Sunday, January 17, 2010

Palin tweets, research responds.

"What would America do w/out Fox News?".

I'll take "Be less inclined to believe demonstrable falsehoods" for $500, Alex.


The Rational Number said...

Thanks for the link to that report. I've always wondered if someone studied that. I'm not surprised at all by the results. Got any more?

I seem to recall Fox News got caught not long ago showing incorrect footage to exaggerate crowds at certain rallys, for which they apologized. MSNBC got caught in a similar problem. Fox sent out a memo to the effect that if people were caught doing that again, they could be fired (can't remember what MSNBC did).

But how should Fox News employees interpret that message from management?

1. Be more careful.
2. Be more careful not to get caught.
3. Keep up the good work, but we're going to need a scapegoat so rat out your friends.
4. Just kidding, but we had to make it look like we're doing something.

My emotions are somewhere between 2 and 3. Logically, any of the above might be true.

My most frustrating problem is people who, when presented with pretty good contrary evidence, simply pick their sources to agree with their fore drawn conclusions. Remember Orly Taitz? Facts need not apply, so why bother. I wonder if anyone has studied that?

Patrick Ross said...

Riddle me this:

What does Audrey have to say about racebaitgate?

Nothing of substance, I'm certain.

Audrey II said...

Thanks for your on-topic response, TRN! It's nice to have replies that speak to the topic, as opposed to hamfisted attempts to distract from it.

I'm sure I've read of similar studies in the past. If I come across anything in my bookmarks, I'll post them here.

The results really aren't that surprising, given that FOX is more concerned with "balance" than it is with accuracy. It continuously portrays a dichotomy of two "sides" as having equal merit, regardless of facts. It seeks "fairness and balance" when news should be anything but.

FOX News has not only found, but also helped expand a market of people who are tired with the conflict between reality and their ideological leaning. Telling people what they want to hear sells, and FOX has capitalized on that at the expense of journalistic integrity. As the study shows, it isn't just an issue of single-instances of poor or misleading reporting, but rather something systemic that correlates to an audience that harbours serious misconceptions about reality. It's populism at its worst. Conservapedia caters to the same ugly demand.

Patrick Ross said...


Interestingly enough, MSNBC has accomplished precisely the same task.

After all, Keith Olbermann did just sit there and nod approvingly while Janeane Garofalo humiliated herself on a globally-televised news show.

But, as it pertains to racebaitgate -- I'd daresay anyone who thinks they can use footage of a black man with a gun at a Presidential town hall meeting to prove that white people are planning to assassinate the President harbours some serious misconceptions about reality.

Patrick Ross said...


Nothng to say, huh, Audrey.

See, folks, Audrey seems to have truly hit the pinnacle on disingenuous ideological politics, and from a methodological standpoint, it's almost ingenious:

Only discuss the the things that support her argument. Everything else is off-topic.

When will we discuss the things that don't support her argument? Why, never, of course!

Audrey II said...

"Nothng to say, huh, Audrey."

I did. Whether or not you're able to grasp that is another matter entirely.

I don't mind discussing things that don't support my argument. When you have something relevant to my argument to offer, please do let me know.

Regurgitation of the same old Rhetoric of Assholery, on the other hand, will be met with the degree of attention it merits.

Patrick Ross said...


Audrey, you're so dense it's utterly hilarious.

Your little one-liner about FOX News was that without it, Americans would "be less inclined to believe demonstrable falsehoods".

Yet, as Racebaitgate demonstrates, there are some demagogues at MSNBC who are more than willing to peddle demonstrable falsehoods.

Even if Americans weren't being subjected to "demonstrable falsehoods" by FOX News, they would still be subjected to demonstrable falsehoods by MSNBC.

Kind of kills your whole argument.

As for any shadow of a reputation you may have had... well, you killed that yourself.

Sparky said...

To offer clarity instead of the usual shenanigans that we always seem to fall into...
Patrick, if there were only two television 'news' stations left--MSNBC and FOX (as they currently are), which one of those stations would you be more inclined to think would provide 'better' news coverage of current events?
I used quotation marks 'cause 'better' really is a subjective term in this case, but there's the question.
No wiggling, no obfuscationg--FOXNews or MSNBC--straight up--which network provides better news coverage?

Patrick Ross said...


Sparkles, because the quality of coverage on either network is so piss-poor, I'm not going to answer that question because it isn't worth answering.

Instead, I'm going to do you a favour, provide a question worth answering, then answer it:

The question will be: if only FOX News and MSNBC were left operating (and considering that MSNBC may not survive the year, this is unlikely), what would effect would that have on the general quality of journalism?

The answer: then we'd all be sho 'nuff fucked.

Sparky said...

A crystal clear example of the shenanigans that always come into play when you're involved.
I'll quote someone that considers himself an authority on all things 'bloggy'--
It's so hard to get answers from them
Thanks for making his point, Patrick

Patrick Ross said...


Sparkles, if you want your questions answered, don't waste my time.

Don't make reading your question a waste of time in the first place.

FOX News and MSNBC are both deplorable. Maybe someday you'll understand the futility of choosing between two awful options.

I'll refer you to the "Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich" episode of South Park and say: be gone with you, o useless one!

Sparky said...

Therein lies the root issue--'cause Patrick believes it, it must be so in the universe...
Patrick posited that MSNBC and FOX are equally reprehensible. His point. Not mine, yours or anyone elses in this thread. He gives an example of 'misreporting' the news in order to score partisan points.
For those that can't remember long term, we've been down this road before with Mr. Ross, and many counter examples were offered showing where FOX News-y'know, the actual 'NEWS' portion misrepresented things in order to score partisan points--not 'opinion' shows like Bill-O or Keith-O, but the NEWS portio of those broadcasts.
So that would logically lead to the question--since this is Patricks supposition, that, if only having access to these two networks, which one is preferable to report the news.
It's a legitimate question, but Patrick doesn't want to answer.
For in giving a direct answer to this question, he'd have to abolish his little supposition because he already knows which network actually reports the news more accurately.
And therein is the answer--Patrick doesnt' want to face reality as it is, he wants to live in his own little world of make-believe, where he can state things with impunity--"Of course MSNBC and FOXNews are exactly alike? Why are you even questioning that? I stated it so it's so!!"
Patrick doesn't want the debate. He wants to score cheap political wins at the expense of the truth.
Is his way.
And I thought we were turning over a new leaf in having polite and civil discussions.
So much for that.
"It's So Hard to Get Answers From Them"
If the irony were any thicker, I'd need a chainsaw.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky's right. We have been over this a number of times, and Sparky's lost every time to date.

But it really isn't his own fault. See, he's just a victim of his own narrow ideology.

So narrow, in fact, that he thinks that everything in the blogosphere is just about reppin' for his team.

Sparky figures that MSNBC is on his team, so he defends it -- right or wrong.

Personally, I see these things much differently. Personally, I don't really have a team, and if I did, FOX News wouldn't be on my team. I'm not slavishly obligated to defend them the way Sparky slavishly defends MSNBC.

As for the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich, Sparkles, I decline to choose. That's my right.

Sparky said...

On a parenthetical note, a little story...
New neighbours moved in a year or two ago. We exchanged pleasantries once in a while, but my wife and I did not, and still continue to do not, try to develop things much more than the occasional wave and 'have a nice day' because the couple, almost on a nightly basis, yell at each other and their kids--using all sorts of profanity and whathaveyou. We were concerned for the kids but they yell right back...
So my wife is leaving the house one day and sees the mom trying to get her 5 or 6 year old daughter inside
"Come here!"
"No!!" screams the daughter.
"Come here now!!"
"F-off bitch!!" yells the daughter and runs away
"I'm going to count to 10..."
My wife didn't stick around to see what happened at 10.
when my wife returned from picking up something, the daughter was still outside.
The daughter said, "Hi!" to my wife when she got out of the car.
My wife replied (calmly and politely), "Vikki (name changed), I don't speak with little girls who yell at their mothers like that" and walked in the house.
The kid was shocked, but hey, you do what you can.
Since Patrick is making an issue in other 'bloggy' locations, and these issues are affecting those in the Canadian blogosphere that I appreciate, my stand is that I'm not 'debating' with him at this time.
I mean, it's obvious that most times Patrick just likes to raise a stink where he can in order to generate a response--any response will do.
And, for the most part, I've had fun showing how idiotic his stinks have been.
But now his yippage is so over-the-top that I'm 'stepping away'. My life's too short to associate with little girls who tell their mothers to f-off and too short to associate with supposed grown-ups that just want to get in pissing contests all the time.
As always, have at it, Patrick--it's your own time now.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparkles, of course, is referring to Robert Peter John Day's objections to being spanked so hard recently.

Audrey II said...

Once again, we watch the goalposts being moved to facilitate a all-too-familiar little strawman-slaying side-show and complete avoidance of the topic at hand.

The issue that I raised was not whether or not bad news reporting occurs from other organizations. The issue that I raised was not whether or not sometimes even "demonstrable falsehoods" get broadcast. The issue that I raised was the impact of repeated,systematic and intentionally directed misinformation being disseminated by a news organization. That's why I referred to a study, instead of this childish "Yeah, well what about this instance?!!?!". Individual instances happen, are disputable with respect to both intent and effect. Not so much for things like the study results above.

I guess when you're desperate for justification or distraction, you grasp at whatever false equivocation you can. Same tired, old, and logically absurd rhetoric.

Audrey II said...

And I agree, Sparky. Engagement has been shown to go no where at all. Just endless, largely meaningless thread contributions punctuated by repetitious strawman slaying, "Look, over there!" distractions from the topic raised, and "I win, you spanked" grade-school bluster. Yakety Sax, indeed!

If someone wants to attempt to convince themselves that the reason others are increasingly no longer engaging is some other reason, best of luck to them. I don't agree with banning posters, but at some point, it's time to put the trolls on a diet.

For the record, any future tantrums about non-replies "meaning something" will be responded to with a link here to clarify why.

Patrick Ross said...


Witness Audrey, digging up the failed talking points of her mentor. So boring.

Seesh, Audrey. Maybe some day you'll get an act of your own.

One would suspect that it hasn't occurred to you that MSNBC has wrapped this entire "racist Tea Party" narrative around a persistent campaign of dis- and misinformation.

Of course, we know very differently. We know full well that you realize this, you just want to pretend otherwise.

And for the record, Audrey, the reason why "engagement has been shown to go no where at all" is because you're always wrong, and always seem to expect your critics to pretend they're wrong just on your own say-so.

Post a Comment