What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
226 Comments
- Trention, on 10/12/2007, -47/+652Fox News doesn't make you dumb, it just appeals to people who are already dumb.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -24/+230Here's my guess: People who watch the Daily Show already are very informed which is why they can laugh at a comedy show about the news. People who watch Fox News and nothing else get spoon fed opinions masquerading as news. These are gross generalizations but I'm stickin' with 'em!
- DaveDaveson, on 10/12/2007, -29/+207We all Know that the truth has a leftist agenda
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -32/+176@davedaveson
Reality has a well known liberal bias. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -27/+154While the show may appeal to people that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, it also makes sure they stay that way. FTA:
"Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”" - reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -20/+137Well the fact that at one point FOX viewers thought Obama is a radical Muslim is proof enough.
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -22/+98So you are only half retarded.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -10/+78Direct link to poll results.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+80mrfoos:
>1. Iraq did have WMDs.
Har har. Even Bush said you're wrong. - wpc105, on 10/12/2007, -9/+60@mrfoos2
This is going to come off really snarky, but I find it hard to take you seriously in your discussion of Middle East politics when you can't even spell Syria correctly. - Smuikas, on 10/12/2007, -46/+96@mrfoos2:
1. Iraq did have WMDs. They used them on Iran and their own people. The UN confirmed it. We just don't know where Saddam hid them. And no, we still don't know where they went. Evidence indicate Seria.
A lot of the evidence for WMDs came from forged uranium trading documents. Also a few photographs of tubes which may or may not have been used for making centrifuges - however, since literally thousands of centrifuges are required to refine uranium to make a nuke, this was not compelling evidence. Also, good going misspelling Syria.
2. Iraq was a sponsor of terror. Doesn't matter whether or not they helped the 9/11 hijackers or not. 9/11 changed our stance on how we deal with terrorists. Iraq was involved in that new stance. So is Iran... we're still working on that one. Hopefully, we'll get them before Bush goes out.
Iraq was a highly secular government. The radical Islamic terrorism cells hated Iraq's government. Saddam hated the Islamic extremists because they would tear his country apart: see what's happening now. Logically, Saddam didn't support the terrorists, because the terrorists hated him. Just about every non-secular government in the area HATED Iraq.
3. There was international support for the invasion. Every single country didn't support - including France and Russia who were in bed with Saddam and making billions in the Food for Oil scandal.
The Food for Oil scandal is fake, and has been refuted numerous times. You must be one of those people who only read blogs. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -16/+64Interesting titles
The one on Think Progress states "Fox News viewers rank last." But when you look at the graph it shows they are not last. The person who made the title either has low graph interpretation skills or is trying to deceive readers. My money is on the second choice.
I find it interesting people who watch the O'Reilly factor (On Fox) and people who listened to Rush Limbaugh scored very high as well.
I don't even want to get into all the wholes in the study. - wpc105, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46@jazzmine
The only reason that Republicans take most of the abuse on The Daily Show is because they are the ones who currently hold the most political power. The Daily Show engages in equal opportunity mockery and will gladly point out the foolishness of whoever is in power. - mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -20/+58>Fox News doesn't make you dumb, it just appeals to people who are already dumb.
Yes, but I think it makes the dumb even dumber. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39"Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events)."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+45Tuba:
>Link to the survey questions and results: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/319.pdf
>Very open ended questions indeed. As well as performed by a site with an agenda.
Thank you very much for linking to the questions, absolutely zero of which are open ended. This completely removed any credibility you had, and allowed each of us to independantly judge the survey itself. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -11/+43Comparing the viewers of Fox News Channel to the viewers of just one show is disingenuous at best. Note O'Reilly scores just below Daily Show/Colbert Report.
I'm not saying I like or dis-like any particular show or network, just pointing out that the comparison is a patently twisted use of stats. - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31To be fair here, CNN botched that one too. More fuel for Jon Stewart's fires. :)
- FreakyT, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41But...his middle name is HUSSEIN! And therefore EVIL!
- CogitatorX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I just want to know where the hell "Seria" is.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23"Link to the survey questions and results: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/319.pdf
Very open ended questions indeed. As well as performed by a site with an agenda. "
I thought the questions were very fair, and anyone who reads my comments knows I'm no huge fan of the left. Most of them were pretty easy too, for anyone following the news.. - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18JCSaint
Do you honestly think that is the case?
Even the article states "nearly" dead last and you know that is there for sensationalism to make it sell and catch some eyeballs.
If we are going to get into "margins" of error, why not say O'Reilly and Limbaugh had the most knowledgeable viewers?
But nice try. - quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25Well, its Think Progress, what do you expect? Nothing like getting 'spoon fed opinions masquerading as news'.
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Stupid people don't listen to political talk-radio.
- kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I watch both too, but when I'm watching Fox news, it's in some public place where I don't have a choice. But I do notice one thing about Fox news that appears to give it an advantage for public appeal over the other networks. They do a hell of a job with their graphics, using bright contrasting colors, large rendered fonts, etc.
I don't like the content on that channel, but it is definitely in a more eye-catching format than other channels. Mute it and try comparing for yourself. Fox looks more modern, and the other channels look old and dry. On aesthetics alone, it's understandable that they have such a large viewership. The question is, why aren't other networks catching on? - DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@smuikas
The Food for Oil scandal actually was real. Reading is not only fun, it's FUNdamental! - aldente, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20TubaTechno,
Having gone through the survey to which you so helpfully linked, I see a few questions that could lead the survey respondents, but on the whole it's it's well-constructed and straigtforward. It's primarily a series of questions about current events and people in the news, using a fairly standard phone-poll sample size. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on why it's necessary to dismiss the whole survey due to the site that posted it? - rondeth, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20@jazzmine
I watch Comedy Central all the time, and I know that the Daily Show and Colbert have poked fun multiple times at Hillary et al. It's just that Bush is doing much, much more to be made fun of...or impeached for, depending on your point of view. Cheers! - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Why would the total number of viewers affect the percentage of those viewers able to answer basic questions about national affairs?
I don't follow your logic -- probably because I'm a Daily Show fan and thus stoned out of my gourd. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13For reference:
"About the Survey
Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 1,502 adults, 18 years of age or older, from February 1-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Results from a separate survey in which we tested "multiple choice" versions of key questions are based on 1,017 interviews conducted March 9-12, 2007 under the direction of Opinion Research Corporation. The error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points (95% confidence) for these questions.
In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls. "
----------------------------------
Now, some 1-1 comparisons... as some questions were multiple choice from one survey and others were open-ened voice.
Network evening news 38
fox news 35
... not exactly a statistically significant difference in this poll.
Colbert 54
O'Reilly 51
... again, not exactly a significant difference.
Oh, and isn't O'Reilly on fox news?
Once again... a digg sumbitter is twisting facts and taking statistics out of context to "prove" a point. - Sucat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I was more surprised that Rush and O'reilly fans were almost as knowledgeable as the Daily show while the evening/morning/local news people ranked in the same area as Fox News. And then the online discussion blogs were right next to Fox News viewers? How can you blog and discuss the news and not know the basic facts?
- tical2756, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14If you do the quiz and you get question 4 wrong, it automatically marks question 5 as incorrect too. That's crap
http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/ - giggity22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"There was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq"
This is a loaded statement. There was SOME international support for the US invasion of Iraq, just not UN support. Right leaning respondents would naturally answer "yes" to this "misperception" since some support sufficiently constitutes "international support" from their point of view. Left leaning respondents would naturally say "no" since in their view the coalition was not enough to be considered "international support." Thus this poll is naturally going to yield results that shows left-leaning respondents as "more knowledgeable." The other two statements aren't as ambiguous, (although the WMD can also be considered unfair due to Iraq's past possession of WMD) but the last statement really should have been replaced with "The UN Security Council approved the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq" to get a more accurate poll. Frankly, this poll is flawed and is pretty much meaningless. (Interesting, however, is the large difference between O'Reilly and Fox) - sdwilly22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The University of Maryland survey they mentioned in the article seems flawed. Lifted from the article it states that:
"University of Maryland researchers studied the public’s belief in three false claims — that Iraq possessed WMD, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that there was international support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."
There is some evidence that Iraq had some leftover chemical weapons. Some intelligence reports that coalition forces found some. The British Iraq Survey Group has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability.
So someone could be extremely well informed and believe that Iraq possessed WMDs. As in one or more wepons of mass destruction. Seems like the question would have to be worded to account for this. - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Related to bias/distortion and how it harms us all please consider the following:
Folks bigdavediode has posted the attempt I commented on above to deceive you elsewhere on Digg and will likely try to continue using his deceptive tactics. I would like to make some comments about this type of politicking that is all to common and that hurts all of us.
My view-I believe it is best for all, if all Americans are allowed to vote for the candidate they prefer based on the following information (which I think can be easily accomplished and would lead to IMO better quality leaders/better policies and drastically decrease the cost of campaigning):
1. Have all the candidates clearly state their positions on their website, in a short summary, on all issues of importance to the American people (some further details on how to accomplish this later).
2. Have their complete/verified(linked to a non-partisan primary source) voting record available on their website including a statement of why they voted a particular way, what they thought the bill would lead to and how that jibes with their philosophy, how that is representing the interests of the American people.
3. Also, list clearly on their website where their campaign funding comes from.
4. Have a verified summary of their previous campaign promises combined with what they actually did (what bills they sponsored and how they voted on all bills) during the term they served after making those campaign promises.
5. No Mudslinging, No Distorting other candidates records. We all can read the the raw information for ourselves. Name calling/Distortions do not contribute to forming a true picture of the candidates. Is it unreasonable to allow the American people to see the truth and vote on the truth. If we have an inaccurate picture presented to us of the possibles then what are we going to get during the winners term the shame image or the truth under the shame?
The bigdavediodes of the world, there are lots of them, think that it is OK/acceptable to present you with a false image of their candidate and their candidates opponent. They only care about winning, they do not care about you casting a truly informed vote. Is it not logical then that if they are hiding the truth about their candidate that they believe the electorate would reject their candidate as they really are? Isn't that what we tend to get with this view of politics, politicos that hide their true agendas? As I said before, bigdavediode will not even state who he supports/what party he supports/he will not state anything he supports. What is he hiding? He is also attempting to deceive you regarding a candidate he clearly does not support, Ron Paul. bigdavediode, let the people look at the record for themselves and form their own opinions. - TheLee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Doods, woomanchu was being sarcastic. He even had a (sarcasm) moniker. Yeesh.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15You all understand that Thinkprogress didn't commission the poll or run the poll, right? The Pew Research center did.
- mccrusc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10aceg1357
I'm not big on "wholes" either, I'm more of a fan of the percentages in a study. See the whole is always going to be 100%. That doesn't really tell you anything-- unless everbody agrees. - gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14O'Reilly is #4 on that list, and he's on fox news.
this poll is retarded, how is "fox news" seperate from the O'Reilly factor? O'Reilly is fox's #1 in viewership. (#1 in all cable viewership as well)
am i missing something? - CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10What this shows is that it doesn't really matter. The difference between first and last for high is only 4 points, hence the title of the survey "Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions"
Title is inaccurate, and sensationalist.
bury. - paradox4190, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I dugg this just because it tells me I'm smart.
- bdkosher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8PEW asked 23 questions about current-event related items (which party controls Congress, name a branch of Islam, which way does Chief Justice John Roberts lean, etc.), and categorized people based on the percentage of answers they got correct. Then they asked the respondents about the sources they received their news from and charted the correlation between them and knowledge rankings, concluding "There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know."
The study also mentioned that "Men, on average, knew more than women, all other factors being equal. Older Americans - particularly those 50 years old or older - did better than younger people. Whites scored better than blacks, while more affluent Americans knew more than those with lower household incomes."
thinkprogress.org decided to summarize the study as "Survey: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgable, Fox Viewers Rank Last" instead of a perhaps more accurate, yet less PC, "Survey: Men know more than women; whites know more than blacks" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Interesting...
I took the News Quiz @ http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/
"You scored better than 96% of the general public on our News IQ quiz. The average person between 36 and 59 years old scored better than 54% of the public while the average person under the age of 30 did better than 39%."
It is interesting that TDS's demographics are 18 to 30 and that age group ranked dead last. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"How can you blog and discuss the news and not know the basic facts?"
Given some of the blogs I've seen make the front page on Digg, it's pretty clear they just make stuff up to support their agendas. - theungeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Look, every year when the football season begins, it starts to get colder. Football is our greatest weapon against global warming and there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise!
I watched Fox News once, and I felt stupider immediately. Clearly my anecdotal evidence trumps all. - JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8aceg,
Since you think I'm trying to be some kind of biased ass, here's the submission I made about a half hour before this was submitted.
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Daily_Show_Viewers_Most_Informed_Fox_News_Viewers_Among_Least
See the "among least" and not "last" I put in there? I don't like it when people question my integrity. - MahWah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8***** off, you ignorant brainwashed piece of pond scum.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Nope... they said
"O'Reilly Factor" which is the TV Show, the "Radio Factor" is his radio show.
For reference I occasionally tune into both.... as well as stewart/cobert.
Hell, I tried to listen to Frankin's show for a while.... but I just couldn't take the drivel... - kurtwinter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@mrfoos -
What kind of crack are you smoking?
I don't feel like arguing with you. Go ***** yourself. - neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8CNN talks about Anna Nicole way more than Fox. There have been a lot of times I had to switch from CNN to Fox because CNN kept talking about Anna Nicole or some other "celebrity" while Fox was actually presenting news. I rarely watch Fox News (if I watch news on a TV it's usually CNN) but CNN is no better than FOX at covering stupid news.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 227 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is