Is Entertainment the New Motivation for Watching the News?

[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. :tongue:

 

[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. :uhh:

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 :rofl:)

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.”"

 

[turbo]

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. :uhh:

I did not call Social Security (a safety net for poorer elderly workers) "socialist". Use the words any way you want, but support your assertion that Democrats are quoting Marx word-for-word. You wrote that as a "fact", not as on opinion, and I want to see some back-up. I'm sick of hearing neo-cons tossing this crap around with no context and no elucidation. It's time to put up. Right-wing info-tainment personalities get paid to do this. You don't have a free ride to do it on this forum.

 

[WhoWee]

I did not call Social Security (a safety net for poorer elderly workers) "socialist". Use the words any way you want, but support your assertion that Democrats are quoting Marx word-for-word. You wrote that as a "fact", not as on opinion, and I want to see some back-up. I'm sick of hearing neo-cons tossing this crap around with no context and no elucidation. It's time to put up. Right-wing info-tainment personalities get paid to do this. You don't have a free ride to do it on this forum.

Social Security is not just "a safety net for poorer elderly workers". I just posted this 2 days ago in response to you in another thread.
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/cal021110-pr.html

My personal favorite is bi-polar claims
http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
" Ask if the bipolar disability meets or equals a medical listing. Bipolar is listed under mental disorders. To satisfy the listing criteria for bipolar disorder, a number of variables are considered:

Anhedonia
Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Psychomotor agitation or retardation
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Thoughts of suicide and hallucinations
Delusions or paranoid thinking
In assessing bipolar disability relative to a listing level impairment, the following areas of functioning are evaluated:
Restrictions of activities of daily living
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration
Persistence or pace
Repeated episodes of decompensation--each of extended duration
An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits."

How many drunks will qualify?

 

[CRGreathouse]

you yourself [i.e., turbo-1] have called Social Security "socialist"

Since turbo disputes this, do you have a quote?

 

[Al68]

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all socialist programs meant to provide safety nets for the well-being and health of ordinary citizens. And no, "socialism" is NOT a bad word, except when nut-cases conflate it with Stalinism, etc, as they frequently did when attacking health-care-reform.

I did not call Social Security (a safety net for poorer elderly workers) "socialist".

LOL. See above. As you might imagine, it came as quite a surprise that you immediately picked social security as an example of how Democrats aren't Marxist. :rofl: Are you even serious with these absurd objections? :uhh: You rail against everything that everyone but you calls "conservative", then claim to be conservative by the "usual meaning"? Then you challenge me for the equivalent of claiming the sky is blue? Seriously?

Use the words any way you want, but support your assertion that Democrats are quoting Marx word-for-word. You wrote that as a "fact", not as on opinion, and I want to see some back-up. I'm sick of hearing neo-cons tossing this crap around with no context and no elucidation. It's time to put up. Right-wing info-tainment personalities get paid to do this. You don't have a free ride to do it on this forum.

I already said I would need time for this, as I didn't expect you to challenge something so obvious to anyone familiar with Marx, and it requires some legwork. But I think I said "almost word for word", partially because Marx's writings are not in English, and partially because English translations contain obscure and outdated words.

 

[Al68]

you yourself [i.e., turbo-1] have called Social Security "socialist"

Since turbo disputes this, do you have a quote?

Yep, we must have been writing our posts at the same time. See above.

 

[turbo]

You no doubt noticed my use of "socialism" when I was explaining how right-wingers use the word as a pejorative. Don't bother thanking me for the correction.

 

[Al68]

You no doubt noticed my use of "socialism" when I was explaining how right-wingers use the word as a pejorative. Don't bother thanking me for the correction.

What correction? I agreed with your use of the word in that earlier post. It can only be interpreted as a pejorative under the assumption that "socialism is bad". You simultaneously agree that you favor socialist policies while objecting to the word socialist being used to describe the same kind of policies, after you used the word socialist to describe the same kind of policies. Again, seriously?

Are you trying to plagiarize Who's on First in this thread?

 

[cobalt124]

Getting back to the opening post I find it all depressingly true. Serious news is entertainment, to be joked about even, rather than publicize injustice, bring the powerful to account, or help make a change for the better. I'm too busy these days to get the news like I used to, my main source now being BBC radio when I get chance. Not newspapers, certainly not commercial radio, not commercial television, not the internet, definitely not anything owned by Rupert Murdoch. Possibly blinkered, if I needed accurate news more than I currently do I would have to do something about that.

 

[mugaliens]

When I recommend PBS to Fox or MSNBC fans, what do you think is the complaint that comes back every time? It's boring! A few stated [paraphrasing] that the PBS reporting was good, but it isn't fun. Well no sh't Sherlock! Compared to the trash that passes as reporting these days, the real news is boring! I can understand people who don't seek quality information, and those wanting belief confirmation, watching Fox or MSNBC, but I was shocked to find that even serious old-time political junkies have been sucked into the abyss.

It seems the cheese media has won the war. People now watch the news to be entertained, not to be informed.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ivan. Another consideration is that having listened to the "cheese media," as you call it, for years, the masses are convinced that it's objective reporting, when it's merely "somewhat to mostly so," depending upon the news agency, the issue, the reporter, and the editor on staff at the time.

While the latter factors are similar to most news agencies, the key difference are the news agencies themselves. It's no secret Fox leans to the right, the Washing Post leans to the left, and most news agencies lean one way or the other.

The kicker is that when someone listens primarily to one agency, the natural tendency is for them to believe that agency doesn't lean at all, but is reporting the news objectively. When that individual hears news from other agencies who lean further left or right, their perception is that the other news agencies are off-center.

This psychological phenomenon has a name (I don't recall it offhand), and it's as prevalent in this issue as it is with cliques, political affiliations and candidate support.

 

[WhoWee]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Ivan. Another consideration is that having listened to the "cheese media," as you call it, for years, the masses are convinced that it's objective reporting, when it's merely "somewhat to mostly so," depending upon the news agency, the issue, the reporter, and the editor on staff at the time.

While the latter factors are similar to most news agencies, the key difference are the news agencies themselves. It's no secret Fox leans to the right, the Washing Post leans to the left, and most news agencies lean one way or the other.

The kicker is that when someone listens primarily to one agency, the natural tendency is for them to believe that agency doesn't lean at all, but is reporting the news objectively. When that individual hears news from other agencies who lean further left or right, their perception is that the other news agencies are off-center.

This psychological phenomenon has a name (I don't recall it offhand), and it's as prevalent in this issue as it is with cliques, political affiliations and candidate support.

The primary difference I've observed with Fox (network) is they allow an opposing view to be presented - at several times throughout the day. In many ways, Fox offers a reliable test by which to determine/define what is "Left" - if you accept they are Right. That, I believe is done fairly.