1/2 of FOX statements are FALSE! ONLY 8% are "completely" TRUE

I have no idea who/what this site is. But since the RW doesn't care about 'sourcing', WTH, I'm going with with the their model of NEWS consumption--I want it to be true so 'poof' IT IS.


Analysis: Over Half of All Statements Made on Fox News Are False

AUTHOR: JAMESON PARKER JULY 9, 2014 1:37 AM - Addicting Facts

(NOTE--NPR people have consistently rated the highest audience in understanding factual data. (Fact--that information everyone knows and agrees to be true. So whatever this piece is based on, they got that fact right. As for Farleigh Dickinson UNIV, they have been conducing these news surveys for a number of years now).


A new analysis by PunditFact found that of every statement made by a Fox News host or guest, over half of them were flat-out false. What’s more, only a measly 8% could be considered completely “true.”

In other words, a fancy review of hundreds of hours of video confirmed what many who watch Fox News with any regularity already know: Fox News lies. A lot. Like all the time.

Which isn’t to say that exposing Fox News’ irresponsible journalism isn’t an admirable goal. Despite its blatant spin doctoring, Fox still captivates a large portion of the news watching audience. On a near nightly basis, Fox News programs like “The O’Reilly Factor” and “The Kelly File” crush the competition. Given what we know about how poorly Fox informs its viewers, that paints a pretty grim picture for the millions who consume it without question.

As you can see, Fox manages to capture an impressive range between “Mostly False” all the way to “Pants on Fire” while at the same time just 40 percent could be said to be even somewhat true.

Some might argue that all news networks are pretty terrible and with the seemingly endless drivel that comes out of a 24-hour channel it’s a valid point. Luckily, PunditFact looked at a few other major stations as well and while they aren’t bastions of veracity, they at least look like they’re trying.

MSNBC, for example, which some might call Fox’s liberal counterpart is certainly guilty of misleading their viewers, but they also tell the truth more than they lie, and their “Pants on Fire” percentage is half of what Fox has.

The real surprise comes in the form of CNN which, setting aside its breathless coverage of the missing airplane, does a pretty good job of being honest.

Way to go, CNN! I truly didn’t think you had it in you. Glad to see you are at least 40% committed to being “mostly” true.

However, before you go off assuming the best in CNN and the worst in Fox, the writers at PunditFact urge a bit of caution:

The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn’t have a cable network equivalent, so we haven’t fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much.

But still, these findings (even if tentative) do go a long way towards explaining some of the other interesting studies conducted on Fox News viewers.

For example, a PublicMind survey out of Fairleigh Dickinson University found that “people who said they consumed no news” fared better on a current events questionnaire than people who had been using Fox News to find out what was going on in the world. Let that sink in for a moment. People who categorically don’t watch the news know more than people who watch a network whose primary function is ostensibly to relay the news.

Adding insult to injury, it was the only network that ranked below “blind ignorance” the survey. (By the way, the most informed audience was that of NPR.)

How do Fox News viewers know less than people who literally don’t know anything about current...


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...rral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com:blankstare:

 

Yeah sure...More propaganda because the Left can't have an opposing view point.

 

The checked part concerns me. Compared to the number of statements made versus the statements checked, that's a bad ratio. It's not necessarily a good view on how truthful Fox News is.

 

And NONE of the statements made by MSNBC are TRUE!

 

I don't think that it makes one bit of difference to devoted Fox viewers if the info they get there is factual or not. It's what they want to believe and are addicted to the Fox brand of propaganda. Conspiracy theories are very appealing to their audience. Roger Ailes has capitalized greatly on this really disturbing characteristic of its viewers.

How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ilt-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525?page=2

 

Don't blame me! Take it up with the sources! I'm sure it is out there. But that would require critical thinking, analysis and FACING THE TRUTH.

 

Better numbers than Obama...

Odd, the criteria used for this study doesn't seem to be readily available anywhere. I checked the Tampa Bay Times and Poynter and still can't find anything to indicate how they derived these results, seems sort of shoddy to me...

 

Unfortunately, what used to pass as FACTS for all is reduced to 'discretionary facts' for anyone who doesn't want to BELIEVE.
Ironic. We passed the 21st century mark with the ability to gather impressive massives amount of information and we DEVOLVE into the FOX model of LIES and disinformation.

It's pathetic.

 

Like believing that maybe the facts checked is not at all equal to the number of facts said?

 

There are only two things you can trust in a British newspaper; the title and the date. And I'd double check the date.

 

Where's the DATA??? Post it, I'll be happy to take a look.

 

There is good reason to have doubts on this, imagine if it was my discretion in choosing which stories and facts to check. I'm certain I could skew the numbers any way I wanted, why would we believe anyone else wouldn't do the same?

 

True. I believe that the facts checked by punditfact and politifact are based upon what people ask them to check. More then enough room for error.

 

just heard that fox is trying to buy cnn too, that would leave us with msnbc and fox

 

Half the lies Fox tells aren't true? I'm shocked, I tell you!

 

What I do not understand is they are speaking about their guests, close to half of those guests are Liberal.....,,so, who's lying to who?
It's a 50% pic'm,,,it means nothing...

That College by the way has one of the worst rankings, possibly they should concentrate on their own...http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-slams-professors-ill-informed-viewers-fairleigh-dickinson-328771

This month, FDU released another of its PublicMind polls touting that “this nationwide survey confirms initial findings” of ill-informed FNC viewers, and an FNC spokesperson blasted the findings and turned the tables on the university, pointing out that its own students don’t exactly measure up academically. (FDU was No. 585 on a Forbes ranking of 650 U.S. colleges.) - See more at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...irleigh-dickinson-328771#sthash.bSE2hVds.dpuf

 

From the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing link itself.

"The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn’t have a cable network equivalent, so we haven’t fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much."

In other words they chose whatever stories interested them INSTEAD OF A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING RANDOM SAMPLE like any decent study would have done. Only a complete moron would look at this and take anything way from it other than completely lazy and inept propaganda.