Researchers Pay Fox News Viewers to Watch CNN and MSNBC

[Spectral]

As much as I wish this study showed they "realized they were wrong and the other side was right" the truth in my mind is.. a lot of people are just so stupid that whatever they see on the talking picture box they will form as reality and that they actually have no actual thinking process involved in information they are consuming.

If you go pull the paper up, the effect sizes are pretty unimpressive. I'm not going to defend the epistemic integrity of my fellow Americans, but they didn't actually change their minds all thatmuch.

[kail]

Sounds like a detox working as intended.

[Forogil]

I would hope that it doesn't take a study to show that people will change their views when presented with new information (at least if those views were demonstrably false).

I wonder what would happen if the opposite was done, though. Would regular CNN/MSNBC viewers have been more likely to believe that BLM was burning down cities and hydroxychloroquine was a miracle cure if they started watching Fox?

That was also my first question when seeing this. (After wondering why so many watch Fox News.)

With two additional questions: how would people react to such a result, and why wasn't it done?

Interestingly something similar has been done for internet news - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2013464118 (an actual article - not a pre-print; but Brockman & Kalla dismiss that by saying that online only isn't the focus on their new study) with less clear result according to the authors.
I find it odd that the effect is in that way - one would guess that online is more persuasive by being more interactive.

Additionally, anecdotally, you don't have to agree to the media view you listen to - as told in the Howard Stern movie Private Parts.

Looking more closely at the linked study it actually seems that the result isn't that clear, and I would say it is a bit over-hyped as is common: most results weren't significant; the only significant change was perception of Fox News itself, and knowledge of CNN-Covered Trump Positions and Biden Evaluation.

However, one thing I remember from studying political science is that political scientists also are political; and it shines through a bit too much here. Not saying that the effect isn't real - but that this study is far from convincing because the authors' bias are too clear here; as when CNN covers Positions and Fox covers "Positions" (with quotes).

[Fugus]

but that this study is far from convincing because the authors' bias are too clear here; as when CNN covers Positions and Fox covers "Positions" (with quotes).

Given how Fox has sworn in court that they aren’t news and have no requirements for honesty or accuracy and how much of their stuff is lies or omissions of important facts, the quotations are warranted.

To pretend they are legitimate positions to objectively hold would be dishonest in and of itself.

[Forogil]

Given how Fox has sworn in court that they aren’t news and have no requirements for honesty or accuracy and how much of their stuff is lies or omissions of important facts, the quotations are warranted.

I had to check:
The Karen McDougal case wasn't about the entire Fox News, but specifically about Tucker Carlson.
And specifically that his statements about extortion were rhetorical hyperbole - not factual allegations of a crime.

There's a similar story for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC - with a similar conclusion "The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation."
https://www.newsweek.com/court-rules...ndment-1620338

However, even if those stories are similar they are often spun differently, the way I have seen it was that the first showed that Fox News isn't news, and that Maddow won the 2nd one; but it seems there are outlets that spin it the opposite way.

And to be unbiased after mentioning a Playboy model I have to add that the The People vs. Larry Flynt movie had a similar court drama about Hustler.

[Fugus]

I had to check:
The Karen McDougal case wasn't about the entire Fox News, but specifically about Tucker Carlson.
And specifically that his statements about extortion were rhetorical hyperbole - not factual allegations of a crime.

There's a similar story for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC - with a similar conclusion "The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation."
https://www.newsweek.com/court-rules...ndment-1620338

However, even if those stories are similar they are often spun differently, the way I have seen it was that the first showed that Fox News isn't news, and that Maddow won the 2nd one; but it seems there are outlets that spin it the opposite way.

And to be unbiased after mentioning a Playboy model I have to add that the The People vs. Larry Flynt movie had a similar court drama about Hustler.

Wasn’t talking about tucker Carlson directly, he was just the most recent case.

Fox has gone to court in the past before that and argued that they weren’t news, they were entertainment.

[Forogil]

Wasn’t talking about tucker Carlson directly, he was just the most recent case.

Fox has gone to court in the past before that and argued that they weren’t news, they were entertainment.

Are you sure?

I tried to find a source for that and:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fo...inment-switch/
Claim: Did Fox News Change Its Accreditation from ‘News’ to ‘Entertainment’?

Verdict: False

In sum, cable news networks aren’t accredited as “news” by any official regulatory body in the United States, and the above meme is false on its face.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...spun-old-sati/
Claim: Fox News changed its accreditation to "entertainment."

Verdict: Pants on fire

[Fugus]

@Forogil

Wasn’t talking about their accreditation or any of that, was talking about how if something is supposed to be news they are supposed to have a legal requirement for honesty but much of their stuff is entertainment pretending to be news.

Was trying to look into some of the older stories but damn all I see dominating the searches is tucker Carlson now since he is the newest.

Fox does have a small news division but most of it is entertainment pretending to be news.

[Forogil]

@Forogil

Wasn’t talking about their accreditation or any of that, was talking about how if something is supposed to be news they are supposed to have a legal requirement for honesty but much of their stuff is entertainment pretending to be news.

And the snopes fact-check explicitly stated that such legal requirements do not exist in the US (other countries may have them, some to keep them honest - and some to keep them in line with government policies):

While the term “accredited news station” may sound official, no regulatory body even exists that would accredit Fox News (or CNN, MSNBC, etc.) as a “news” station.

The FCC does have regulations regarding the distribution of false information, but again, this only applies to over-the-air programs on networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox Broadcasting (but not the Fox News Channel). Furthermore, the offense would have to be pretty egregious and well-documented in order for the FCC to step in.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fo...inment-switch/

Unless you can provide any actual evidence my conclusion is that you have fallen for false news.

[Fugus]

And the snopes fact-check explicitly stated such legal requirements do not exist in the US:



https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fo...inment-switch/

Unless you can provide any actual evidence my conclusion is that you have fallen for false news.

Again, never mentioned anything about accreditation.

Talking about
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...se-information

The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism.

Not saying about accreditation at all, but more, “We didn’t say THIS show was news, it was entertainment” situations.

[Forogil]

Not saying about accreditation at all, but more, “We didn’t say THIS show was news, it was entertainment” situations.

So you are not talking about the common meme about Fox News being entertainment not news that is "Pants on Fire"-false - but about another similar one that you haven't found any evidence for?

Have you considered the possibility that your news sources are as unreliable as Fox News?

[Fugus]

So you are not talking about the common meme about Fox News being entertainment not news that is "Pants on Fire"-false - but about another similar one that you haven't found any evidence for?

Have you considered the possibility that your news sources are as unreliable as Fox News?

No, not talking about the common meme or that claim that Fox had tried to change some accreditation or any of that. Couldn't do much the last time as I was on a phone at a skatepark with kids will give you a more detailed layout.

You have 2 fox shows:

Program A: This is not news, it is classified as entertainment. Think of it like LastWeekTonight with John Oliver just without the comedy, factual accuracy or highly sited sources. Not news and not honest. Then you got.

Program B: This IS news. While they will try and pick stories that doesn't conflict with what Program A runs and will avoid the parts of the stories they do air that can go against it, what they say is largely true.

Now, you can't sue Program B because, its actually news, just highly misleading in how they present it. But when you try and sue Program A, it's response is it isn't news and so didn't need to be honest.

Nice snark response on the end though. It's weird how I had to tell you I wasn't talking about Tucker Carlson multiple times or their accreditation or any of that and you still weren't able to put that together.

So pointing to a "Pants on Fire" -false" that I was never refuting, doesn't really help your post any.


Edit: What I was posting was never about Fox News not being actual news, it was about Fox entertainers pretending they are part of that news and the network largely going along with it. Starting to look for information now, but from before 2018 as I said, this wasn't about Tucker Carlson which you don't seem to understand even though I have repeated it multiple times.

Edit again: Really hard to find older stuff thanks to Tuckers case and them restructuring recently.

But was never talking about their news not being news. More about how they use "Commentators" and "Commentary" and treat them as news and then hide behind them. But not what you are claiming I am claiming which isn't even remotely the same thing and more like you trying to put words in my mouth.

Or how they will invite pundits on their shows who lie through their teeth and then rarely if ever get pushed back on. Which was bad enough that Politifact ranked them the least accurate cable news source.

[Flarelaine]

Same podcasters also were blaming "NATO for antagonizing Putin" up until about Bucha happened. Gee, one wonders where their funding comes from...

Rather until Bucha was found out, but the point stands.

Also, there are still propagandists pushing the lie the Russians didn't do it.

[Poopymonster]

Rather until Bucha was found out, but the point stands.

Also, there are still propagandists pushing the lie the Russians didn't do it.

Not so much "Russia didn't do it", but "Russia did nothing wrong."
Same groups have a weird overlap of that phrase, something about a failed artist.

[Forogil]

No, not talking about the common meme or that claim that Fox had tried to change some accreditation or any of that. Couldn't do much the last time as I was on a phone at a skatepark with kids will give you a more detailed layout.

You have 2 fox shows:

Program A: This is not news, it is classified as entertainment. Think of it like LastWeekTonight with John Oliver just without the comedy, factual accuracy or highly sited sources. Not news and not honest. Then you got.

And you have still not provided evidence about it being 'classified as entertainment' - more than it being a meme about Fox News - especially as it's unclear who would care to classify it in that way, and:

More importantly: John Oliver without the comedy wouldn't be entertainment.

And it would also be odd that Fox News would call their non-News for 'entertainment', as Newspapers have for a long time had a number of other labels for their "non-News" like 'editorials', 'leaders', 'opinion pieces', 'columns', 'commentary' etc, and all of them seem more accurate and also give a more serious impression than 'entertainment'.

[Fugus]

And you have still not provided evidence about it being 'classified as entertainment' - more than it being a meme about Fox News - especially as it's unclear who would care to classify it in that way, and:

More importantly: John Oliver without the comedy wouldn't be entertainment.

And it would also be odd that Fox News would call their non-News for 'entertainment', as Newspapers have for a long time had a number of other labels for their "non-News" like 'editorials', 'leaders', 'opinion pieces', 'columns', 'commentary' etc, and all of them seem more accurate and also give a more serious impression than 'entertainment'.

Opinion pieces are considered entertainment.

And my relation to John Oliver without all that made it fun was about as good of an analogy to them as you can get.

And you know that Fox has more than a news division right? You know they have a division for commentary and other entertainment too? The issues is when they pretend they are honest and accurate too.

[Ripster42]

Are you sure?

I tried to find a source for that and:

You looked up the wrong thing. They're not claiming anything about accrediting, they're (fugus) saying that they went to court and argued they're not news, they're entertainment. That's essentially the truth. Fox won a defamation case by arguing that no reasonable person believes what tucker carlson says. If no reasonable person can believe what the "anchor" is saying according to settled law, that's not news but entertainment. If this is some dumb "gotcha" because fox's lawyers didn't literally use the word "entertainment" why are you even bothering?

[Forogil]

You looked up the wrong thing. They're not claiming anything about accrediting, they're (fugus) saying that they went to court and argued they're not news, they're entertainment. That's essentially the truth. Fox won a defamation case by arguing that no reasonable person believes what tucker carlson says.

I have already cited that.

They literally didn't say that no-one believes him, but that people believe he presented exaggerated opinion not facts.

Look at:

not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary

or

The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation.

Such a statement doesn't state that people don't believe the person, but that they don't believe that it is the literal truth.
Notice that the second statement wasn't about Tucker Carlson, but about Rachel Maddow at MSNBC winning a similar trial on similar grounds.

- - - Updated - - -

Opinion pieces are considered entertainment.

By whom?

You have asserted a lot of things - without presenting any evidence.

[Ripster42]

I have already cited that.

And took the wrong conclusion from it. News doesn't engage in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. Entertainment does.

[Forogil]

There's more to the world than news and entertainment: political discussion and rhetoric often feature exaggeration.

However, it seems clear that some want to ride around on high horses and look down on the ill-informed and gullible Fox News viewers, while simultaneously being as ill-informed and gullible. The study triggering this was clearly intended to speak to that - exaggerating the results, and not comparing it to the reverse.