Poynter:
The results of a new poll by “show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all,” says Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson.
It’s still an open question as to cause or effect: Does watching Fox News make you stupid, or do you have to be stupid to watch Fox News to begin with?
Having a discussion about Fox News to begin with makes you 50% stupid
It’s confirmation bias, so to some extent, the answer to your question is you are stupid to *continue* watching Fox News.
I was interested to see if it was just a matter of getting your news from a single source that caused the decrease, but from the article, it seems like it’s specific to FoxNews.
Reading an article this AM that seems relevant. http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/why_we_forget/In a discussion of the brain’s “plasticity” they talk about a “trust trap”:”Studies have shown that once we invest trust in a particular source of knowledge, we’re less likely to scrutinize information from that source in the future.A study conducted by Elizabeth Loftus at the University of California, Irvine, and her team took this investigation a step further, showing that the trust trap can also result in the creation of false memories — and not only in the short term.”
“According to the telephone poll of 612 New Jersey adults…”
I think you’d be “stupid” to think that a sample of 612 people from NJ provides conclusive evidence that an entire group of millions of people from across the country are dimwitted.
If this were iOS vs. Android you’d be ripping this to shreds. C’mon, don’t give a pass on bad stats just because it’s political…
That’s my interpretation as well.
Unless you’re a quant with a background in statistical analysis, save it.
A sample size of only 612 “adults”… please. Surprised to see such a lame post on The Loop, must be a slow news day.
What’s your excuse?
What does this have to do with Apple? Technology?
Posts like this help me thin the heard of sites that I follow. I’m done here. In part because I follow/watch (whatever) Fox and because I already follow plenty of other political sites and your site isn’t one of them.
People frequently fear/hate that which makes them uncomfortable with themselves.
Because I’m not a professional statistician, I’m therefore automatically incorrect and my observations are not welcome?
I don’t understand your contempt for your commenters. Both Mickey and I have a valid point. You don’t have to be a genius to understand sampling bias.
Politics aside, we’re just calling it what it is.
As a biologist, I’d kill for sample sizes of 600 individuals. With a strong sample of 100 individuals, I can predict population structures of long lived mammals with a 98% match. While these numbers might not be exact representations of the real world, they’re strong enough to say Fox News watchers got these specific questions wrong more than others.
While it’s dubious to apply a sample from New Jersey alone on all the US, it’s definitely not too small to show a trend for within the state. Then you would have to ask yourself what demographic differences that would make people inclined to watch Fox News better informed (on these specific issues) in other states.
See ya!
“Mickey Mouse” is a drive-by commenter and an anonymous coward, which is why I have utter disdain for his comment. And Johan Hansén below explains statistical validity. Calling it, as you say, what it is.
“…they’re strong enough to say Fox News watchers got these specific questions wrong more than others.”
That is absolutely the correct conclusion from this study. To extend that to “Better to be ignorant altogether than to watch Fox News” is where personal bias overwhelms journalistic integrity.
While I understand a sample size of 612 is definitely statistically significant, I do question whether the demographics of this sample can accurately represent an entire country. Without more knowledge about the sample, we are assuming correlation where there easily could be none.
My main reason for commenting is not because I’m a Fox News watcher and I’m offended (I actually don’t watch it), but that there seems to be a double standard on the reporting. Had this been anything other than political, this would have never even made the cut.
Peter, the comments here disagreeing with your personal beliefs have been met with contempt. You absolutely have the right to put anything you wish on this site, but I would encourage you to not foster hostility towards those that have different opinions.
Yep, I think you’re an idiot if you get your information from Fox News, and I’m glad to see scientific evidence supporting that. Happy to stand by that assertion. If you disagree, so be it.
That would explain your reaction to this article nicely.
Perhaps the stats were collected and checked using a Mac.
Nahhh, that would mean someone at Fox had a brain.
Perhaps the stats were collected and checked using a Mac.
Nahhh, that would mean someone at Fox had a brain.
Peter – what’s with the hate for your commenters?
Dedication to any single news source is probably not the right answer. I watch Fox News, CNN, Daily show, 60 Minutes and all the major Sunday morning shows.
I felt like laughing and crying at the same time reading the article.
Oh boy… then again, does this really surprise us?
And just so nobody thinks it’s different elsewhere in the world:
Germany has the daily newspaper ‘Bild’, which translates into ‘picture’, yet besides being wrong most of the time, they only ever show you the part of the picture that helps their hateful and conservative agenda.