No Surprise here!

Posted: February 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd | Tags: , | 45 Comments

A study released in December by a non-partisan group at the University of Maryland showed an appalling lack of knowledge on a variety of topics by US voters.  One of the most interesting findings of the study was that most of the lack of knowledge and out-and-out misinformation could be sourced to the media one followed.

The survey included fairly basic questions on programs like TARP, the economy, and taxes.  Answers  were mostly a straightforward yes or no and could be easily found with a little internet research.  The surveyed voters were just sadly uninformed and missed question-after-question in large and significant numbers.  Probably the most shocking finding was that the degree to being misinformed was highly associated with the source of news followed by the participant.

The most controversial part of the study comes at the end.  MSNBC and NPR audiences were found to be least misinformed on the basic questions of fact.  The study points to Fox News as the chief misinformer among the three major cable news outlets.  The following is a list of instances in which Fox News viewers were more likely to be misinformed on a given issue:

  • most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
  • most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
  • the economy is getting worse (26 points)
  • most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
  • the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
  • their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
  • the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
  • when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
  • and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Even more revealing, people who watched Fox News multiple times a day or everyday were found to be more misinformed than those who just watched Fox News occasionally

That’s a fairly interesting result.  The more you watch Fox, the more misinformed you’re likely to become. Now, we get this headline today from Media Matters and Eric Boehlert: “FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”.  That sure explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

And that’s the word from inside Fox News.

The ex-Fox employee whistle blower explains some of the ways that Fox distorts the story.  This just adds further evidence to the batch of leaked emails last year showing how a top news editor was found to have told staffers how to slant the news for the desired bias.   Here’s a sample on how Fox News insured that the Obama HCR plan was rebranded from its original roots in Romney Care and the Heritage Plan put forward in 1993 by then Republican Senator John Chaffee.

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 054 -FNSunday; 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 069 -Politics; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 036 -FOX.WHU; 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers
Subject: friendly reminder: let’s not slip back into calling it the “public option”

1)      Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.

2)      When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”

3)      Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”

4)      When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

This isn’t even the first evidence we’ve had that Fox deliberately misleads its viewers.  You may recall the 2003 study that showed Fox viewers mistakenly thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers.  There were also other mistaken perceptions about other circumstances surrounding the lead up to the Iraq invasion.

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 Maryland Study cited above has found more evidence that viewers of Fox News hold views on the economy based on out and out untruths.  Again, the facts and data are easily found in many other sources.

–  72% believe the economy is getting worse.

–  49% believe their taxes have gone up under President Obama.

–  63% believe the stimulus did not create any tax cuts.

–  47% believe that TARP was passed into law and signed by President Obama.

None of these things are true and can be easily fact-checked by checking government sites.   There are several things here that are extremely important.  The first is that print media is basically on the wane and followers of print media consistently score higher on knowing the facts.  The second is that Fox News consistently earns the highest rating.  There’s more people getting their news from a serious attempt at mass propaganda than an earnest daily rag.  The third is that we live in a democracy and people victimized by a propaganda outlet posing as a news source are a serious threat to our democracy. Misinformed voters make incredibly bad decisions. I have only to point to those same folks who cheered the Iraq invasion then that know better now to come up with a really good example of the true cost in lives and treasure of this kind of ignorance.

Obviously, this source is an ‘unnamed’ staffer who is no longer with Fox. These leaves the story open to the charge of unknown disgruntled worker.  However, the information jives with what we already know when examining the failed test scores of Fox News watchers and the contents of the 2010 leaked memos.  We also know that Rupert Murdoch writes millions of dollars of checks to Republican Candidates and has a large number or wannabe Republican candidates on air as experts.  Evidently, former governors of states with low populations and exceedingly low educational standards and economic performance can be cause enough to put one on the Fox payroll as some kind of expert.

There are many interesting observations offered up by the anonymous ex-staffer.

The source continues: “I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”

As for the press, the former Fox News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Fox News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.

“They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Fox News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Fox, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists]  know that. It’s not worth being  Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to  how Fox News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.

Indeed, the veal pen will rush to protect even the most dubious hack in the nastiest pen.  The problem is that most people believe what’s on a TV news program.  Maybe it’s because so many of us grew up with our much trusted Uncle Walter or Uncles Chet and David. Maybe it’s because it’s hard to fact check a mostly 24-7 operation reliant on pretty faces and glib voices. But, I know people that think that even Glenn Beck is a journalist and a fact checker.

We have what are supposed to be legitimate news programs as well as obvious political shock jocks on Fox that many people take seriously.    I’ve even had people tell me that the CIA Factbook site was either hacked by Cuba or not a legitimate site when I’ve used it as source of data to offset the memes of some rabid dog expert that’s blathered about US exceptionalism and how we’re number one on this or that.  You can’t spend a lot of time on the CIA World Factbook without noticing exactly how far we’ve been tumbling from a number one or even number 10 positions recently on nearly every imaginable positive measure of economic well-being.  Yet, we’re both dying under the yoke of socialist oppression while being exceptionally number one, simultaneously, according to Fox.

What’s the offset to this?  Well, I’m not sure considering the number of people that go to FOX and appear on FOX because it’s simply an echo chamber.  I do think the MSM should do more stories that point out misinformation available other places.  I also think that a few of them should try to start acting less like People Magazine and more like news magazine.  The corporatization and consolidation of Media obviously works against getting a good and decent media.  We get more coverage of Lindsey Lohen’s necklace escapades than news on Afghanistan or Gitmo these days.

A good part of living in a democracy and being committed to seeing it through is to remain vigilant against threats.  FOX News represents a clear and present danger. Perhaps the most we can do is just continue to find good sources of information in alternative media and then see that information goes out to our friends and family. I know I have to offset the Fox Effect with my Dad all the time.  It gets discouraging.

Gaslighting America

Posted: January 22, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: The Media SUCKS, the villagers, Violence against women | Tags: , , | 63 Comments

Some people really do live in alternative realities.  A good deal of them are not confined to obscure blogs or city street blocks screaming things that people frankly know aren’t true.  However, if you manage to get yourself a show on Fox News and you get to repeat the lies day in and day out, people think some one may actually fact check you.  Critical masses of people can mistakenly believe the lies. Glenn Beck just keeps gaslighting America and a good number of people appear to be stupid enough to believe him.

I frankly can’t watch him.  He’s so obviously got issues that you wonder how he has managed to escape treatment for mental health problems.  I guess if you’re a gravy train, people will ride you no matter what. What really bothers me is that he actually does have an impact on some people.

Just ask an obscure 78 year old professor retired from CUNY, Frances Piven, who is receiving death threats because Beck’s decided that something she wrote 45 years ago has brought the “United States to its knees”.  It’s amazing to me what a really disturbed mind can self create.  Facts are abused out of necessity.  Beck seems to think if you just keep writing the same things and saying the same things over and over you can gaslight enough of the people enough of the time.  He manages to make a living and stay within the disturbed little bubble he’s created to rationalize his own failures.  He’s empowered by delusions and denial and paid very well for them.  Every thing that happens to Frances Piven as a result of his words is just one more symptom of poor little Beck.  It’s all about his suffering, his problems, his brilliance, and his deluded truth.

Read the rest of this entry »

Monday Reads

Posted: December 20, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, DADT, Democratic Politics, GLBT Rights, income inequality, morning reads, Populism, SCOTUS, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , , , , | 79 Comments

Good Morning!!

There was a terrible oil pipeline explosion in San Martin Texmelucan, Mexico.

A massive oil pipeline explosion lay waste to parts of a central Mexican city Sunday, incinerating people, cars, houses and trees as gushing crude turned streets into flaming rivers. At least 28 people were killed, 13 of them children, in a disaster authorities blamed on oil thieves.

The blast in San Martin Texmelucan, initally estimated to have affected 5,000 residents in a three-mile (five-kilometer) radius, scorched homes and cars and left metal and pavement twisted and in some cases burned to ash in the intense heat.

Relatives sobbed as firefighters pulled charred bodies from the incinerated homes, some of the remains barely more than piles of ashes and bones.

The disastrous accident is being blamed on thieves who were attempting to steal crude oil.

Investigators found a hole in the pipeline and equipment for extracting crude, said Laura Gurza, chief of the federal Civil Protection emergency response agency.

“They lost control because of the high pressure with which the fuel exits the pipeline,” he said.

The oil flowed more than half a mile (one kilometer) down a city street before diverting into a river. At some point a spark of unknown origin caused both to erupt in flames.

I found that story on Fox News. I’m not sure how much attention it will get in the U.S. Cudos to Fox for covering it.

The National Journal has a preview of what we’re in store for in 2012 if we can’t dump Obama and find a qualified, electable liberal to replace him. According to the author, Ronald Brownstein, there are two types of Republicans who might run for president: “managers” like Mitt Romney and “populists” like Sarah Palin.

The most prominent populists are former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. The leading manager is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, although he could face competition from such current governors as Indiana’s Mitch Daniels, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and, conceivably, New Jersey’s Chris Christie. Onetime House Speaker Newt Gingrich straddles both camps but leans toward the populist side. Outgoing Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a self-described “Sam’s Club” Republican with an equable manner, also straddles the line but probably tilts toward the manager camp, as would Sen. John Thune of South Dakota if he ran. Conversely, if Texas Gov. Rick Perry reverses his decision and joins the race, he would enter as a full-throated populist.

No matter which type we get stuck with, it’s going to be a nightmare.

The two groups disagree on some issues (trade, aid to banks), but the most important differences between them are cultural and stylistic, not ideological. The populists thunder; the managers reassure. The populists stress their social values; the managers tout their economic competence. The populists rage at the elite; the managers mingle easily with them.

To their supporters, the populists represent a cultural statement: Who they are is more important than what they will do. For the managers, that equation is reversed: Their biggest selling point is their agenda, not their identity.

Of course, Obama might be able to get some of his base back now that Congress has suddenly handed him DADT repeal. IMHO, Obama didn’t really want it, but he’ll take the resulting bump it will probably give him. It’s not clear yet what results the tax cuts will have on Obama’s popularity. I guess we’ll have to wait and see about that.

Also at the National Journal, there’s an interesting piece by Michael Hirsch: Obama Tried to Placate Liberal Economists

At a White House news conference on December 7 in which he announced a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts, Barack Obama chastised his liberal base for sticking unrealistically to their “purist” positions.

What the president didn’t say was that a few hours earlier he had met with and tried to assauge some his most vociferous liberal critics — economists Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, Alan Blinder, and Robert Reich, the former Labor secretary.

Excuse me? Why the hell did it take so long for this story to get out?

“He didn’t really respond,” said one of the participants. “He said it was hard to change the narrative after 30 years” of small-government rhetoric and policies dating back to Ronald Reagan. “He seemed to be looking for a way to reassure the base. Or maybe it was just to reassure himself.”

Um…presidentin’ is hard. Part of the job is influencing “the narrative.” Maybe if Obama had actually tried, he could have accomplished something. But why try? Might as well just relax, play basketball, and vacation in Martha’s Vineyard wine tours, enjoying Hawaii, and let the other Reaganites control “the narrative.” The article even harks back to Obama’s praise of Reagan during the primaries.

We just have to dump this loser!

There’s a great post on Washington’s Blog arguing for a causal connection between income inequality and the crashes of 1929 and 2008.

…recent studies by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty are waking up more and more economists to the possibility that there may be a connection.

Specifically, economics professors Saez (UC Berkeley) and Piketty (Paris School of Economics) show that the percentage of wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans peaked in 1928 and 2007 – right before each crash…

Please go read the whole thing.

Raw Story reports that a new study supports the hypothesis that the “Supreme Court is becoming a tool of corporate interests.”

A study has found that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has undergone a fundamental shift in its outlook, ruling in favor of businesses much more often than previous courts.

According to the Northwestern University study, commissioned for the New York Times, the Roberts court has sided with business interests in 61 percent of relevant cases, compared to 46 percent in the last five years of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who passed away in 2005….

Meanwhile, a second study, from the Constitutional Accountability Center, has charted the growing influence of the US Chamber of Commerce on the courts. The chamber started filing amicus briefs with the top court three decades ago in an effort to prompt more business-friendly rulings.

According to the study, the Roberts Supreme Court has sided with the Chamber 68 percent of the time, up from 56 percent under the Rehnquist court, and noticeably higher than the 43 percent during the relevant part of Chief Justice Warren Burger’s court, which ended in 1986.

Fox News reports the results of another study, one that finds that “Prime Time TV ‘Objectifies and Fetishizes’ Underage Girls”

According to a new study conducted by the Parents Television Council (PTC), Hollywood is shockingly obsessed with sexualizing teen girls, to the point where underage female characters are shown participating in an even higher percentage of sexual situations than their adult counterparts: 47 percent to 29 percent respectively.

PTC’s report, entitled “New Target: A Study of Teen Female Sexualization on Primetime TV” is based on a content analysis drawn from the 25 most popular shows in the 12-17 demographic throughout the 2009-2010 television season.

“The results from this report show Tinseltown’s eagerness to not only objectify and fetishize young girls, but to sexualize them in such a way that real teens are led to believe their sole value comes from their sexuality,” said PTC President Tim Winter. “This report is less about the shocking numbers that detail the sickness of early sexualization in our entertainment culture and more about the generation of young girls who are being told how society expects them to behave.”

“Storylines on the most popular shows among teens are sending the message to our daughters that being sexualized isn’t just acceptable, it should be sought after,” Winter said.

I have to say, this study reflect what I’ve noticed in the small sample of TV I expose myself to. Prime time is sure different than when I was a teenager.

At the Washington Post, there’s a story about (surprise!) hypocrisy in the Senate.

The Senate Armed Services Committee prohibits its staff and presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation from owning stocks or bonds in 48,096 companies that have Defense Department contracts. But the senators who sit on the influential panel are allowed to own any assets they want.

And they have owned millions in interests in these firms.

The committee’s prohibition is designed to prevent high-ranking Pentagon officials from using inside information to enrich themselves or members of their immediate family.

But panel members have access to much of the same inside information, because they receive classified briefings from high-ranking defense officials about policy, contracts and plans for combat strategies and weapons systems.

Of course it’s not just hypocrisy. It’s a wide open invitation to corruption.

Since I’m a psychologist, I’m going to throw in a story about psychological research. The author, Tyler Burge, is a professor of philosophy at UCLA. He discusses one of my pet peeves–the way brain imaging research is glorified in the media, even though it’s really just based on correlations between brain activity and specific behaviors. While the results of these studies can be interesting, they aren’t sufficient to actually explain human behavior.

Burge writes:

Imagine that reports of the mid-20th-century breakthroughs in biology had focused entirely on quantum mechanical interactions among elementary particles. Imagine that the reports neglected to discuss the structure or functions of DNA. Inheritance would not have been understood. The level of explanation would have been wrong. Quantum mechanics lacks a notion of function, and its relation to biology is too complex to replace biological understanding. To understand biology, one must think in biological terms.

Discussing psychology in neural terms makes a similar mistake. Explanations of neural phenomena are not themselves explanations of psychological phenomena. Some expect the neural level to replace the psychological level. This expectation is as naive as expecting a single cure for cancer. Science is almost never so simple.

Correlations between localized neural activity and specific psychological phenomena are important facts. But they merely set the stage for explanation. Being purely descriptive, they explain nothing. Some correlations do aid psychological explanation. For example, identifying neural events underlying vision constrains explanations of timing in psychological processes and has helped predict psychological effects. We will understand both the correlations and the psychology, however, only through psychological explanation.

Unfortunately, Burge wants to replace the evidence from brain imaging research with perceptual research. Okay, but perception doesn’t fully explain human behavior either.

I could make the same argument for other psychological fields. For example, what about child development? One problem with research on brain structures is that every child’s brain develops differently, depending on the experiences the child has with his or her environment. The brain is so flexible that each human brain is truly unique–even though there are obviously many similarities across individuals.

Anyway, it’s an interesting article. Check it out if you’re interested in psychology.

Soooooo… what are you reading this morning? Please share!

Newer Entries →