News Is Entertainment the New Motivation for Watching the News?

[WhoWee]

I don't know if it's so much that they are brought into the dichotomy, as much as that is the way some people choose to view reality. I once had someone tell me, after butting heads for many years; "I see things in black and white. You see things in shades of grey."

It was quite the revelation, and I understood better after knowing this, why we could seldom agree on a course of action. I now know to throw out all but two variables when coordinating with this person. It has made life much simpler.

To address the polling question; I, like our fearless leader, have been without cable for quite some time, so I go to the best place on the planet to get my news, and polling information:

Unfortunately, I could not find a poll regarding any other news agencies.

Too bad there wasn't one more question on the poll - something along the lines of: Have you ever watched Fox News?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Too bad there wasn't one more question on the poll - something along the lines of: Have you ever watched Fox News?

I posted that poll. Tell me what you think.

 

[OmCheeto]

I posted that poll. Tell me what you think.

Links people! Links!

I watched Fox News in the distant past. What a cesspool of **;)*.

No wonder I canceled my cable.

 

[WhoWee]

I posted that poll. Tell me what you think.

Absolutely, I think it's important to qualify respondents to any poll. If someone is going to express an opinion of this nature, then a few more questions might be appropriate.

1.) How often do you watch Fox News? ____ times per month
2.) How long have you watched Fox News? ____months
3.) List other networks watched _____. _____, ____
4.) Network watched most frequently? ________
5.) What is your primary sources of news? ________, _______, _______
6.) Do you primarily watch Fox News broadcasts, opinion segments, or panel discussions? ___

I think these type questions would make the poll more fair and balanced.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Links people! Links!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=451857

It's a simple combinatorial poll based on the perceived bias of Fox and the frequency of viewing.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Absolutely, I think it's important to qualify respondents to any poll. If someone is going to express an opinion of this nature, then a few more questions might be appropriate.

1.) How often do you watch Fox News? ____ times per month
2.) How long have you watched Fox News? ____months
3.) List other networks watched _____. _____, ____
4.) Network watched most frequently? ________
5.) What is your primary sources of news? ________, _______, _______
6.) Do you primarily watch Fox News broadcasts, opinion segments, or panel discussions? ___

I think these type questions would make the poll more fair and balanced.

You're welcome to start your own thread if you'd like. I wanted to keep the responses simple (to encourage people to respond) and anonymous (to promote honesty).

 

[humanino]

I think these type questions would make the poll more fair and balanced.

Ivan poster a scientific study of the question. What do you care about people's opinion : you already have available a quantitative analysis. It will tell you much more that a limited sample of PF members.

 

[Al68]

Ivan poster a scientific study of the question. What do you care about people's opinion : you already have available a quantitative analysis. It will tell you much more that a limited sample of PF members.

Depends on what type of knowledge is desired. The contents of that study may be valuable, but they don't represent everything everyone wants to know.

Clearly the intent of a PF poll is very different from the study Ivan posted.

 

[humanino]

Depends on what type of knowledge is desired. The contents of that study may be valuable, but they don't represent everything everyone wants to know.

You are more than welcome to discuss the content of the study, its means of measurements or methodology. It remains that it is scientific approach, a quantitative measure. Supposedly quantitative measures have a higher value than opinion polls. I do not see how the specific polls answers a different question. It is about the amount of bias. I do see how Fox viewers may value opinion above scientific measure however.

 

[WhoWee]

I do see how Fox viewers may value opinion above scientific measure however.

Your opinion is also valued.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You are more than welcome to discuss the content of the study, its means of measurements or methodology. It remains that it is scientific approach, a quantitative measure. Supposedly quantitative measures have a higher value than opinion polls. I do not see how the specific polls answers a different question. It is about the amount of bias. I do see how Fox viewers may value opinion above scientific measure however.

Clearly the two address entirely different issues. The study addresses the biases of various American media sources. The poll addresses the political beliefs of certain PF users. I'm not sure why you think they're more than slightly related.

It's as though you were comparing a study of compressive strengths of various materials to a list of the materials that my friends' houses are made of. Sure, the study will say a lot about those materials, but what has that to do with my friends? If the study said that bricks were a better material than straw, that wouldn't invalidate my poll showing a third of my friends having straw houses and a third having brick houses.

 

[OmCheeto]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=451857

It's a simple combinatorial poll based on the perceived bias of Fox and the frequency of viewing.

Ha ha! The results so far are in line with my; "There are people who think in black and white, and those that don't." hypothesis.

Clearly the results are:

a. I have an opinion, and
b. there are too many choices to formulate an opinion.

New poll:

a. Fox sucks!
b. Fox rules!

 

[Al68]

You are more than welcome to discuss the content of the study, its means of measurements or methodology. It remains that it is scientific approach, a quantitative measure.

Why would I do that? I already said I have no objection to it.

Supposedly quantitative measures have a higher value than opinion polls.

That's like saying a hug has more value than a beer. It's subjective.

I do not see how the specific polls answers a different question.

Might I suggest looking harder, then?

I do see how Fox viewers may value opinion above scientific measure however.

Nice ad hominem argument. Those of us old enough to remember when the big 3 networks controlled the news, when they could get by with even more bias than they have now (according to that study), know all about people valuing opinion and propaganda over facts.

And, the bias referred to in that study is relative to the current political climate, itself influenced by decades of biased media, not relative to any kind of objective standard. (The "average member of congress" is very Marxist by historical U.S. standards, for example, as a result of decades of propaganda.)

And that study actually makes that perfectly clear, so I don't have a problem with it. But it doesn't constitute the whole picture by any means.

 

[CRGreathouse]

(The "average member of congress" is very Marxist by historical U.S. standards, for example, as a result of decades of propaganda.)

I would be very interested in how this could be objectively tested, in a Popperian sense.

 

[Jasongreat]

Clearly the results are:

a. I have an opinion, and
b. there are too many choices to formulate an opinion.

Clearly the results, so far, are:

a: I have an opinion, which is based on watching the channel in question, and
b: I have an opinion, which is based on others' opinions, because I hardly if ever watch the channel in question, and
c: I have an opinion, which is I don't like this poll, so I refuse to answer.

 

[Al68]

I would be very interested in how this could be objectively tested, in a Popperian sense.

Well, since Marxist influence during the early years of the U.S. equals zero, one would only have to conclude that Marxist influence in the U.S. is > 0 for my statement to be technically true, so only the degree is in question.

 

[OmCheeto]

Clearly the results, so far, are:

a: I have an opinion, which is based on watching the channel in question, and

Which brings up another question on the poll in question. Why do people who think Fox is biased continue to watch it? Entertainment? Ah! That's the title of the thread. Never mind.

b: I have an opinion, which is based on others' opinions, because I hardly if ever watch the channel in question

One only has to watch a man bite the head off a chicken once to know that one doesn't want to see it again.

, and c: I have an opinion, which is I don't like this poll, so I refuse to answer.

Why wouldn't someone like the poll? It seems very fair and balanced.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why wouldn't someone like the poll? It seems very fair and balanced.

I think several members of the forum have assumed that the OP (me) harbors biases that he does not, and this is a protest against that illusory bias.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think several members of the forum have assumed that the OP (me) harbors biases that he does not, and this is a protest against that illusory bias.

hmmm... whatever.

I'm skimming over the "A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS" report at the moment.

Interesting.

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop talking about "Fox News" altogether. The Media Bias report implies that only 1 hour of "Fox News" daily 24 hours of programming is devoted to news. I was not aware of that.

But that's why I like this place. I learn something new every day.

 

[Pattonias]

I would be very interested in how this could be objectively tested, in a Popperian sense.

Ask God. He is the only one who could actually check into the background of all the news stories. Everyone else just picks the one they agree with the most.

Do you prefer discussions about the gaffes of Sara Palin or Obama?

 

[WhoWee]

I just put on Fox - Glenn Beck talking about the George Soros connection (funding) to Wikileaks. It's quite informative, yet entertaining - think I'll have more.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm skimming over the "A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS" report at the moment.

Interesting.

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop talking about "Fox News" altogether. The Media Bias report implies that only 1 hour of "Fox News" daily 24 hours of programming is devoted to news. I was not aware of that.

But that's why I like this place. I learn something new every day.

That's one of the big pitfalls on this forum in talking about Fox News. It is not compared with other news sources on an apples-to-apples basis, often comparing the network as a whole to single programs from other sources. If one wants to call the Glenn Beck Program "news" and complain about its bias compared to what is found on other networks, one must also judge The View as a "news" program and consider its bias. Often, we see the entire Fox News network improperly compared with just the nightly news program of other networks.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's one of the big pitfalls on this forum in talking about Fox News. It is not compared with other news sources on an apples-to-apples basis, often comparing the network as a whole to single programs from other sources. If one wants to call the Glenn Beck Program "news" and complain about its bias compared to what is found on other networks, one must also judge The View as a "news" program and consider its bias. Often, we see the entire Fox News network improperly compared with just the nightly news program of other networks.

I'm guilty of this (in the other thread). I don't watch Fox,* so I'm not really familiar with its lineup.

* Last time was about 5 years ago in a barber shop.

 

[turbo]

I'm guilty of this (in the other thread). I don't watch Fox,* so I'm not really familiar with its lineup.

* Last time was about 5 years ago in a barber shop.

I don't watch it either for the most part. The shows are SO biased that I want to throw a brick at my TV. They are so far to the right of every other news source that it is ridiculous. I don't keep my radio presets tuned to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk either. I swear that if Tailgunner Joe was reincarnated, Beck and Limbaugh would be all over him for being soft on communists.

I would love to hear well-reasoned opposing views to the political news stories and analysis featured on mainstream media (I was always a huge fan of William F. Buckley Jr.), but as soon as some flaming jerk starts tossing references of Stalin, Marx, Hitler, etc into discussions of modern-day politics, I have to switch to something a bit more sane.

We have a local FOX station, and a broadcast FOX affiliate and the local anchor is a brunette with prominent cheekbones. As soon as McCain had rolled Palin out, she got her makeup people to accent the rouge, bumped up her hairdo even more, and sported trendy-looking rectangular glasses. The anchor is not a bad news-reader, but looking at mini-Palin every night got me switched over to CBS/NBC pretty quickly.

Edit: Removed anchor's name. She's had enough trouble already.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, since Marxist influence during the early years of the U.S. equals zero...

One need not have ever heard of Marx (let alone be influenced by him) to be a Marxist.

 

[Al68]

I would love to hear well-reasoned opposing views to the political news stories and analysis featured on mainstream media (I was always a huge fan of William F. Buckley Jr.), but as soon as some flaming jerk starts tossing references of Stalin, Marx, Hitler, etc into discussions of modern-day politics, I have to switch to something a bit more sane.

LOL. You might have a point about Stalin and Hitler in many cases, but Karl Marx is the single most influential person in history relevant to modern-day politics. Not wanting to hear the word "Marxist" referring to the philosophy he popularized, and Dems espouse (almost word for word) incessantly, is just hiding your head in the sand.

I want to know and understand every major point of view. Especially the opposing point of view. That way I won't be writing posts that make it obvious that I have no real comprehension of the actual opposing point of view whatsoever.

 

[Al68]

One need not have ever heard of Marx (let alone be influenced by him) to be a Marxist.

That's a good point, in fact many Marxists are completely ignorant of Marx's writings. And most of his influence is actually second hand by later adherents, and I was counting all that as "Marxist influence".

 

[turbo]

LOL. You might have a point about Stalin and Hitler in many cases, but Karl Marx is the single most influential person in history relevant to modern-day politics. Not wanting to hear the word "Marxist" referring to the philosophy he popularized, and Dems espouse (almost word for word) incessantly, is just hiding your head in the sand.

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Is it Marxist to expect our government to stand behind the social contract underlying Social Security? Is it Marxist to allow workers to bargain collectively when that's the only way for individuals to get any leverage in negotiations with large companies?

Present-day US is very different from the context in which Marx presented his ideas, so I'd like for you to get pretty specific about your claims that the Democrats are Marxists. Links to studies and scholarly papers please, not right-wing blogs.

 

[Al68]

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Is it Marxist to expect our government to stand behind the social contract underlying Social Security? Is it Marxist to allow workers to bargain collectively when that's the only way for individuals to get any leverage in negotiations with large companies?

Present-day US is very different from the context in which Marx presented his ideas, so I'd like for you to get pretty specific about your claims that the Democrats are Marxists. Links to studies and scholarly papers please, not right-wing blogs.

No, I won't link studies, scholarly papers, or right-wing blogs. I will however provide quotes from Marx himself if you like, since that's actually relevant. I'd need time to do it justice, since I didn't expect to be challenged on this after you yourself have called Social Security "socialist" and Karl Marx is generally recognized as the primary founder of both modern communism and socialism.

But I'll start with just a couple of nuggets for now:

"Capital(ism) is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society." (Karl Marx)

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." (Karl Marx)

"I am not a Marxist." (Karl Marx) (My favorite in this particular context )

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx_3.html

 

[WhoWee]

OK, please provide documentation of Democrats espousing Marxists views.

Is it Marxist to expect our government to stand behind the social contract underlying Social Security? Is it Marxist to allow workers to bargain collectively when that's the only way for individuals to get any leverage in negotiations with large companies?

Present-day US is very different from the context in which Marx presented his ideas, so I'd like for you to get pretty specific about your claims that the Democrats are Marxists. Links to studies and scholarly papers please, not right-wing blogs.

I suppose you'll reject this - but given your rules, I thought it appropriate...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html
"My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”"