[onlineslotetes]

i know, i know...big surprise, right?? lmao

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee..._news/204ba70e

An American university's poll shows people who say they watch no news at all know more about current events than those who watch the right-wing Fox News channel. Is this the right room for an argument?

A university in New Jersey carried out a simple poll recently. They asked respondents where they get their news, and then asked them some questions about current events. The results are startling.

The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll showed people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who say they don't watch any news at all.

Before dissecting the reasons for that result, it's worth looking at the news sources that did improve consumers' knowledge.

The Sunday morning talk shows on the major U.S. networks – such as Meet the Press – draw the most informed audience, but it's tough to measure cause and effect. Anyone willing to tune in to that type of current events programming is likely well informed to begin with and has a passion for politics and other hard news.

People who listen to non-profit National Public Radio – a format similar to CBC Radio One here in Canada – scored well in the poll. Readers of nationally distributed newspapers such as the New York Times knew their stuff too.

News sources that were less effective at informing the public were at the political extremes.

Fox News leans hard right, and MSNBC leans left. Viewers of both networks showed less than stellar understanding of events, but it was Fox viewers who fared worst of all.

A political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson offered an explanation. Daniel Cassino reported that ideological media fails to inform because, "they don't challenge people's assumptions."

In effect, a Fox News viewer already has their mind made up before the facts are presented.

"People who tune into ideological media are motivated to hear their side of the debate," Cassino added.

Without pausing to consider other points of view, the news consumer is in danger of hearing only what he or she wants to hear. And much like the hosts on Fox News, the network's viewers sure don't want to hear anything they don't agree with.

Critical thinking and thoughtful debate do not fill the Fox News studios. Debates turn into shouting matches, with the loudest person commandeering the conversation and "winning" the argument. Sound bites rule the day. Reasoned discussion and respect for the opposing viewpoint is for wimps. And changing your mind, well, that's flip-flopping.

Cassino said the opposite of hit-and-run shouting contests can be seen on the Sunday morning news programs, where a single issue may be discussed at length.

"Viewers pick up more information from this sort of calm discussion," he said.

While talk radio is rarely described as "calm," the researchers did find that talk radio listeners did fairly well in the poll. Cassino chalks that up to the time talk radio spends on an issue and the depth of the discussions.

In the end, the results of the poll don't simply point the finger at right-wing nuts or their news sources. The results say an audience learns less if members aren't challenged by what they read, hear or watch.

Do you learn more by listening to people you agree with or people you disagree with? Should children spend more time studying critical thinking and debating?

[KhJOHbTM]

i read about this when it came out. it was a few hundred people they surveyed, and all of them lived in new jersey. i'm not trying to defend fox, but 3 or 4 hundred people in new jersey is hardly representative of the country as a whole.

[MannoFr]

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”

Thomas Jefferson

[icedrakona]

i read about this when it came out. it was a few hundred people they surveyed, and all of them lived in new jersey. i'm not trying to defend fox, but 3 or 4 hundred people in new jersey is hardly representative of the country as a whole.

But in many ways, what the study shows or proposes, is true. It is human nature to "like" having your beliefs reenforced, even if they are right or wrong.

[Brutton]

i don't doubt it, but i don't like chicanery. just be honest and say it was a survey of fox news viewers in new jersey, not imply it is "all fox news viewers."

[Michaelnewerb]

The classification "uninformed" is subjective.

I don't read any "papers" or watch any TV news, still I consider myself informed, although I don't know what "ball" team" won or what dancing with american idol is.

[anolbom]

What were the poll questions?

Were they questions skewed to create correct answers only from NPR stories?

Are the pollsters NPR employees or donors?

[uaodnabnjz]

Yes, because we all know that liberals haven't made their mind up before approaching a topic or idea, and operate on the fundamental premise that all should be accepted despite difference.