Ideaology Trumps Facts?

[Msterbeau]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...often-does.html

[Scales]

Need more critical thinking taught in schools!

[Msterbeau]

And maybe genetically remove obstinacy.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

This explains why so many people are voting for Obama.

[Msterbeau]

This explains why so many people are voting for Obama.

And still supporting Bush.

[phee]

And still supporting Bush.

Yup....

[Rev.Reverence]

And still supporting Bush.

They still DO that?!?!

[phee]

This explains why so many people are voting for Obama.

And McCain

[Rev.Reverence]

To the original question... from what I have seen yes, most definitely...

...seriously...there are peoples that are this uninformed/misinformed??? I am sickened...AGAIN....& I get my news from Comedy Centeral! {so I USUALLY have no room to talk..but this time I HAD to say some shit..}

[phee]

I am in the NPR crowd

[Rev.Reverence]

I am in the NPR crowd

I am saddly not represented...I am the Comedy Central/ DGN crowd...hahaha

[sass_in_the_pants]

What I don't understand about that particular article is why it seems so slanted. It's FOX news that gets it wrong, and you can't convince people about evolution and climate change. The same could be said from the other side - that you can't convince people about marriage and abortion. But that's not how the author of this article chose to frame the situation. I don't understand why. Isn't it really obvious that various news outlets have a decidedly left or right leaning slant? Why only mention the right leaning slant?

Then again, I'm voting for McCain, so I'm probably just not thinking.

I listen to NPR while I'm on my way to work. I happen to think that their morning news is really quite good.

Somewhere around 10 am though, it gets all nutty, and I can't stand it.

I like to read WSJ when I can, Economist is good, so is Christian Science Monitor.

I don't watch television news. Guy does. It makes me sick.

He'll be watching...heck, I don't even know I'm guessing CNN, and the lady will say 'A car bomb detonated in Baghdad today killing seven. And look at Mrs. McCormick here, her cat can walk on TWO legs! Don't forget to email us with what your morning routine is. Who has time for breakfast, eh?'

I wake up in the morning and think I'm in some bizzaro land where old ladies' cats are somehow on equal footing with the lives of seven people and wonder why anyone cares what I eat for breakfast.

[Msterbeau]

What I don't understand about that particular article is why it seems so slanted. It's FOX news that gets it wrong, and you can't convince people about evolution and climate change. The same could be said from the other side - that you can't convince people about marriage and abortion. But that's not how the author of this article chose to frame the situation. I don't understand why. Isn't it really obvious that various news outlets have a decidedly left or right leaning slant? Why only mention the right leaning slant?

Then again, I'm voting for McCain, so I'm probably just not thinking.

I listen to NPR while I'm on my way to work. I happen to think that their morning news is really quite good.

Somewhere around 10 am though, it gets all nutty, and I can't stand it.

I like to read WSJ when I can, Economist is good, so is Christian Science Monitor.

I don't watch television news. Guy does. It makes me sick.

He'll be watching...heck, I don't even know I'm guessing CNN, and the lady will say 'A car bomb detonated in Baghdad today killing seven. And look at Mrs. McCormick here, her cat can walk on TWO legs! Don't forget to email us with what your morning routine is. Who has time for breakfast, eh?'

I wake up in the morning and think I'm in some bizzaro land where old ladies' cats are somehow on equal footing with the lives of seven people and wonder why anyone cares what I eat for breakfast.

It's not the guy writing it that"s biasing the article. They mention that the research was done primarily from one side and that it needs to happen the other way just to see the results.

[sass_in_the_pants]

It's not the guy writing it that"s biasing the article. They mention that the research was done primarily from one side and that it needs to happen the other way just to see the results.

OKay.

Hey, shouldn't you be sleeping right now, or taking pics of hot Japanese women?

[phee]

I heard an interesting study (don't have the link handy)

But basically it found that when it comes to misinformation given either by accident or on purpose... (for example a news organization says something that is incorrect about a candidate, politician, bill, etc...) That after the correction is made public, that liberals/leftwing/democrats/etc... are likely to then adapt there opinion about the issue, while conservatives/rightwing/republicans/etc... are likely to hold the same opinion despite the facts...

For example lets say there is a Dem Senator who a story is released in the news that he had sex with a 16 year old girl in Reno... a huge scandle occures

and at the same time....

A news story is released about a Rep Senator that had sex with a 16 year old girl in Seattle... another huge scandle occures

A few days later the media releases information correcting both stories, saying that NIETHER STORIES EVER HAPPENED, and that BOTH SENATORS ARE NOW IN THE CLEAR.

What the study shows is that the liberals/leftwing/democrats/etc... who heard both stories, would then let the issue go and basically say that it is no longer an issue as it was a mistake in the first place... while the conservatives/rightwing/republicans/etc... side would believe that the Rep Senator is in the clear now, they would BELIEVE EVEN MORE STRONGLY that the Dem Senator is GUILTY despite the story being corrected....

Interesting stuff eh?

[Rev.Reverence]

Then again, I'm voting for McCain, so I'm probably just not thinking.

No... I believe you thought that one out... not all of those who are voting the same did... nor do they all have the yarbles to stand up & say it!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Am I the only one that read the part about Democrats and Roberts?

What I see here is a story with an ovious bias, admits that bias and then shows minimal evidence (that shows that it's a people problem, not a democrat/liberal/conservative/republican problem) against it's own bais...

And you are all lining up right behind that bias and painting all conservative/Republicans with a great big paint brush full of wrong.

[Rev.Reverence]

Am I the only one that read the part about Democrats and Roberts?

What I see here is a story with an ovious bias, admits that bias and then shows minimal evidence (that shows that it's a people problem, not a democrat/liberal/conservative/republican problem) against it's own bais...?

And you are all lining up right behind that bias and painting all conservative/Republicans with a great big paint brush full of wrong.

I do not know about "Roberts" at all...

Oh no I am not..... you know full well by now... I know they are all playing the same games... & all on the same team....

I did not so much look at what % fell into what viewing/political grouping.....I was in too much shock over the fact that I was so much more informed than anyone that watches ANY "real" news programing on any kind of a regular basis...You DIG?

(just don't want to be a peg in the wrong hole)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If you actually read that article, you would know about Roberts.