When Facts Don’t Matter: Proving The Problem With Fox News

Wed, 2011-06-29 06:19Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

When Facts Don’t Matter: Proving The Problem With Fox News




Nevertheless, the broader political world seems to have stopped short of acknowledging this obvious state of affairs. Despite the fact that I conclusively refuted the notorious Politifact item that had accused Jon Stewart of being wrong about Fox and misinformation (he wasn’t), I don't think the site is going to turn around and reverse itself. Its silence since then--and its self-congratulatory “Editor’s Note” noting that Stewart went on the air and accepted Politifact’s version of events—suggests that Politifact considers the subject closed.

I'm here to warn Politifact--and the rest of us--that it isn’t. Because while this topic may smolder for a while, it is certain to come up again.



As of now, what’s most powerful about my “theory” is that we have evidence to support it—and we lack evidence to refute it. So until that evidence emerges--or until the next Fox News controversy--I’m signing off. 



Fascinating how the left is so concerned about the "conservative viewers'" source for news. The most recent sally was by John Stewart on the Chris Wallace show re: depth of knowledge. This is what Wallace responded with:
"WALLACE: The Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact looked into that statement, and on its Truth-O-Meter it rated Jon’s claim false. But the details are even more interesting. In a survey called “Misinformation in the 2010 Election,” people were asked a series of fact questions like which president signed tarp? But the poll also asked questions like this. “As you know, the American economy had a major downturn starting in the fall of 2008. Do you think that now the American economy is ‘a,’ starting to recover or ‘b,’ still getting worse?” "Starting to recover" was the so-called right answer. If you said, "still getting worse" you were officially misinformed. And if you questioned whether climate change is occurring or whether ObamaCare will add to deficit, you were also mistaken.

Then there was last year's Pew Poll which asked four fact questions like what job did Eric Holder have? It turns out Fox News scored better, not worse, than MSNBC, CNN, the network evening news and the network morning news. As for individual shows, 31 percent of “Hannity” viewers got all four questions correct. 29 percent for “O'Reilly.” And all the way down near the bottom viewers of Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show" at 22 percent.



If any survey question asks a question regarding "climate change" without defining in some detail the meaning of the term meant in the question is a seriously flawed question. For example, is the term meant to mean the climate to CO2? Is the climate warming due to anthropogenic CO2? Is the climate warming with possible catastrophic results due to anthropogenic CO2?


What nonsense. Fox "News" executives and newscasters admit they are biased liars.

It is not necessary for Fox viewers to be the most informed in every single poll where Comedy Central viewers are also close to the bottom, when the statement was "Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?" The testable premises here are CONSISTENTLY and MISINFORMED. PolitiFact looks for a few polls, in which both groups of viewers were placed near the bottom ON AVERAGE, and Fox News (in general) below that of the Comedy Central programming. Despite this, Stewart then went to length describing FowNews's rather abysmal ratings for its various shows as rated by PolitiFact, and an indication of consistent wrongness. PolitiFact is comforting themselves because they are relying on the ambiguity of MISINFORMED, while Stewart was concerned with both together, and potentially more the latter than the former. In this way, Stewart acceeded to PolitiFact's overriding correctness, but then indicated his "manness" in accepting where he was wrong (on a particular clause of his statement) which PolitiFact refuses to acknowledge is a slap in their face because they refuse to admit they were also wrong on the narrowness of their test. It also doesn't help that they picked a few polls that allow them to contradict Stewart on a point, but not others which would vindicate him, and that's Chris' point.

You've made an effort to be dispassionate, but of course everyone knows the point of the exercise is to skewer fox. The studies aim to "appear" even handed but the point of the study is to smack fox.






I'm not a viewer of Fox news, mostly a CNN person actually. But I don't believe that bashing Fox news will help salvage the CAGW position in any case. Fox news' position on the matter seems to be what others are wanting to say but don't. The fact that no action is taking place in Washington regarding CAGW seems to be the dirty little secret. Soon enough, a wider range of politicians and news outlets will be more 'honest' about their views.




Note that article is from the UK Daily Telegraph - somebody ought to tell James 'interpreter of interpretations' Delingpole who is probably right now to busy and cosy at that denier-fest in the US.





Chris, you can't just assume that the topics of supposed misinformation that have been measured are politically neutral in the surveys you cite. Certainly that isn't the case for the PIPA studies. For Stewart to claim poll data support for the view that Fox News viewers are generally misinformed as to politics and science the studies should feature questions designed to represent general information. And that's the least of the problems.

The term "misinformation" is a newspeak substitution for what the despicable product of Fox "News" should be called - propaganda. That Fox "news" is a propaganda outlet is not even in question by its own staff, and has been documented for years by sites like Media Matters.


In one comment you reference Media Matters, and claim Fox News is propaganda. That's hilarious pot and kettle logic.

Joseph Goebbels couldn't have said it better.

Yes, In fact we need some new government agencies to establish truth and stop anti-truth. Perhaps we can establish strict standards for all human activities. We will need to start steering the children early. I'm thinking minor electric shocks for wrong thinking as a starting point. Its for the planet people!





And you say it is NOT a propaganda website??

That's right - it is NOT a propaganda outfit. period. And it is not on TV, purporting to present deliberate lies as "news". Why is this all so difficult for you Republicans to understand? Is it because you have no real regard for reality, and project onto the left the same lack of objective capacity?

Truly pathetic.




Nothing silly about it when you see how the right has leveraged the idiots who believe Beck's claptrap for example. They are called the Tea Party, they are demonstrably stupid, ignorant, and misinformed and politically dangerous. Congressional Republicans with the same stupid misinformed opinions are doing a fine job of controlling the national conversation. There is *nothing* silly about bad government.

Ginger said: "I think you are a professional agitator. This blog seems to have more than any other website I have visited. Do you get paid to post comments on blogs?"




What will be the human population in 2500?


Put me down for 1 B.

Why do you ask?

Odd question...
And one with no real answer.


Does any really care? Why?





read more