VernonBlog

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, [University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)] found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions[...]

[N]ews sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [their] news.'' Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media.

Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks -- NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.

Seems to be that the small % of people who listen to national public radio are wrong. Sorry, the minority doesn't rule in our great country. So why don't you just live with that fact. God bless our great nation.

I certainly agree about fox news and I have read the same statistics. But who are you addressing? This "blog" has only a few readers. Or do you send this on anonymously to people you know who enjoy fox news and think Bill Reilly rules? As I said - this blog is bogged down, although it appears to have been found by at least one other hacker? Stumbler?

Actually, this blog is read by only two people who comment, with an occasional aside from another. Nothing original has been generated by anyone not named "dark-eye" or "professor b". So what is the point of going on with this pointless endeavour??

It's for entertainment, and there's no obligation to participate.

Ahh yes - lies, damn, lies and statistics.

Here's more irrefutable proof of things:

Alien life - http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/absolute_proof_aliens_exist.html

God - http://www.absolutetruth.net/truth/

Good Guns - http://www.nra.org

And of course, the height of my sarcasm -

Valid Presidential Candidates - http://www.votenader.org/

BTW 3,300 respondents, out of billions? What kind of sample is that? The variance alone is enough to make it complete bullshit. Of course you like it, cause it's bullshit you agree with. Seems to me you are just as guilty - you have BECOME the media. You are now publishing and feeding us the same style of fodder that the networks are doing, with the same exact lack of quality representation. Want to assert facts, please proceed, but your statistics should at least qualify as a sample of the population. 3.300? Shit, I got more peeps in my cellphone...

In summary - "Sounds Like Bullshit To Me!" :-)

(private joke)

3300 isn't so small a sample as to make the survey invalid.

Moreover, you imply that because something is published on the web it must be false. That's just as absurd as thinking that because something is on a website, it must be true.

You would be well served if you applied the same skepticism to Fox News as you do to the U. of Maryland study.

PS I know from our off-the-record converstations that you're just fucking with me. But I am crushing you anyway for the pedagogic value of the exercise.

There's no assumptions going on at all. It's simple - there a MILLIONS of viewers, and 3,300 people surveyed. You don't know if these people were geographically dispersed, you dont know how they were contacted (perhaps NRA membership files), you know know shit. All you know is that you like what it says so feel compelled to parrot it like it actually means a damn thing. It doesn't. It can't because the variance is so astronomical. Not me mention that we aren't only debating one study, but we are actually debating the inference drawn from two studies loosely thrown together.

I guess they don't teach ciritical thinking on NPR. Wonder why...

BTW - curshing me? You better get a bigger mallet.

With luuuvvvv!

Rather than speculate, please read the study, and then tell me specifically how the methodology is faulty.

PS: Your mother's cunt stinks like carpet cleaning fluid.

Yours,

Big Mallet B

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: