say that the number of regular Fox viewers is not a significant fraction of the potential viewing audience is not at all the same as saying "a relatively small minority."

If you don't twist what i say, if you just quote it directly, you'll be free from the charge of erecting straw men.

Please quote for me the personal remarks you allege that i made about you in my post. This is, otherwise, just another straw man.

Why didn't you simply say, "I just got pwned by Habibi", instead of that malarky?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 03:05 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
"Snit" from Setanta is almost invariably a projection on his part. Just an observation.


Same with "whine" etc. He can't just disagree, he'll say you are whining (even if you aren't even complaining about anything) or somehow construe you negatively. Makes me appreciate folk like nimh who disagree agreeably even more.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 03:10 pm
I don't use whine that often, and i usually employ it with the intent to annoy someone like you who is so full of himself. I've rarely ever used snit--DD was just making **** up there.

Habibi has not answered the questions i asked him, nor has he provided evidence that i made personal slights against him. That says a lot about the value of the response he made to the criticisms i made against what he'd posted. The same often applies to you when you're lining up your straw men, a tactic i see you use more and more often these days.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jan, 2010 03:58 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

"
Quote:
The irony is that, even if I did die, the hell I would surely be sent to could not possibly be any worse than the bottomless pool of excrement I already paddle around in like some demented, s*#t-covered walrus.
"


You know, that sent me off to see where on earth Robert said that. It seemed a wee tad atypical.


Took me a while to realise it was from the Onion piece.




Doh!

Now I feel so stoopid.


0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 09:13 am
@Ticomaya,
Laughing Laughing Laughing Oh, now I get it. I thought when Setanta said it was satire that he meant that Rush was being sarcastic - I can even hear him (Rush) say something like that in his sarcastic tone of voice.
(What the heck kind of name is Rush anyway? When you say it without Limbaugh - it sounds weird. Is it short for something?)

So the one thing I've ever heard him say that I actually agreed with - he actually didn't even say...that's good...now my record's pure - I can still say I've never agreed with anything he's ever said.

But that Onion writer nailed his psyche in two sentences - that's pretty impressive satire.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 09:47 am
General thought on the Fox news poll:

I think it's possible that Democrats/liberals are less likely to "trust" any single news source -- I adore the NYT in general but would have to at least pause before saying I "trust" it. And it's my favorite single news source.

I think the kind of people who are more likely to trust any single news source (see: Palin supporters who "trust" her because she's, like, plainspoken and stuff) would be more likely to be Fox-supporters.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 10:55 am
@sozobe,
A propos the PPP poll about trust in news broadcasters, there's been some critical back and forth since.

Gary Langer from ABC News, which didn't come out very well in the poll, objected sharply to elements of the poll's methodology. He brings up a number of valid sounding complaints, and some more far-fetched sounding ones, about the poll's selection of respondents and phrasing of questions. He also, however, derides the value of automated polls, which tend to be used by the new kids on the block of polling (like Survey USA, Rasmussen and PPP) altogether. He writes that "in our ABC News polling standards we don’t regard autodialed, pre-recorded polls as valid and reliable survey research."

This had both PPP's Tom Jensen and Scott Rasmussen responding in turn.

Both noted that you can go through any poll and find details worth nitpicking over, especially when it comes to the demographics of those found by the poll - random dialling will always lead to some variety in the make-up of those reached, after all. To highlight an example in point, Jensen picks on Langer's complaint that only 47% of the PPP poll's respondents reported having voted for Obama in 2008, when he received 53% of the vote. Considering margins of errors, that does seem a rather silly point. Jensen replies that "we're not going to weight every poll for the next four years to the self reported 2008 vote" and points out that a recent CBS/NYT poll, which does use Langer's preferred live interviewer methodology, had respondents reporting to have voted for Obama by a 23 point margin.

The real heat of both men's responses, however, is targeted at Langer's rejection of automated polling per se. In his dismissal of such polls, Langer also rejected references to how accurate such polls have proven to be in recent elections, positing that "accurate modeling is not an adequate stand-in for good polling [..] what matters are sound methods [and] substantive measurements, not horse-race bingo." This in particular has the automated pollsters fuming, and Jensen's critique in particular is strident in tone. Rasmussen makes roughly the same case, but more articulately and calmly and with some more meat. Their point, basically: what the hell are polls good for if they can not be proven to measure public opinion with some accuracy? Election races provide pollsters with an opportunity to do so, and both pollsters point out that their polling turned out to assess voters' sentiment in Massachusetts this month much better than polls conducted with traditional, live interviewer methods.

The pollsters of ABC and the other major media Langer approvingly cites, meanwhile, chose not to poll the race at all, focusing on measures like job approval that can not be verified immediately by election outcomes, Jensen argues. "One of the ironic things about ABC and similar polling operations is that they rarely poll anything they could be held to public account for. For instance the Massachusetts Senate race was undoubtedly of huge national significance but none of the outfits that pass Langer's litmus test of reliability conducted a pre election poll there that could have shown that they do- or don't- know what they're doing."

The cultural chasm that comes to the front in both Langer's and Jensen's and Rasmussen's posts is enormous, and it is that between old media and new media, between the traditional pollsters and the daring new kids, between blue chip polls that have gone on for decades and experimental polls that aren't as established, but argue that they're actually better at getting the numbers right. Although Rasmussen's post will suggest otherwise, this is not a leftwing MSM versus rightwing outlaws thing. PPP is a Democratic firm, after all, and Survey USA, which also uses automated methodologies and faces the same scepsis among traditional media types, is hardly a conservative pollster either.

It's a pity that all the heat and passion that comes with that chasm - Langer's studied condescension, Jensen's heated derision and Rasmussen's triumphalist rebel shtick - makes it kind of hard to establish your own opinion about the issue without being guided by your gut reaction to their tones. Do you associate more with Jensen and Rasmussen as bold outsiders, loud and aggressive as they may be, or with the earnest Langer, condescensing as he may be taken to be? Hard to ignore your instinctive response to that kind of thing when reading through this stuff (Langer is more my type, obviously), which is a pity because both do have good points. It's always worth digging through the particulars of a poll, especially if it comes up with a surprising or even unlikely result. But it's also true that if a new generation of pollsters has more than held their own in polling actual races for a few years now, the unwillingness of some of the traditional, "old" media to even take their results into consideration or report on them is bullheaded.

I'd say always look at all the polls on an issue, if more are available, don't rely on any particular one or category of pollsters, and don't think any one poll will necessarily have things right. Whether the results of this particular poll can be trusted, meanwhile, has only become less clear for me. Let's see what the next one says. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:32 am
The fact that the "trust" percentage accorded to Fox News grossly exceeds their audience share strongly suggests that the methodology is seriously flawed. Why would 49% of the public place more trust in Fox News if they (Fox) don't get a 49% share of the viewer ratings?
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 01:11 pm
@Setanta,
Do you have to be a viewer to trust Fox?

I think it's along the lines of comparing the percentage of people who go to church with those who believe in God. There's not necessarily any meaningful correlation.

It would make more sense if there was a correlation, but I don't think that what most people think/say/do about politics/religion makes sense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 01:57:18