Analysis: Over Half of ALL Statements Made On Fox News Are F

[dbackjon]

A new analysis by PunditFact found that of every statement made by a Fox News host or guest, over half of them were flat-out false. What’s more, only a measly 8% could be considered completely “true.”
In other words, a fancy review of hundreds of hours of video confirmed what many who watch Fox News with any regularity already know: Fox News lies. A lot. Like all the time.

A PublicMind survey out of Fairleigh Dickinson University found that “people who said they consumed no news” fared better on a current events questionnaire than people who had been primarily using Fox News to find out what was going on in the world. Let that sink in for a moment. People who categorically don’t watch the news know more than people who watch a network whose primary function is ostensibly to relay the news. Adding insult to injury, it was the only network that ranked below “blind ignorance” the survey. (By the way, the most informed audience was that of NPR.)

How do Fox News viewers know less than people who literally don’t know anything about current events? If you would allow me to hazard a guess, it could be because unlike people who didn’t bother to watch any news programs, Fox viewers thought they were watching informational content – instead they were being lied to under a carefully constructed veneer of responsible journalism. Later, when someone asks them about what’s going on, they feel like they know the answer when they haven’t a clue.

So, next time you overhear a Fox News host boldly stating their position as fact, flip a coin. Heads it’s half true, tails it’s Pants on Fire. Either way, switch the station.

A new analysis by PunditFact found that of every statement made by a Fox News host or guest, over half of them were flat-out false. What’s more, only a measly 8% could be considered completely “true.”
In other words, a fancy review of hundreds of hours of video confirmed what many who watch Fox News with any regularity already know: Fox News lies. A lot. Like all the time.

A PublicMind survey out of Fairleigh Dickinson University found that “people who said they consumed no news” fared better on a current events questionnaire than people who had been primarily using Fox News to find out what was going on in the world. Let that sink in for a moment. People who categorically don’t watch the news know more than people who watch a network whose primary function is ostensibly to relay the news. Adding insult to injury, it was the only network that ranked below “blind ignorance” the survey. (By the way, the most informed audience was that of NPR.)

How do Fox News viewers know less than people who literally don’t know anything about current events? If you would allow me to hazard a guess, it could be because unlike people who didn’t bother to watch any news programs, Fox viewers thought they were watching informational content – instead they were being lied to under a carefully constructed veneer of responsible journalism. Later, when someone asks them about what’s going on, they feel like they know the answer when they haven’t a clue.

So, next time you overhear a Fox News host boldly stating their position as fact, flip a coin. Heads it’s half true, tails it’s Pants on Fire. Either way, switch the station.




Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/09 ... ignite.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

I'm embarrassed for the guys here who use Fox for their sources. I wince when I see it and think to myself, "Dayum, man, have some respect for yo'sef, mothafucka. SMFH."

[CID1990]

Ahem

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/ar ... -networks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network’s pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent. At CNN, it’s 18 percent.

The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn’t have a cable network equivalent, so we haven’t fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much."

BTW who cares that FOX is full of shit (as are a few others)?

Are you worried that FOX viewers are like you? I.E: gullible as hell?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I worry that people take CNN seriously......its worse than MSNBC with the agenda driven "reporting" that passes for journalism. Its scarier that people don't know or refuse to admit that fact. Most of those people would start or post in a thread like this.

[Ibanez]

The only news radio we have isFox News. So I listen, I've noticed that they've stopped "Fair and balanced" and now say "we report, you decide. "

[Ibanez]

You should wade through the bs, whether it's Fox, CNN or PBS.

[AZGrizFan]

The only news radio we have isFox News. So I listen, I've noticed that they've stopped "Fair and balanced" and now say "we report, you decide. "

Welcome to this DECADE. They've been saying that for 10 years.

[VictorG]

It should be call Fox Opinion......

[Grizalltheway]

The only news radio we have isFox News. So I listen, I've noticed that they've stopped "Fair and balanced" and now say "we report, you decide. "

You don't get NPR in them parts?

[Ibanez]

The only news radio we have isFox News. So I listen, I've noticed that they've stopped "Fair and balanced" and now say "we report, you decide. "

Welcome to this DECADE. They've been saying that for 10 years.

No, I know what i've heard. FFS. On the radio, all of their promo's have been always ended with "Fair and balanced", as of two weeks ago, they've dropped it. Jesus fucking Christ. Is it possible that you and Tman don't know everything?

[Ibanez]

The only news radio we have isFox News. So I listen, I've noticed that they've stopped "Fair and balanced" and now say "we report, you decide. "

You don't get NPR in them parts?

I do, but I go back and forth between the two.

[JohnStOnge]

The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything.

You know before I read what you quoted there I looked at their site and saw that there's no way you can draw any meaningful inference about the proportion of statements made being false because of that and also because "false" often means "false in their opinion." Or "half truth" means "half truth" in their opinion.

Look at this one, for instance: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... rias-assa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would be very reasonable to interpret what Wallace said as entirely true.

On the thing about Fox News viewers knowing less about current events than people who don't consume news: That appears to be inconsistent with a 2012 Pew Research study of news audiences. Fox viewers did not do all that well but they did better in terms of knowledge of current events than the general public did. And they did better than network evening news programs did (http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/ ... audiences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). "General public" is different than "people who don't consume news." But one would think that people in the general public who pay some attention to the news know more, on average, about current events than people in the general public who don't.

And frankly I know that the assertions are ridiculous. Yes I like to watch Fox News but I also look at a lot of other sources. On one hand I know that news media in general are a problem. As I've written before, I have been personally involved in a number of situations that have made news and I have yet to encounter a situation like that in which I felt like the news media in general did not substantially distort the truth. But most of what you see as "statement of fact" on Fox news is consistent with what you see as "statement of fact" in the media in general. Like right now we know the Palestinians are firing rockets at Israel and Israel is doing air strikes because that's being generally reported in the media.

[JohnStOnge]

I worry that people take CNN seriously......its worse than MSNBC with the agenda driven "reporting" that passes for journalism. Its scarier that people don't know or refuse to admit that fact. Most of those people would start or post in a thread like this.

I just quoted yours in order to say that NPR is also agenda driven "reporting." I say that because I once again saw a reference to it as though it's something you can trust to present a truthful, balanced perspective.

It's not.

[BlueHen86]

I worry that people take CNN seriously......its worse than MSNBC with the agenda driven "reporting" that passes for journalism. Its scarier that people don't know or refuse to admit that fact. Most of those people would start or post in a thread like this.

I just quoted yours in order to say that NPR is also agenda driven "reporting." I say that because I once again saw a reference to it as though it's something you can trust to present a truthful, balanced perspective.

It's not.

If its run by people, there is going to be an agenda. The question is how much of an agenda. Fox and MSNBC seem to be at the extreme ends of the scale, so much so that neither is a reliable source of political news.

Most other networks lean left, but they are not as full of shit as MSNBC or Fox.

[AZGrizFan]

Welcome to this DECADE. They've been saying that for 10 years.

No, I know what i've heard. FFS. On the radio, all of their promo's have been always ended with "Fair and balanced", as of two weeks ago, they've dropped it. Jesus fucking Christ. Is it possible that you and Tman don't know everything?

No, that's not possible. A more likely scenario is that your backwoods, country-fuck redneck radio station is playing shows from 10 years ago.

Next question.

[Ibanez]

No, I know what i've heard. FFS. On the radio, all of their promo's have been always ended with "Fair and balanced", as of two weeks ago, they've dropped it. Jesus fucking Christ. Is it possible that you and Tman don't know everything?

No, that's not possible. A more likely scenario is that your backwoods, country-fuck redneck radio station is playing shows from 10 years ago.

Next question.

Christ, you're obtuse. I may have some hearing loss, but i'm not that fucking deaf. The only thing that can explain it is a change in the promo's. Either way, it's a fucking observation, you pretentious, know-it-all jackoff.

[AZGrizFan]

No, that's not possible. A more likely scenario is that your backwoods, country-fuck redneck radio station is playing shows from 10 years ago.

Next question.

Christ, you're obtuse. I may have some hearing loss, but i'm not that fucking deaf. The only thing that can explain it is a change in the promo's. Either way, it's a fucking observation, you pretentious, know-it-all jackoff.

An incorrect observation, but an observation nonetheless. Perhaps it's discrimination?

[Ibanez]

No, that's not possible. A more likely scenario is that your backwoods, country-fuck redneck radio station is playing shows from 10 years ago.

Next question.

Christ, you're obtuse. I may have some hearing loss, but i'm not that fucking deaf. The only thing that can explain it is a change in the promo's. Either way, it's a fucking observation, you pretentious, know-it-all jackoff.

They've said "We report, you decide" for election coverages but that's not what I said. You and Tman really need to read and think before jumping on someones case.

[Grizalltheway]

Christ, you're obtuse. I may have some hearing loss, but i'm not that fucking deaf. The only thing that can explain it is a change in the promo's. Either way, it's a fucking observation, you pretentious, know-it-all jackoff.

They've said "We report, you decide" for election coverages but that's not what I said. You and Tman really need to read and think before jumping on someones case.

Might as well ask fish to fly while you're at it.

[Ibanez]

They've said "We report, you decide" for election coverages but that's not what I said. You and Tman really need to read and think before jumping on someones case.

Might as well ask fish to fly while you're at it.

[AZGrizFan]

Might as well ask fish to fly while you're at it.

BOOM!!

[CAA Flagship]

[Grizalltheway]

Well shit. I guess Iba's suggestion is even MORE unlikely than that.

[AZGrizFan]

Well shit. I guess Iba's suggestion is even MORE unlikely than that.

[JohnStOnge]

Back to this statement:

A PublicMind survey out of Fairleigh Dickinson University found that “people who said they consumed no news” fared better on a current events questionnaire than people who had been primarily using Fox News to find out what was going on in the world.

When I saw that I suspected that Fox News content is not the cause of the phenomenon. I've seen this kind of thing before. Like with the Pew poll I referenced. You look at the questions about current events and you know that if you watch Fox News you've seen the information necessary to answer those questions correctly.

Same here. Here is a comment from the Public Mind article on the survey (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

Among other topics, New Jerseyans were asked about the outcome of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East this past year. While 53% of New Jerseyans know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing the government of Hosni Mubarak, 21% say that the uprisings were unsuccessful, and 26% admit they don’t know. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful, while 36% say they don’t know, and 16% say the Syrians have already toppled their government.

But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news. For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.

There is no way the reason for people not knowing the things mentioned are because they watched Fox News. Fox News very prominently reported about it when Mubarak was overthrown. Also, Fox News has reported routinely on the situation in Syria and there is no way, if one were paying attention to what has been reported, anyone would think Assad has been overthrown.

The article quotes a Public Mind analysis as saying that, because they controlled for some other factors, the results show that there is something about watching Fox News. That's not true. Same old same old. You can't make up for not having a controlled experiment by controlling for other factors. You can say it doesn't look like it can be explained by the factors you controlled for. But you can't say watching Fox News causes it.

And anybody who has watched Fox News regularly and seen their coverage of the Egyptian and Syrian situations knows that if people didn't know Mubarak had been overthrown while Assad had not it wasn't because they were watching Fox News.