Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart

Well, the interview with Bush tonight is going to be civil. O'Reilly has stated numerous times that he's respectful to the office of President, and isn't going to brow beat Pres. Bush like he would say a Terry Gross from NPR.

On the other side, he's not going to avoid questions like "why is the country so divided after you tried to unify it after 9/11".

Again, I respect O'Reilly because he does get it from both sides. Just look at his viewer mail, one person calls him a Dem supporter and another a Republican, on the same issues.

He's an independent, as am I, and when we voice a pro life viewpoint, people call independents conservatives ... in the same breath, you may also be pro gay marriage, which will get people looking at you like "huh?".

Independent is the way to go. No choosing sides, just solving the problems rationally based on facts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Their news is relatively fair and balanced.. their op/eds are not.

---

Dunno, some would disagree with that:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...es/000714.html

Quote:

---

Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions.

---

Of course this might explain part of it:
Comedy Central viewers more educated than Fox viewers

But what do i know? I'm just another college-educated OPB sticker on his car "stoned slacker".

d.

Hmmm two studies are definitive. Great college you must have gone to. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Hmmm two studies are definitive. Great college you must have gone to. ;)

---

holds more water than an unsupported claim :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yasunobu13
holds more water than an unsupported claim :p

---

depends on how deep you dig.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
depends on how deep you dig.

---

I showed you my links, now show me yours. :p

d.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dlowe93
Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions.

---

That would be true if all other things were held equal, but you can't draw a rational conclusion from that study that Fox skews people's perceptions, much as I believe that's true.

I'm sure that the audience of 'niche' providers like NPR or PBS are by their nature less likely to have misconceptions than audiences of mass market network news like Fox's.

You can only really compare like with like.

I just wanna thank John Stewart for making both channels hilarious. If you watch enough daily show, you can actually see the comedy.

Hmm, NPR does some skewing of their own.

Simply listen to Terry Gross' infamous interview with O'Reilly where it was supposed to be about his book and turned into thirty minutes of her throwing things his critics (most of all Al Franken) said about him in his face and having him defend himself against it.

When O'Reilly asked her if she challenged Franken the same when she interviewed him, she admitted not to. O'Reilly cancelled the interview after that and Gross' boss scolded her.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion
That would be true if all other things were held equal, but you can't draw a rational conclusion from that study that Fox skews people's perceptions, much as I believe that's true.

I'm sure that the audience of 'niche' providers like NPR or PBS are by their nature less likely to have misconceptions than audiences of mass market network news like Fox's.

You can only really compare like with like.

---

Well, if they polled people across many socio-econimic groups then they've done as much to compare "like with like" as is possible on a study of this kind and of this subject.

Sure, we gain knowledge from many different areas of our lives, however a study by its very nature will attempt to look at one particular unit of measurement. Will it be always spot on? No. May it discover something worthy of discussion? Possibly. If they've examined people's "primary" source of news then that's a good starting point on where their world views come from. So in future someone may conduct an even more comprehensive study, but for the moment this is all we have (unless someone wants to add another link? ;)).

Not saying I disagree with you entirely, but it would be like comparing people's knowledge of world events to their income...etc. It would - I imagine - generate some obvious results, which were valid, but not neccesarily the only influence - which is what you're trying to say I think?

I'm more talking about people's motivation. My assumption, and it is only that, is that people who only watch network news, like FOX, NBC, etc, are just not that interested in 'real' news. There's no real substance to their news shows and even their special news programs are little more than tabloid or promotional spots for their entertainment stuff. This goes for all the networks.

My argument is, I guess, that people who go out of their way to watch/listen to more indepth, 'serious' news and current affairs programs, whether they're preceived as right or left wing, are by their nature going to be more interested in news and less suceptible to the misconceptions that seem to arise with network news.

The study that would be relevant would compare Fox to NBC, ABC, etc. That would then tell you whether, compared to its peers, Fox leaves its viewers with more misconceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion
The study that would be relevant would compare Fox to NBC, ABC, etc. That would then tell you whether, compared to its peers, Fox leaves its viewers with more misconceptions.

---

It would depend what question you were trying to answer? If you're trying to answer, "Do Fox news viewers have less knowledge of world events than other commercial TV viewers?", then yes, the study you suggest would be more relevant.

If, however, you're asking, "Who knows more, a Fox viewer or a PBS viewer?", then their study is more relevant.

So the problem is not with the study, but about the question you would like to see answered, which really depends on what the end goal is, no? And wasn't the end goal in this case to compare the viewers of two shows?

I'm not arguing with you about the fact that the kind of study you suggest may give an even better indicator of the differences between information coming from Fox and that of other commercial channels, since they are the mediums through which most people draw their views from. And even better, by conducting a number of different studies, you would build up an even more complete picture. However each area of study is still worthy of discussion, while possibly not worthy of hanging your hat on if trying to find an absolute answer. ;)

Get what I mean?? This study was more an interesting discussion point on a subject that seemed fairly obvious to me, but that maybe there was absolutely no data on before (so there is some now), not something to yet write pages of academic thesis on. So the data is sound, the number of questions it answers is not so many.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion

The study that would be relevant would compare Fox to NBC, ABC, etc. That would then tell you whether, compared to its peers, Fox leaves its viewers with more misconceptions.

---

Not to mention the study compared the viewers of one particular show on a network to the viewers of the entire network.

I'm surprised since we're talking about misconceptions that you all left out CBS's recent fiasco. Hmm, skewed news reporting ...

No doubt, certain commentators on Fox News *cough* Sean Hannity *cough* will blatanltly ignore the truth and skew everything to fit a belief, but O'Reilly rarely does that. Even when he did, it was no where near as slanted as other news reporters or commentators. Okay, maybe he was, but at least he makes an attempt to be fair once in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by villain2
Hmm, NPR does some skewing of their own.

---

No argument there. At least they skew it in a direction i'm comfortable with. :D

But Fresh Air is entertainment and commentary, and i'd never confuse or argue it as such.

d.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion
My argument is, I guess, that people who go out of their way to watch/listen to more indepth, 'serious' news and current affairs programs, whether they're preceived as right or left wing, are by their nature going to be more interested in news and less suceptible to the misconceptions that seem to arise with network news.

---

I think that's a great point. I pretty much get all my news from NPR or CNN.com, and only watch the networks for local news.

What is interesting though, is observing the news mix of our local Fox station. It's a 60 minute program and they typically start off with 15 -20 minutes of local news, amost exclusively crime-related stories. The other night the lead off with a story on a crime spree in Southwest Washington that was at least 3 days old. Granted, it's news, but does a series of property crimes 50 miles away and three days old count as a lead story? I think not.

It was also interesting during the conventions. The first three days of the Democratic convention were buried in the trailing 30 minutes under national news, only hitting the front 30 on Kerry's acceptance speech. The Republican convention was in the first 30 every night, and they had Bush's acceptance right after the local crime wave report.

Certianly Fair and Balanced in my book.

d.

your local fox station has nothing to do with fox news channel. Owned by the same company, but seperate entities.

With fox news channel, the straight news porption (maybe 20% of the programming) is balanced and straight, everything else is right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
your local fox station has nothing to do with fox news channel. Owned by the same company, but seperate entities.

With fox news channel, the straight news porption (maybe 20% of the programming) is balanced and straight, everything else is right.

---

Sorry, i wasn't very clear. My point was more that the news director of a station, or any media source, has a lot more influence than most people think.

By the same token, the news mix of NPR is not a coincidence either.

d.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dlowe93
Sorry, i wasn't very clear. My point was more that the news director of a station, or any media source, has a lot more influence than most people think.

---

of course, the news director of the station answers to the manager of the station, who is responsible for revenue. If people don't like/watch the news your offering... you won't remain the editor very long.

I have never worked for NPR, so I can't even guess how it works there, but I imagine it is similar to local news outlet, yet they can pander to a smaller segment of the audience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
of course, the news director of the station answers to the manager of the station, who is responsible for revenue. If people don't like/watch the news your offering... you won't remain the editor very long.

---

Funny, that's one of the main reasons i quit journalism. Too much about selling news than the content of the news.

d.