(03-10-2015 03:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: (03-10-2015 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: (03-10-2015 11:18 AM)john01992 Wrote: (03-10-2015 11:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote: ^ add the ratings up for the various liberal media outlets. Id be shocked if they were higher than fox for most time slots. More trusted, more reliable, more balanced, more watched.
Its just my opinion, but i believe plenty of liberals think fox is more trustworthy than the liberal media outlets, thwy just dont want to admit it.
over MSNBC it's the better of two terrible options. Over CNN, NBC, ABC, & CBS and you are out of your mind.
You weaken your point and lessen what others think of you when you tell people they are out of their minds.
Im pretty sure there are studies that link personal attacks to a lesser minds.
And there are also studies out there that link FNC viewers as being less informed than viewers of other stations.
You mean the study from the college ranked 585th out of 650 by Forbes? That would be the same one that only asked 9 questions in its survey, one of which was admittedly 'ambiguous', two of which were open ended and then had to use regression models because they didn't identify single new source viewers from multi-source viewers?
That's the same study that over-sampled republicans which in turn increases the margin of error for republicans which watched more of fox, but didn't oversample democrats who watched more of MSNBC but scored similarly. Oh, and the professor that authored the studies wrote for HuffPo.
Maybe you meant the Maryland study that begins with this disclaimer
Quote:…misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on
That would be the study that was criticized for relying on facts from political ads, and not news content. It's also the study that asked
Quote:“is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation: A) created or saved several million jobs, B) saved or created a few jobs, or C) caused job losses.”
Which if you read it asks for survey participants impression of economists thoughts, and not anything based on facts.
That same study from Maryland's World Public Opinion project was also critizied by Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik -
Quote:So the WPO study once again cherry-picked the numbers that would produce the "truth" best suited to bashing Fox News. For a study ostensibly concerned with "misinformation," the WPO is certainly peddling its fair share.
Zurawik picked up on this trend as well. "[T]he definition of a respondent who is considered 'informed,'" Zurawik wrote, "is essentially someone who agrees with the conclusions of experts in government agencies."
Oh and the WPO receives funding from a variety of hard-left organizations, such as the Ploughshare Fund and the Soros-backed Tides Foundation.
- See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-mar...vzegz.dpuf
Maybe you're just talking about the one Yahoo ran with that was found out to be conducted by a institute that doesn't exist. I don't know which is it, but I'm sure you believe every word in them.