Talk:Fox News/Archive 9

message: Since the controversy seems to have died down a little I thought it was a good time to archive the debate Note that rather than copy and paste - I moved the Talk page so that the history will be preserved with the things being discussed. Trödel|talk 18:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Okay, moving on to the next item on my wish list... 
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions: (PDF),
** 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS).  However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
** 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
** 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
:Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
Any objections to the inclusion of this point? Any comments on the language? Etc.? crazyeddie 02:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: fine by me. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:47, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be an objections... crazyeddie 18:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjusting for other factors 

message: For the PIPA report, I'm proposing replacing the percentages of what other networks had on the misperceptions with the general, overall percentage. The current, individual percentage, version takes up quite a bit of room, and doesn't give additional information that tends to prove or disprove the central thesis of the section. The anti-Fox POV isn't trying to prove that Fox is more biased than all other networks, only that it is biased. Does anybody have any objections to this change? If not, I'll go ahead and do the math, and put what I find up on the talk page for doublechecking. crazyeddie 21:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would say that it would be more appropriate to not include fox in the sample for overall, as that would be assuming that fox is not biased.  it should instead by a comparison between fox and news sources besides foc (this would also make it less of a change from the way it is now) If fox is not more biased, than the figures should be the same.  If not, that biased wouldn't put diminished by using it as part of the baseline.  It should be fox vs. not fox. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:03, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Well, we have already mentioned that Fox scored highest on these misperceptions. I think removing Fox from the overall score would skew the results too much. That's assuming the difference would be noticable at all. Why give the pro-Fox POV something to complain about? crazyeddie 17:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: just a matter of standards: really a logical regression would separate "fox" and "non-fox", and thereby calculate the information present in the "fox or not" binary variable.  insofar as what we are concerned is "fox", that is what we are concerned with.  If there was a news channel that had a left-wing bias, i would argue for the same thing.  but in that, as you said, it probably wont make too big of a difference and people might not understand the rationality, it's not too big of a deal for me. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:03, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
It would be most disturbing if the difference between the overall difference between the overall average percentages and the non-Fox percentages was large. It might be interesting to see what the difference is, but for the sake of a quiet life, I think we might want to just use the overall average. If the readers wish to see a logical regression, they can read the report. crazyeddie 17:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIPA: Individual Percentages vs. Overall Percentages 

message: Warzybok, I oppose labelling FAIR as liberal here. As a non-Americans, I find this usage of liberal confusing. Not calling FAIR a liberal organisation is not the same as calling it a non-liberal organisation. Let's leave it to the readers to realise that the report is not above criticism and that FAIR is biased. If they want more information, then they should click some links. Sorry for reverting. I meant to click on next edit, but only the rollback link was there. Tim Ivorson 12:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with this: first of all, labels like this are not neutral; secondly, it assumes the reader is an idiot and will believe whatever is written without placing it in context etc. Trödel|talk 13:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but the term "liberal" is probably not the best which can be found; it be verz ambiguious and vague for reeader who do not live in the United States of America, and seems to have gained some sort of vaguely pejorative connotation in the recent years. FAIR describes itself as "offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986" and their "About us" page offers a number of descriptions which could be used. Or the term "progressive", which is used without quotation marks, in the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting article. Rama 14:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The link to the group should be enough. There it is sufficiently explained. Trödel|talk 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite agreed. Rama 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Please let's not go there - I prefer a concise summary though I am open to a modified summary I think this FAIR report already gets too many words. Trödel|talk 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAIR liberal 

message: Now for the math...
According to the page marked 581 of my printed out version of the report, here is the breakdown of the survey respondants by news network:
*Fox: 520
*CBS: 258
*CNN: 466
*ABC: 315
*NBC: 420
*NPR/PBS: 91
This gives a total of 2070. According to the text, a total of 3,334 people where polled. 80% of these said they got their news primarily from electronic sources, 19% got their news from print. 80% of 3,334 is 2667.2. I'm assuming that the difference is created by eliminating those respondants who rely on more than one primary news source.
So the overall total of 2070 consists of respondants who primarily rely on a single television news source. It does not include respondants who mainly get their news from print media.
===="US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"====
*67% for Fox * 520 = 348.4
*56% for CBS * 258 = 144.48
*49% for NBC * 420 = 205.8
*48% for CNN * 466 = 223.68
*45% for ABC * 315 =  141.75
*16% for NPR/PBS * 91 = 14.56
Total = 1078.67, or approx. 52% of 2070
===="US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".===== 
*33% for FOX  * 520 = 171.6
*23% for CBS * 258 = 59.34
*20% for CNN * 466 = 93.2
*20% for NBC * 420 = 84
*19% for ABC * 315 = 59.85
*11% for NPR/PBS * 91 = 10.01
Total = 478, or approx. 23% of 2070
===="the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.==== 
*35% for FOX * 520 = 182
*28% for CBS * 258 = 72.24
*27% for ABC * 315 = 85.05
*24% for CNN * 466 = 111.84
*20% for NBC * 420 = 84
*5% for NPR/PBS * 91 = 4.55
Total = 539.68, or approx. 26% of 2070
====Overview====
Does anybody have any bones to pick with my math? Does anybody want to dive into the appendices and drag out some figures that have less accumulated rounding errors?
If not, here is what I propose:
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions: (PDF),
** 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization", compared with 52% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
** 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended", compared with 23% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. 
** 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq, compared with 26% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. 
:Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
I'm open to less clunky language. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentages

message: Does anybody have any bones to pick with my math? Does anybody want to dive into the appendices and drag out some figures that have less accumulated rounding errors?
If not, here is what I propose:
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions: (PDF),
** 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization", compared with 52% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
** 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended", compared with 23% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. 
** 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq, compared with 26% of respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network. 
:Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
I'm open to less clunky language. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: I'm proposing removing the following sentence: "However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers."
Here is the relevant passage from the report, on the page marked 583 (disregarding typos – I'm typing this in by hand):
:Variations were much more modest on the perception that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. As discussed, the view that Iraq was directly involved in Septemeber 11 is not a demonstrable misperception, but it is widely regarded as fallacious by the intelligence community. In this case, the highest level of misperceptions was in the CBS audience (33 percent) followed by Fox (24 percent), ABC (23 percent), NBC (22 percent), and CNN (21 percent). Respondants who got their news primarily from print media (14 percent) and NPR or PBS (10 percent) were less likely to choose this description.
There are several reasons I'm proposing this removal. Take your pick:
#"Variations were more modest" meaning less important.
# This belief is not really a misperception per se.
# CBS is hardly a fair comparison. PIPA placed almost as much blame on CBS as FOX for encouraging these misperceptions.
# Even though CBS came in first on this belief, FOX did come in second, and probably had a higher than average percentage.
# This point is not an effective counterpoint. It does nothing to make up for the fact that FOX had a greater percentage of belief in this misperception.
It was my original intent that, to make up for removing this sentence, I would propose inserting mention of the stat about FOX viewers being the least likely to believe the misperception that there was no connection between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda. However, it appears that this language wasn't included in the peer-reviewed PSQ version. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CBS out, PBS in

message: Much of the controversy over this bulletpoint seems to stem from the pro-Fox POV insisting that these misperceptions aren't misperceptions. It does seem to be objectively true that these misperceptions are, in fact, just that. But, regardless, an article on FNC is not the place to be having this discussion. I propose we keep the misperception language the way it is, but link to articles that deal directly with these issues, specifically:
*Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq
*Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
*Iraq disarmament crisis
We should also make note of any important evidence that has been discovered since the PIPA report was released, in order to show that these misperceptions were, at the very least, misperceptions at the time of the survey. Namely those degraded mustard gas shells. Anybody have any idea when those were found and when this information was made public? Sources would be nice. crazyeddie 00:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to the issues the misperceptions refer to

message: ====Existing====
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions: (PDF),
** 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS).  However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of FOX viewers.
** 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
** 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
:Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
====Proposed====
*A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions: (PDF)
** 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". In the aggregate, 52% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.  (See Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda)
** 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".  In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Iraq disarmament crisis)
** 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.  In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq)
:Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
Replaced my original proposal with Kevin's. Good job on inlining the issue links. Still not entirely happy with the comparison percentages, aesthetically speaking, but can't say I like my version better than yours. After consideration, I've changed my mind on giving information on developments that came about after the study was completed. If somebody else brings it up, we can handle it then. crazyeddie 16:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Combined Proposed Language

message: *A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions: (PDF)
** 67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". In the aggregate, 52% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.  (See Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda)
** 33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".  In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Iraq disarmament crisis)
** 35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.  In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief. (See Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq)
:Fox viewers were more likely to hold these views even after adjusting for other factors, such as political party membership, and intention to vote for a particular presidental candidate. Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
Replaced my original proposal with Kevin's. Good job on inlining the issue links. Still not entirely happy with the comparison percentages, aesthetically speaking, but can't say I like my version better than yours. After consideration, I've changed my mind on giving information on developments that came about after the study was completed. If somebody else brings it up, we can handle it then. crazyeddie 16:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed

message: I'm not even going to attempt editing this in yet, but how to integrate it should be discussed now, in anticipation for the media-battles that'll likely take place once this meets mainstream.  Shem 23:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scott Norvell's recent comments ("admission of bias"). 

message: I created a further reading section so that things that do not belong in the external link section have a place in the article. Basically, the further reading section may include articles that are relevant to the Wikipedia article. These further reading articles basically are articles having information that can be added to the Wikikpedia article on Fox but have yet to be cited in a footnote. From the further reading section, I removed
* 
* 
since they only contained a blurb on Fox. Feel free to add these to the article in a citation. Bebestbe (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New further reading section 

message: What are these "some observers" the article speaks of on the lead-in to the article?  This needs references or it must be removed to meet quality standards.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some observers? 

message: Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment