The blessings of FOX

Remove all ads!

Actually, you may want to check a little closer. The statistics come from the New York Times. I think the New York Times is fairly well respected though sometimes seen as 'liberal.'

You are free, of course, to support any of your statements.

And Chandos, I think it is all connected.

[ September 30, 2003, 15:21: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Laches you're wrong, AGAIN. The data is "based" on New York Times data. The actually graphs and statistical analysis are produced by the Annex research group.

They do not tell you how they came to their conclusions. They completely leave out their methods and how many people they surveyed. It's a typically tactic to keep skeptics from pointing out their less-than-scientific methods.

Once again I must ask this: You do realize a website like that is a bad place to get information from.... don't you? I think this is a very important point for you to acknowledge.

Once again I must point out that the detrioration of the political debate comes from lies, deception, and over-simplification.

 

InquisitorX,
Perhaps you could hold those on your side of the argument to the same standards? If you do, you will be following Ragusa around like a puppy!

[ September 30, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

Jack Funk -

Take any college level Political Science course and your professor will clue you in on the liberalism/education correlation.

Liberalism is defined as open-mindedness. People with higher levels of education meet more different types of people and lifestyles. In addition to that their education exposes them to cultures and mindsets beyond the culture they were raised in. As such, people with higher educations are more open-minded.

And, as much as I'd like to take time out of my day and go to the University library and do a search through databases for studies published in academic political science journals to prove an internet forum lurker wrong, I'll pass.

Not that Laches would or could check the source. (Not everyone has access to academic journals)

My point is that websites are the LAST place you look for information. Especially geocities-quality sites - like the one Laches posted.

It was pretty sad and hilarious to see Laches post a site with its results posted next to a picture of a donkey with the head of Bill Clinton. "LOOKIE HERE! THIS ISN'T A BIASED SITE!"

 

Now, I'd say you were engaged in a fine bit of equivocation. 'Liberalism' as you've defined it is distinct from 'liberal' as used in the context of a left-right one dimensional political map. Don't confuse the two.

If all you mean by liberal is 'open minded' then I'd say that the most 'conservative' of politicians can also be 'liberal.' There is no reason someone can't be conservative and open minded - "I'll listen and consider your views on, abortion...After thinking about it I'm still 'pro-life'". (Don't get lost with the example, that's not my actual view, just an example).

I take it that you want to go beyond that however. You want to actually attribute a causal connection between education and having certain political stances. These political stances are contrary to those supported by the 'conservatives' you've been disagreeing with. Your definition of 'liberalism' however won't get you to where you're trying to go.

As far as the site I used, you're right. It was a poor site. I remembered a similar discussion regarding this issue long ago on another site, went and found the link, and scrolled to the stats. I should have looked more closely.

That said, I believe the numbers do come from the New York Times. If you don't like the graphs, ignore them. I think that it's interesting that the stats support what you were saying (at least seemed to be saying) but they give a fuller picture and it's this fuller picture that you find objectionable. It isn't the result you object to - it's that the result isn't stark enough to suit your purposes. You want more than 54%.

Also,I'm curiuos: are you denying that the least educated segment of our society tends to vote Democratic? If so, what do you base that denial on? And if you are going to admit that this is the case then couldn't the hypothetical Rush Limbaugh alluded to earlier trade places with you?

I think that the assertion of a causal connection between education and 'liberal/conservative' is bunk. Correlation does not equal causation. I also however think that the left/right one dimensional political scale is also a thing of the past, if it was ever valid to begin with.

I tend to be labled as a 'liberal' and as a 'conservative' depending on who I'm talking to and depending on the issue. For example, I've been called a 'conservative' by Chandos and a 'liberal' by Darkwolf and Shralp and... on this site. I think this is becoming more and more typical for everyone.

I'm guessing we are now at an impasse. You've made an assertion and have refused to support it -implying a certain superiority that would make it a waste of your time. It seems to me however that if you want to make a controversial assertion and then refuse to support it that there isn't a particularly good reason to trust that assertion.

All this flows out of your initial branding of a large segment I think. I still believe that it's these type of things that spawn organizations like FOX in the first place. When people are dismissed and told they are idiots, the seek shelter and react. It isn't a surprise that FOX is a relatively recent enterprise. It's a reaction. What is it a reaction to?

[ October 01, 2003, 23:21: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Laches - That is exactly the problem. That those at Fox are now wearing the conservative "mantle" really does make a difference. Someone like George Will or William Buckley really defines what is conservative in a different way than someone like Rush or O'Reilly. Somehow the mantle of what is conservative went from those who were - and still are - engaged with the issues in a serious manner, to those who only treat it as entertainment and the ridiculous. The move by consevatives from the days of the PBS "Firingline" to Fox's "Factor" has changed the nature of the debate in a very negative way.

[ October 02, 2003, 07:04: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

An interesting article on FOX and it's watchers We report, you get it wrong. It is referring to the report Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War.

Overstated: FOX' informations in fact make you ignorant. Now that is something to worry about.

 

Ragusa, good find.

At MediaWhoresOnline they posted a link to another article on that study.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm

The results are that Fox news watchers are the most ignorant and misinformed of the groups they studied. I can't say the results are all that surprising.

 

InquisitorX,
you overlook that two things had to come together: That is, watching FOX alone doesn't make people believe that, exaggerated, Saddam and Bin Laden are basically cousins co-plotting evil schemes against the US. It also needs a certain political pre-occupation.

That is a very notable point and it gives light on about what FOX actually is: It's about satisfying consumer demand. When people want to hear the war is justified, they will. And FOX just provides the sort of feelgood news that cause these misperceptions. It hasn't anything to do with intelligence.
So to say, FOX is tailormade for republicans. That, that is their slant, however doesn't make it a good newssource, they are still by far thw worst of the lot.

It's about the Orwellian thing: It is way more comfortable to hold alive one's self concept of America doing the right thing, always, by living an illusion. That's not even uncommon. We all do that one or another way.

It is deadly for a well oiled, working democracy or republic as it kills sensible public dispute as misinformation erodes the base for a democratic decision: When people don't know what's up they can't decide - in an ideal world.