Researchers Pay Fox News Viewers to Watch CNN and MSNBC

[Endus]

Because a bearded white guy vlogging from the drivers seat of his truck speaks to me, personally, a bearded man with a truck. I know I can trust this guy because he's doing his vlog while driving, which is very safe as he spends long stretches of time staring at the camera on his phone instead of the road. He drives just like me, I can identify with him.

And most importantly: I agree with what he's saying. Because at the end of the day, I don't get "news" to be informed, I get news to validate my opinions and preconceived notions and give me reasons to be impotently furious about an issue that I just learned of and will never actually affect my life.

Like, yeah, I watch CNN. It's not my only, or even primary, source of news, but I do watch it.

And half the time, I'm yelling at the screen because they're being shit for one reason or another. Shitty takes, shitty apologism for fascists, shitty platforming of those who don't deserve it and without counterpoint, incompetency at basic comprehension that makes me wonder if Wolf Blitzer has to pay someone to dress him every day because he no know how shirt button work.

I don't watch news, or anything, for confirmation. I watch for information and to be exposed to views I otherwise wouldn't, because the only way you can reasonably figure out if your views hold up to scrutiny is by engaging in scrutiny, and comparing your positions with those of others. Hell, it's the reason I got involved in GenOT here; a lot of users who really, really disagree with me, and will call out shitty reasoning if I engage in it. If I wanted a hugbox, I could go find that, but it doesn't interest me at all.

[postman1782]

The fact that anyone watches any form of mainstream media, left or right, just seems asinine to me. I'd rather watch lesser known stuff to get my information rather than blatant attempts at propaganda by CNN and Fox. But I'm also more into podcasts for news and political stuff that relates to where I live rather than what is coming out of media conglomerates.

Let me guess? You listen to Ben Shabibo, Tim Pool, and Joe Rogan, thinking they are telling you the truth. You can't prove that anything from CNN is bullshit, but dig on them because they don't agree with you, but we can prove shit from Fox News is bullshit because of the lawsuits they lose.

[Glorious Leader]

No idea what podcasts you listen to, but you'd be surprised how many seemingly independent content creators are actually backed by corporations and political organizations.

Cumtown is sponsored by blue chew and mybookie

[Delekii]

The fact that anyone watches any form of mainstream media, left or right, just seems asinine to me. I'd rather watch lesser known stuff to get my information rather than blatant attempts at propaganda by CNN and Fox. But I'm also more into podcasts for news and political stuff that relates to where I live rather than what is coming out of media conglomerates.

That false equivalence between CNN and Fox will never get old It's like comparing grapefruit juice and hydrochloric acid. One is slightly bitter and a bit shit, but hey, its there so you drink it. The other one burns your eyes and makes you gag, and consumes you from the inside out.

Lesser known "news" is almost completely influenced by the leanings of its creator, since it simultaneously has less access to firsthand information and less oversight to prevent blatant bias. Unless you're reading direct quotation from the subject matter, and have reason to believe that it is real, you should assume that everything you read or see is editorialized at a bare minimum, and blatantly lying at worst.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

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.

[Endus]

Lesser known "news" is almost completely influenced by the leanings of its creator, since it simultaneously has less access to firsthand information and less oversight to prevent blatant bias. Unless you're reading direct quotation from the subject matter, and have reason to believe that it is real, you should assume that everything you read or see is editorialized at a bare minimum, and blatantly lying at worst.

More accurately, literally all text, regardless of medium, in the broader sense of "any communicative process", carries implicit bias. Bias is unavoidable. The best you can hope for is self-awareness of said bias, but you can't ever speak without bias. Even just a naked listing of data will include elements of bias, in terms of which data, measured in which manner, and listed for what purpose. By way of example.

Anyone saying they pick a certain outlet because the others are "biased" is just saying they picked an outlet that agrees with their own​ biases.

[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.