Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OTR, interesting article but I truly doubt the accuracy of a lot of these polls.
First, I have no idea what day/time it was conducted. If was middle of the day during Springer, I think we know who these pollsters catch at home.
Second, I had a call a couple of weeks back asking me questions for a poll and would I mind participating. It was about 6:00pm on a weekday. I said sure and then the person asks me all about the local news and what I watch and when and then goes through EVERY SINGLE NEWSCASTER on each station. I finally asked them to remove the data I had already given them so as not to skew the poll but the 15 minutes on the phone I had spent still only had me about halfway through it!
So at the end of the day, just the fact that these polls may only appeal to those who haven't done anything BUT watch the Daily Show etc may mean that the people that were polled...well...may be slightly um....bored or in real need to just talk to someone.
Where you or I may either ignore the caller ID or politely inform someone we're busy (changing the world on CD), others may take the polls and well...we get the results that this poll implies.
Do you think the findings in the article seem accurate?
... Do you think the findings in the article seem accurate?
(quoted in part)
It is pretty-much a foregone conclusion that, if you want to get a little accuracy from News broadcasts, you have to round out your exposure, i.e., a little Daily Show, a little BBC, a little Limbaugh, a little AlJazeera, etc. and then still formulate your own take.
Then again, I'm not sure it matters where we get our info and how hard we try because, every half-decade or so it gets proven to us all over again ... that, everything we know is wrong!
I really don't know if it's accurate. I wouldn't personally be able to answer most of the questions as I rarely and sometimes for long periods of time, watch TV. Most of the commentators I've learned about I've heard here (or in general conversations). So, I read it, and don't hear it! It may register differently, not certain.
But like RockyMtnr stated I do think it is best to gather as much information about a subject as possible--with the internet, and more free personal time now that I've retired, I'd say I glance at and read about 10-25 different news related sites a day--depending on my mood, interest and of course time.
I see slants in reporting even when two or more media outlets are reporting the same story. Even such things as subtle wording can set off a different thought about any given story, some are incendiary, others neutral.
I'd like to see more neutral reporting, and less editorializing. I read () that AP is among the few media outlets left that report first, editorialize least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
OTR,
Do you think the findings in the article seem accurate?
I agree. I think it is important to view and read various news material, not just the ones that you agree with. Even if I believe a source is bias I am still interested because I want to know what the media is reporting, and what others are taking in.
It is pretty-much a foregone conclusion that, if you want to get a little accuracy from News broadcasts, you have to round out your exposure, i.e., a little Daily Show, a little BBC, a little Limbaugh, a little AlJazeera, etc. and then still formulate your own take.
Then again, I'm not sure it matters where we get our info and how hard we try because, every half-decade or so it gets proven to us all over again ... that, everything we know is wrong!
Then again, I'm not sure it matters where we get our info and how hard we try because, every half-decade or so it gets proven to us all over again ... that, everything we know is wrong![/font]
It is pretty-much a foregone conclusion that, if you want to get a little accuracy from News broadcasts, you have to round out your exposure, i.e., a little Daily Show, a little BBC, a little Limbaugh, a little AlJazeera, etc. and then still formulate your own take.
Then again, I'm not sure it matters where we get our info and how hard we try because, every half-decade or so it gets proven to us all over again ... that, everything we know is wrong!
I don't get it. Who are you quoting?
When has everything we know been wrong? Every five years? Am I reading this out of context?
Yes, I am immediately suspicious of a survey of only 1500 people that concludes that FOX watchers are less informed. . .
Actually, any properly drawn sample of 1,500 people is well more than enough to produce statistically reliable results. And this is hardly the first poll to indicate that those who get their news primarily from FOX News are among the least well informed people in the population. That's been a very consistent conclusion in such polling for many years...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, it's a survey soooo......
