Study: Those Who Watch Fox News More Prone to Misperceptions re: Iraq War

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Big surprise, I know... ;)

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.

Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”

The frequency of Americans’ misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/images/oct03/Table%201.gif

Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.

Another key perception—one that US intelligence agencies regard as unfounded—is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13% even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda substantial support. [Note: An August Washington Post poll found that 69% thought it was at least “somewhat likely” that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11—a different question than the PIPA/KN question that asked respondents to come to a conclusion.]

In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President’s decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%. Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President’s decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans’ political positions. Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.

For the entire study of seven polls the total sample was 9,611 respondents, and for the in-depth analysis for the polls conducted June through September the sample was 3,334 respondents. The polls were fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access.

For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.

Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't watch FOX news, but that's got to be the most retarded claim by a "study" that I have ever seen. Like NBC, ABC, "CBS or CNN is really any different. They are all lying ass channels.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They are all lying ass channels.

No argument there.

However, the point was that people who get their news exclusively from Faux are the most prone to misperceptions about the Iraq war.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's a subjective study about other subjective polls. It's a kin to hear-say. But to be honest I don't know anyone who watches FOX news, CNN, or any of the others. The best thing I have ever done is ditch cable TV, so I diffenately walk through life these days with the volume turned down. I'd rather play my git-box anyway. :)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's a subjective study about other subjective polls. It's a kin to hear-say. But to be honest I don't know anyone who watches FOX news, CNN, or any of the others. The best thing I have ever done is ditch cable TV, so I diffenately walk through life these days with the volume turned down. I'd rather play my git-box anyway. :)That's obvious when it comes to your knowledge of current affairs and events.

Bin Laden is dead

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's a subjective study about other subjective polls. It's a kin to hear-say.

???

Just making it up as you go along, eh?

For the entire study of seven polls the total sample was 9,611 respondents, and for the in-depth analysis for the polls conducted June through September the sample was 3,334 respondents. The polls were fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access.

For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's obvious when it comes to your knowledge of current affairs and events.

:yep: :D

[Bronco Bob]

It's a subjective study about other subjective polls. It's a kin to hear-say. But to be honest I don't know anyone who watches FOX news, CNN, or any of the others. The best thing I have ever done is ditch cable TV, so I diffenately walk through life these days with the volume turned down. I'd rather play my git-box anyway. :)

So in other words you are merely using anecdotal evidence to determine who
watches the news and which news channels they watch. And this is the
whole basis of your argument that the polls are wrong. I know several
people that watch the cable news programs, as well as myself. Does that
prove you wrong?

[W*GS]

This is news? Right-wingers, who like Fox, are ignorant about the Iraq War, 9/11, and so on. Wow, wadda shocker.

A similar survey of folks who get their news from PBS/NPR/"The Nation" are probably just as likely to be ignorant of basic economics.

And those who worship Lou Dobbs likely have "misperceptions" of globalization and trade...

[alkemical]

This is news? Right-wingers, who like Fox, are ignorant about the Iraq War, 9/11, and so on. Wow, wadda shocker.

A similar survey of folks who get their news from PBS/NPR/"The Nation" are probably just as likely to be ignorant of basic economics.

And those who worship Lou Dobbs likely have "misperceptions" of globalization and trade...

This is correct. With the amount of news media that fits just about anyone's view of what "truth" is - it's what opened up markets for bloggers, alex jones, etc. It's not that they are "always wrong" - just that it resonates with their readers. There can be a grain of truth in those stories - but the marketing of the sites and the information is more important (just like with any media publication/show/etc).

People will find what "resonates" with their views more. Like how some may read democraticunderground, newsmax, Newscorp, TimeWarner, ABC/Disney, etc.

Information is power and no real journalism exists, one of the reasons for the fracture of real information. For everyone who reads fox news, the rest of the news outlets are "leftist" - for others it's all "right-ist", etc.

You are still taking information from authority and taking it as truth, and discarding the rest.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You are still taking information from authority and taking it as truth, and discarding the rest.Not necessarily true at all. A lot of people are able to assemble, examine and determine facts based from various news sources and make informed opinions on actual events in the world.

The best way to accumulate accurate information is using the wire services and financial networks.

[Bronco Bob]

This is correct. With the amount of news media that fits just about anyone's view of what "truth" is - it's what opened up markets for bloggers, alex jones, etc. It's not that they are "always wrong" - just that it resonates with their readers. There can be a grain of truth in those stories - but the marketing of the sites and the information is more important (just like with any media publication/show/etc).

People will find what "resonates" with their views more. Like how some may read democraticunderground, newsmax, Newscorp, TimeWarner, ABC/Disney, etc.

Information is power and no real journalism exists, one of the reasons for the fracture of real information. For everyone who reads fox news, the rest of the news outlets are "leftist" - for others it's all "right-ist", etc.

You are still taking information from authority and taking it as truth, and discarding the rest.

Basically this gets back to a post of yours in another thread. Everyone has their own reality tunnel they view the world through.

[alkemical]

Not necessarily true at all. A lot of people are able to assemble, examine and determine facts based from various news sources and make informed opinions on actual events in the world.

The best way to accumulate accurate information is using the wire services and financial networks.

yeah i'm sure there's no biasedness in which sources ya read, and you are still making "decisions" upon facts someone else gives to you. So you are back to square one of my point.

Thanks again!

[alkemical]

Basically this gets back to a post of yours in another thread. Everyone has their own reality tunnel they view the world through.

It's like "marketing" but with pure information, not say... a car or something like that.

You create a "source" and you create a package and a slant that resonates with your "readers" POV. Rupert knows this, which is why he started a "fox" style news overseas in europe (funny he also admitted to trying to sway public opinion for the war (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0802/p01s04-usec.html), if you don't like that source google/yahoo: rupert murdoch sway public opinion).

So say with Rupert's aquisition of the Dow Jones publications, now you have to wonder what might be slanted for him to sway public opinion for his favor. When he puts massive capital behind Hillary Clinton (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml), how am i going to view anything that comes out of NewsCorp? I mean the guy owns directTV, FOX (anything/everything), Dow Jones, etc. It's like discerning if Ted Turner is being straight with you on CNN, etc. It's an information war to sway people their way.

BUT with all the freedom to choose which media you can get now-a-days - it's no longer about truth - it's more like a mis/disinformation war. None of these have much more creedence than any yellow journalism. You can make decisions based upon your own congnizant beliefs - but it's still done under your belief systems you operate on.

So say the "Tinfoil Hat Club" (THC, heh ;) ), may view an "Alex Jones" as more trust worthy because they've lost faith the major media presentation of the news. I mean there is basis to this belief, the media isn't really honest with us - they are just interested in "selling more information/infotainment/etc". What a THC person may not see though is that alex jones uses guerilla marketing (due to the lack of media power) to get his message acrross by SELLING videos, access to streaming content, etc.

So what is really done, instead of say the days where there were FEW media moguls who had the SAME sort of information printed/broadcast - meant that more people were on the 'same page' (pun) than it is now. This is both good and bad (back to the mis/dis-info) - is that it's easier to 'divide and conquer' people due to more division and galvizination between different ideologies.

You have guys like Rush who isn't news - it's an entertainment show - but he will back up and validate a POV and "substantiate it" with "fact" - which conditions the listener to "trust" rush. Mike Savage operates in the same way, as does any other media personality or publication.

It's about sales and money, and power comes along with that. I mean Rush stated he was an UNPAID consultant to the bush re-election campaign. So basically bush gets his message out via bush's show - due to actual law against it (equal time).

It is quite interesting to see how media influence from newspaper, TV, Radio, Internet effect different generations - as well as demographics and political stances.

Do i "trust" major media? No more than i trust any other media source. I'm still recieving information from a position of "authority" - which is a false sense of trust. I have to question who owns them, why the message comes out, etc. In order to objective - i have to be even MORE critical of places i frequent.

If you want an example of this:

Subscribe to Alex jones (and like sites) and read ONLY them for about 3- 6 months (no "major" sources) and see how this works. It's quite interesting and you don't look at things the same.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

yeah i'm sure there's no biasedness in which sources ya read, and you are still making "decisions" upon facts someone else gives to you. So you are back to square one of my point.

Thanks again!
Did I say that?

Sorry, but the whole world isn't a conspiracy theory no matter how much you want it to be.

[alkemical]

Did I say that?

Sorry, but the whole world isn't a conspiracy theory no matter how much you want it to be.

No but you read into my statement like that. I was pointing out how everyone picks and chooses "sources" they think are more trustworthy - which is still a form of biasedness.

Sorry to break it to ya.

Thanks again for trying!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No but you read into my statement like that. I was pointing out how everyone picks and chooses "sources" they think are more trustworthy - which is still a form of biasedness.
Sorry to break it to ya.
Thanks again for trying!

LOL

It's real easy but if you don't believe in reality I can see where it may become difficult.

[alkemical]

LOL

It's real easy but if you don't believe in reality I can see where it may become difficult.

well belief is the death of intelligence and you sir, are exhibit A.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

well belief is the death of intelligence and you sir, are exhibit A.
Ha! It must be tough living in a world where everything isn't what it is.

[alkemical]

Ha! It must be tough living in a world where everything isn't what it is.

Could be worse, i could bitch about how life isn't fair all the time ya big pussy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Could be worse, i could b**** about how life isn't fair all the time ya big p***Y. Now ames, there you go again losing your cool. You should know that, where nothing is real and true, you just got upset over something that didn't happen...






:rofl:

[alkemical]

Now ames, there you go again losing your cool. You should know that, where nothing is real and true, you just got upset over something that didn't happen...






:rofl:


I'm not losing my cool, i just call it like i see it. Now go run along like the little socialist you are and tell us about how we need the gov't to help us live, and be safe! Besides, sedition and cowardice are also in your bag of tricks it appears.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not losing my cool, i just call it like i see it. Now go run along like the little socialist you are and tell us about how we need the gov't to help us live, and be safe! Besides, sedition and cowardice are also in your bag of tricks it appears.Ah, ames is blowing another gasket, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Poor little fellow has been reduced to name calling once again.

You know what might help? maybe taking one of those tunnel reality vacations to Kansas, what do you think?

[alkemical]

Ah, ames is blowing another gasket, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Poor little fellow has been reduced to name calling once again.

You know what might help? maybe taking one of those tunnel reality vacations to Kansas, what do you think?


Nah - i'm not a fan of kansas - maybe cancun.

enjoy!:

BRCNSLGWLTK

:)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So in other words you are merely using anecdotal evidence to determine who
watches the news and which news channels they watch. And this is the
whole basis of your argument that the polls are wrong.

Ha!

Unbelievable, isn't it?

No wonder he's a trick for Dubya.

[alkemical]

It's like "marketing" but with pure information, not say... a car or something like that.

You create a "source" and you create a package and a slant that resonates with your "readers" POV. Rupert knows this, which is why he started a "fox" style news overseas in europe (funny he also admitted to trying to sway public opinion for the war (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0802/p01s04-usec.html), if you don't like that source google/yahoo: rupert murdoch sway public opinion).

So say with Rupert's aquisition of the Dow Jones publications, now you have to wonder what might be slanted for him to sway public opinion for his favor. When he puts massive capital behind Hillary Clinton (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml), how am i going to view anything that comes out of NewsCorp? I mean the guy owns directTV, FOX (anything/everything), Dow Jones, etc. It's like discerning if Ted Turner is being straight with you on CNN, etc. It's an information war to sway people their way.

BUT with all the freedom to choose which media you can get now-a-days - it's no longer about truth - it's more like a mis/disinformation war. None of these have much more creedence than any yellow journalism. You can make decisions based upon your own congnizant beliefs - but it's still done under your belief systems you operate on.

So say the "Tinfoil Hat Club" (THC, heh ;) ), may view an "Alex Jones" as more trust worthy because they've lost faith the major media presentation of the news. I mean there is basis to this belief, the media isn't really honest with us - they are just interested in "selling more information/infotainment/etc". What a THC person may not see though is that alex jones uses guerilla marketing (due to the lack of media power) to get his message acrross by SELLING videos, access to streaming content, etc.

So what is really done, instead of say the days where there were FEW media moguls who had the SAME sort of information printed/broadcast - meant that more people were on the 'same page' (pun) than it is now. This is both good and bad (back to the mis/dis-info) - is that it's easier to 'divide and conquer' people due to more division and galvizination between different ideologies.

You have guys like Rush who isn't news - it's an entertainment show - but he will back up and validate a POV and "substantiate it" with "fact" - which conditions the listener to "trust" rush. Mike Savage operates in the same way, as does any other media personality or publication.

It's about sales and money, and power comes along with that. I mean Rush stated he was an UNPAID consultant to the bush re-election campaign. So basically bush gets his message out via bush's show - due to actual law against it (equal time).

It is quite interesting to see how media influence from newspaper, TV, Radio, Internet effect different generations - as well as demographics and political stances.

Do i "trust" major media? No more than i trust any other media source. I'm still recieving information from a position of "authority" - which is a false sense of trust. I have to question who owns them, why the message comes out, etc. In order to objective - i have to be even MORE critical of places i frequent.

If you want an example of this:

Subscribe to Alex jones (and like sites) and read ONLY them for about 3- 6 months (no "major" sources) and see how this works. It's quite interesting and you don't look at things the same.



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/faK9HUvH2ck"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/faK9HUvH2ck" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


I'd like you to meet, Mr. Mcluhan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan)

[Garcia Bronco]

So in other words you are merely using anecdotal evidence to determine who
watches the news and which news channels they watch. And this is the
whole basis of your argument that the polls are wrong. I know several
people that watch the cable news programs, as well as myself. Does that
prove you wrong?

No, polls by nature are retardedly unreliable. Especially when the actual criteria and conceptual criteria are no where near mutually inclusive. Further more, I can manipulate raw data to say whatever I want to to fit just about any agenda on any subject. You are taking two different things I am commenting on and then assuming some comparison I am not even making. All those networks are propaganda machines and you are just as liable to walk away mis-informed from any of them.

[Garcia Bronco]

???

Just making it up as you go along, eh?

It's still a subjective study on subjective studies. You guys just aren't educated in this stuff. Take a research methods class, and you'll learn just how FOS polls and most studies are.

[alkemical]

No, polls by nature are retardedly unreliable. Especially when the actual criteria and conceptual criteria are no where near mutually inclusive. Further more, I can manipulate raw data to say whatever I want to to fit just about any agenda on any subject. You are taking two different things I am commenting on and then assuming some comparison I am not even making. All those networks are propaganda machines and you are just as liable to walk away mis-informed from any of them.

programming isn't a time slot Garcia... ;)

[Bob]

Big surprise, I know... ;)

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.

Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”

The frequency of Americans’ misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/images/oct03/Table%201.gif

Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.

Another key perception—one that US intelligence agencies regard as unfounded—is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13% even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda substantial support. [Note: An August Washington Post poll found that 69% thought it was at least “somewhat likely” that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11—a different question than the PIPA/KN question that asked respondents to come to a conclusion.]

In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President’s decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%. Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President’s decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.

While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.

The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans’ political positions. Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.

For the entire study of seven polls the total sample was 9,611 respondents, and for the in-depth analysis for the polls conducted June through September the sample was 3,334 respondents. The polls were fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access.

For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.

Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

See the small print that says "Poll conducted by Keith Oberman"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

See the small print that says "Poll conducted by Keith Oberman"

Got reading comprehension?

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's still a subjective study on subjective studies.

ROFL!

Trying to baffle us with psuedo-intellectual BS now, eh?

Anyway, you keep suggesting the study's methodology is flawed, but you've yet to explain how this is so.


You guys just aren't educated in this stuff. Take a research methods class, and you'll learn just how FOS polls and most studies are.

ROFL! Oh, the irony...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Anyway, this thread sure turned out to be an exercise in raising the Fox flag to see who salutes, eh?

Smoked 'em out if their caves, by God!

:D