Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (818998)	11/24/2014 5:08:02 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579680

Yeah, I did. Climate change is sort of like Benghazi, you have a distorted view of reality. Despite your claims. I can't help but notice you didn't link to the Pew study. If it is the one I am thinking of, all it did was measure if the respondents could recognize who certain people were. Which isn't anywhere near measuring whether or not what they knew about them and events had any basis in reality. Which is what the other studies measure. On the reality thing, Fox viewers rank the worst. One good reason for that is Fox viewers tend to only watch Fox for their news. Others have more varied sources. So even if one of their sources is spewing nonsense, they can double check and compensate. When the content is analyzed, Fox is full of lies. Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network’s pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent. At CNN, it’s 18 percent. politifact.com All sources have some amount of mis-information. Often it is because there is a rush to put stuff out there and facts are not checked well enough. But Fox has so much, you have to wonder if it is deliberate. Add in that their viewers tend to be exclusively Fox viewers and they can't help but be mis-informed. Given the degree of mis-information, they can only be described as mal-informed.

To: i-node who wrote (818998)	11/24/2014 5:34:53 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

Because Fox has a vastly larger viewership than the other "news" channels, and a more diverse one, I would anticipate that many of the viewers tuned to Fox pay less attention to the news than, e.g., MSNBC or CNN viewers -- who are all there because they're left wing nutjobs. That simply isn't the case with Fox, since it is the principal source of news for such a large number of viewers compared to the others. Let me understand this....."Fox has a vastly larger viewership than the other "news" channels, and a more diverse one, I would anticipate that many of the viewers tuned to Fox pay less attention to the news" So......more people tune in to Fox news but don't pay attention to it???? Maybe it's not news there after but rather instruction in what to think??