Skip to main content

A PublicMind study by Farleigh Dickinson University found that it was better to watch no news at all than it was to watch FOX News. Researchers asked respondents questions about domestic policy. People who watched FOX News got 1.04 out of 5 questions right, while people who watched no news at all got 1.22 questions right. The most informed people were NPR listeners, who got 1.51 questions right. They were followed by Sunday Morning talk viewers and Jon Stewart watchers.

Viewers were also asked four questions about international affairs. There were similar numbers -- FOX viewers were the least informed, doing worse than those who had watched no news at all. At the top, the difference was even more striking; NPR was at the top with a score of 1.97. The next highest competitor was 1.6.

One news source popular at Daily Kos, MSNBC, did not do so well. They were third from worst in domestic questions and next to worst in international questions, placing lower than people who did not watch the news at all. This study suggests that watching partisan sources does not help one get well informed about the issues of the day.

Two news outlets that were not considered in the study were Russia Today and Al-Jazeera America, the two new kids on the block. If you got your news from NPR, you might not have learned that a Kentucky judge ruled that state must recognize same-sex marriages in other states. You might have missed the story about the music group Skinny Puppy billing the government for using their music at Guantanamo Bay. You might have also missed the story about the United Auto Workers working to organize at the VW plant in Tennessee or Texas using junk science to justify homophobia. But you would know these things if you had watched or went to Al-Jazeera America.

If you had not watched or gone to Russia Today, you might have missed that America plunged in its press freedom index thanks to NSA and its treatment of whistleblowers. You might not have known that tens of thousands of Connecticut residents are refusing to register their guns under a new law there.  You might not have known that DARPA, the research arm of the Pentagon, is developing a search engine that would dwarf Google and police the far reaches of the Internet.

But, it works the other way as well. If you had not listened to or visited NPR today, you might have missed a story showing that the highest rated Hollywood films are also the most diverse. You might have missed that we have finally figured out how to produce nuclear fusion, albeit weakly. You might have missed a story about students who face hardships thanks to snow days at school due to no school lunch.

The lesson here is that you can't rely on one source for your information. In one of his recent books, long-time CBS anchor Dan Rather recounted that there were many different stories all over the world that were newsworthy -- but even a massive news operation like CBS could not be everywhere at once. Watching diverse news sources fills in the gap.

The other thing to watch for is bias. We all have biases. Some are more obvious than others. Al-Jazeera is heavily subsidized by the government of Qatar; therefore, there is always the temptation to slant one's coverage to suit the interests of the government of Qatar. And the Guardian and Wikileaks cables show that Qatar, in fact, has attempted to use Al-Jazeera's coverage as a bargaining chip:

Qatar is using the Arabic news channel al-Jazeera as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations by adapting its coverage to suit other foreign leaders and offering to cease critical transmissions in exchange for major concessions, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks claim.
Doha-based al-Jazeera was launched in 1996 and has become the most watched satellite television station in the Middle East. It has been seen by many as relatively free and open in its coverage of the region, but government control over its reporting appears to US diplomats to be so direct that they said the channel's output had become "part of our bilateral discussions – as it has been to favourable effect between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and other countries".
And the American Journalism Review reports on charges of anti-semitism by the network:
For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists. In October 2001, a New York Times editorial took Al Jazeera to task for reporting Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks. The Bush administration was openly hostile to the news organization.
An often-repeated example involves an on-air birthday party organized by Al Jazeera's Beirut bureau chief for a Lebanese militant convicted of killing four Israelis, including a four-year-old girl. Al Jazeera greeted Samir Kuntar, released in a July 2008 prisoner swap, as a hero. Fox News Channel's Britt Hume reported at the time, "As Kuntar cut into his cake, the network set off fireworks." Al Jazeera later apologized to Israel for the "unethical" coverage, but the damage had been done.
Since RT is owned by the Russian Government, there is also the danger that their coverage will be slanted in favor of Putin. And in fact, that is what is happening. Check their website on Sochi 2014 and you find nothing about the homophobia of the Russian government in the days leading up to the games and nothing about the authorities doing a massive slaughter of dogs right before the games. And back when RT was founded, their director general freely admitted:
The newly-named Director General of Russia Today, 25-year-old Margarita Simonyan, hails from the Kremlin press corps. She says the station aims to counter, what she calls, the Anglo-Saxon domination of global television news.

Ms. Simonyan says organizers also hope it will change the negative view many foreigners have of Russia as a nation lacking law and order. But her more immediate job has been to try to deflect the negative coverage generated inside Russia, following recent word of the channel's launch.

There are reasons why NPR viewers are better informed than the competition's. NPR, unlike their competitors, is not totally beholden to one single source of funding. The following link documents NPR's funding for both local stations and the parent organization. For local stations, individual contributions make up 39% of their revenues, followed by 17% for corporate contributions. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a distant third with 11%. NPR is owned by its member stations, each of which pay annual dues. This accounts for 37% of their funding. 26% of their funding comes from corporate donations. While this funding setup is not perfect, it allows NPR to be freer of bias. By contrast, NBC is directly owned by Comcast while ABC is directly owned by Walt Disney. And all three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS get the majority of their revenues from corporate advertisers. So if a corporation were to pull their advertising from, say, CBS, it would take a bigger chunk of their revenue than if they were to pull it from NPR. And CNN is owned by Time-Warner while FOX is owned by right-wing activist Rupert Murdoch.

The lesson learned is that the best informed viewers who listen to one news source listen to NPR. But it is even better to rely on multiple sources; even NPR doesn't cover everything. And it is best to be aware of the potential biases of the sources you are relying on.

Originally posted to Stop the Police State! on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:12 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Poll

Which is your primary source of news?

27%99 votes
3%11 votes
0%1 votes
0%0 votes
14%51 votes
0%2 votes
2%10 votes
13%50 votes
29%106 votes
1%4 votes
0%3 votes
1%7 votes
3%13 votes
0%1 votes
0%0 votes

| 358 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The hell with Fox number (22+ / 0-)

    It is the "best" number that I find stunning. The average best was 1.5 question correct? And we wonder why we have the government we have.

    Frankly, I’m getting more than a little tired of hearing from angry America. I’m also less than fond of knee-jerk America. And when you combine the two with the Internet, you too often get stupid America, which is really annoying.

    by jsfox on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:21:48 PM PST

  •  Great diary. However, I think that you need to (13+ / 0-)

    add some options to your poll.  It does not list major newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times.  

    Also, it does not allow an option for multiple sources.  I do rely on multiple sources.  However, what is my primary source on a given day depends on how long I am in my car (where I listen to NPR), how much spare time I have to read the newspaper that day, and whether I have the TV on while I am getting ready and eating meals that day.  

  •  The NPR Number Makes Me Skeptical. (4+ / 0-)

    I don't follow regular new sources, just progressive talk radio, this site, and the few seconds of AP radio news on prog talk. But every time I encounter news quizzes either posted here or linked from a media outlet, I range from 90% to 100% correct.

    I'd have to think that people who "get their news" primarily from NPR would have to average closer 50%. I don't see the typical NPR news follower as someone so uninterested in current events that they'd average 30%.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:40:32 PM PST

    •  Did you look at the questions? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, rb608

      I think the domestic ones tended to be of somewhat less blasted-all-across-the-news-for-weeks events than the international questions.

      •  I did, and I'm dubious. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ashaman, rb608, peptabysmal

        First, I'm pretty sure I knew most of them, other than the Keystone tie-in and the two about Republican primaries from a couple of years ago, which seem awfully slanted.  And I might have even known them at the time, just consigned them to 'irrelevant trivia' mentally, and forgotten about them.  

        Really, why should anyone on the left care that much about which Republican won Iowa or New Hampshire, other than right when it happened?  We've seen, often enough, that just because they're first, they don't really 'pick' the winners, just give some slight edge to the people they do pick.

        I don't know, I'm not particularly impressed with their choice of questions for the survey.   If I'm reading the paper right, 2/5 of the domestic questions were the Republican primary ones I mentioned above.  Lefties are going to pay more attention to (and maybe remember) their own primaries, not those of Republicans.  So asking about two Republican primaries instantly disadvantages those answering the survey from the left.

        And, btw, they have 5 domestic questions, but only list results for people answering 4, and two of the domestic ones are listed as K6a and K6b.  Did they ask some respondents K6a and others K6b?  If so, how did the split in who got asked which affect the crosstabs?

        However, liberals who watched MSNBC did better on the knowledge questions, answering correctly 1.89 of the domestic questions and 1.64 of the international questions correctly.
        International questions were at least politically neutral, but the Arab spring and resulting aftermath was covered extensively on MSNBC.  How could anyone who actually paid attention to what they watch not know that Mubarak was out, Assad still in, and what Iranian sanctions were about?  Are people who say they 'watch' MSNBC just watching 'Morning Joe'?  

        I can understand many people not knowing who 'spent' the most on fixing up poor-performing EU countries - the stories always focus on the people having the crisis, not on who is doing most of the 'bail-outs' (of the banks, not the people).

      •  International news (0+ / 0-)

        benefits politics, taking our minds off our own glaring problems and soothing the masses. (aside from sensationalized isolated stories that play for days)

        And why you will find more US news on European outlets for the same reasons.

        “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

        by RUNDOWN on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:10:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  NPR used to be better (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peptabysmal, poco

      But the more corporations get involves in something, the more misinformation gets in.

      None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

      by gjohnsit on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:08:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's no news, like Faux News.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawgrass727

    "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." --Townes Van Zandt

    by Bisbonian on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:58:17 PM PST

  •  msnbc is good for political news, not news news (5+ / 0-)

    If anyone relied only on them no surprise they'd do very poorly on international. Domestic surprises me a little more...
    TV in general seems a pretty poor source of what is happening in the world
    As the high score indicates

    •  Actually, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      I've seen MSNBC coverage on everything they asked about internationally.  There's no real reason for an MSNBC viewer not to have correctly answered 3/4 correctly internationally easily, and a little thought about which EU countries are considered strongest should have tipped about half into 4/4 I would have thought.

      The domestic numbers are skewed in my books by the fact that 2 of the questions were about republican primaries.  And really, given the rollercoaster ride the republicans had in 2012, who the hell cares what any given primaries came up with for them, even the first two?

  •  What a disaster (0+ / 0-)

    Shocking that no group scored anywhere near 5/5

  •  Haven't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, RUNDOWN

    similar studies been done a few times before - reflecting basically the exact same result?

    I could swear I remember Jon Stewart talking about how a study showed his viewers to be far more informed than the Fox crowd was, and then making light of it because he hosts a comedy show about the news maybe a year or two ago.

    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

    by Darth Stateworker on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:50:02 PM PST

    •  NVM (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eileen B

      Reading the source article, it reflects the article it used for its source was from 2012.  As such, clicking through answered my own question.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:52:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Studies say !!!!..????...zzzzzzz. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Dkos should be in the poll! nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    millwood

    "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

    by MRA NY on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:07:53 AM PST

  •  Not news... (0+ / 0-)

    At least seven different studies have found this same result. Of course, all you have to do is talk to a Fox News fan to discover that they really are uninformed.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:08:45 AM PST

  •  Petition to revoke Fox News (0+ / 0-)

    press accreditation.  

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...

    If it is really important to have a well informed electorate, then the many results that prove that Fox news lowers and so greatly biases its public should compel this.  It's NOT a repression of the press, since the petition only asks that the official accreditation be revoked, they can continue to publish whatever they please.  

    •  All news has a bias...if this is the basis for (0+ / 0-)

      your test, all news will lose accreditation. Unless you are one of those folks who thinks that as long as the news is biased in your direction, all is good, otherwise oust it.

      •  Yours is the sort (0+ / 0-)

        of argument that encourages news organizations to not even try for objectivity.  It's like saying all driving is dangerous and thereby diminishing the danger of going one hundred or drinking and driving.  This kind of sophistry is a huge part of our problem.

  •  I'd like to see that study done at Daily Kos. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope

    Ted Cruz president? Pardon my Vietnamese, but Ngo Pho King Way.

    by ZedMont on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:44:31 AM PST

  •  The REAL Headline (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope, JosephK74

    should be that even the "most informed" people only got 1.5 questions out of 5 right!  THAT is pitiful, and an indictment both of their ignorance AND the media which helps produce it.  An informed electorate is essential for the correct operation of our Democracy and if this is the true state of the public's knowledge, then I fear there is nothing that can help them, and that Democracy is doomed in this country.
       Even here at Daily Kos, the banners just above this area I am typing this comment...has 6 "news" stories; a puppy protecting a baby, Kate Upton losing the front of her dress on a film set, "biggest Celebrity Scandals of 2013-with miley cyrus twerking-, a story of competition in the cola wars-illustrated by three women in bikinis, a story about exercise that accelerate aging, and finally a prompt to "vote for the Republican who will win the 2016 primary.
    SAD< SAD

  •  fox (0+ / 0-)

      FOX HAS NEVER HAD NEWS,  ONLY THEIR BIAS, BIGOTED, OPINIONS.    

  •  Daily KOS, Think PRgoress, Mother Jones, Raw Story (0+ / 0-)

    Then NPR

    I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong. Seldom turns out the way it does in this song.

    by mungley on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:47:28 AM PST

  •  Jon Stewart needs to up his game.... (0+ / 0-)

    Let's get to 5/5 on the poll next time!!!!

    Actually I am 5/5, I can't imagine how unaware you have to be to only score 1.5 of 5 questions about what shit is happening.

    But then, the quality of Jeopardy players has gone downhill in recent years too. Maybe it isn't the news organizations, maybe it is the people who are a bunch of SLACKERS!!

    •  Daily Show is a comedy show (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, The Jester

      It's fake news, and yet it still comes in near the top.
      How pathetic is that?!

      None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

      by gjohnsit on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:09:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your poll doesn't list BBC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope, JosephK74

    That's sort of become my default news source, although RT and Al-jazeera are also my favorites.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:06:38 AM PST

    •  the bbc has really gone to shit (imo). it trolls (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doinaheckuvanutjob

      the rw (british version) line way to much & their "premier" journalist is andrew marr, who can barely hide his disgust for all things obama & loves sneering at d's.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

      by bluezen on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:45:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  BBC incessently peddles Cameronism style (0+ / 0-)

        If you like PM David Cameron, you'll love the BBC. The style that some folks admire, of pretended detachment and objectivity with a bit more hard questioning than NPR does, is a shallow veneer. When you listen more closely you start to notice who is questioned and why, and who isn't and how. The pattern all adds up to PM David Cameron's platform viewpoint, not hard to find.

        •  :) agree. btw, i can't rec your comment b/c the (0+ / 0-)

          rec button has disappeared.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

          by bluezen on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 07:11:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  andrew marr is not (0+ / 0-)

        the premier journalist.......why would you think that???

        A domestic policy man, really.  You wouldn't see him covering the middle east or the US, etc, as the main guy.  Not a RWNJ even by our standards.  Did you catch him on a bad day?

        •  that's why i put the word premier in quotations (0+ / 0-)

          :)

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

          by bluezen on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 07:10:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  sorry i couldn't rec your comment. the rec (0+ / 0-)

          button's disappeared :)

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

          by bluezen on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 07:10:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hillarious, but not a surprising result (0+ / 0-)

    Wasn't there a diary recently, or maybe it was a comment, about how "news" in the USA has the worst case situation of having all outlets being owned by a very few mega conglomerate corporations?   From the standpoint of market dollars alone, it all but guarantees that the content will be exceptionally biased and contain limited real information.  This is why we see all sorts of shit about the Kardashians and the latest celebrity to get knocked up and near nothing about what is happening in the world, and absolutely nothing about what is really going on in our govt.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:07:49 AM PST

  •  Twitter. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope, poco

    I get much of my news from twitter--not from unlinked tweets, but from retweets of news stories.  In this way, I get breaking news very fast (provided I'm on twitter at the time). I also post news stories on twitter from the BBC, The Guardian, NPR, NYTimes, LATimes, SF Chronicle, Al-Jazeera America, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and various U.S. local TV affiliates.

    Getting news from twitter might seem an optimally diverse option, but it depends on who you follow and who their followers are.  In my case, I routinely block conservatives and assholes (many, but not all, in the latter category are also in the former category).  Thus, I don't get conservative news content.  I'm at peace with that.

    Failure to Publicize Acts of Hatred Only Allows Them to Fester and Metastasize.

    by BoxerDave on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:26:02 AM PST

  •  You left out "Other" in poll. My Other: NYT. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope

    Otherwise I mostly watch msnbc, but it's for political coverage and some domestic issues. Not for world or national news. Which is fine. They are politics driven. I am glad for them.

    Sometimes, pretty rarely, CNN, if there's a story I'm interested in up to date or timely, like snow coverage today. But only Carol Costello since she's gotten "real." imo.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:35:42 AM PST

  •  why no newspapers in the poll?? (0+ / 0-)

    PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

    by RumsfeldResign on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:11:20 AM PST

  •   MSNBC Has Almost No Foreign News (0+ / 0-)

    It's not that they are doing it badly, they just don't do it.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:17:20 AM PST

  •  The article misrepresents the study (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doinaheckuvanutjob

    at least with respect to MSNBC. Fox isn't quite as bad as it's made out to be either.

    If you take a look at the ideology crosstabs, you find that liberals who watch MSNBC actually top the charts by a large margin on domestic questions and do quite well on international questions. Conservatives watching Fox are worse than liberals watching MSNBC, but still marginally better than the no-news people.

    The overall results for both MSNBC and Fox are heavily skewed by the watchers who are ideologically-misaligned with their chosen media. Which seems reasonable: if you get your news from one and only one source (the comparison excludes respondents who got news from multiple sources) and you not only choose a partisan source but one which isn't even aligned with your own ideology, one wouldn't imagine you to be the sort of person who was deeply interested in current events.

    "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

    by kyril on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 11:35:40 AM PST

  •  People who seek to be informed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peptabysmal

    Will find the information.

    These viewership samples represent those who only seek to be entertained - or comforted in their own ideology.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

    by RUNDOWN on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:05:51 PM PST

  •  Some of those questions were trick questions (0+ / 0-)

    I followed the link back to the original study. One of the questions was "Who finally ended up winning the Republican caucus in Iowa in 2012?"

    Well, Santorum won the most votes but just barely. So, he won even though they originally said Romney won. But the delegate count was much different. Ron Paul got 22 delegates, Romney got 6 and Santorum got zip. That kind of tells me Ron Paul ended up winning the caucus.

    Good thing Iowa goes first.


    Every time my iPhone battery gets down to 47%, I think of Mitt Romney.

    by bobinson on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:16:18 PM PST

  •  MSNBC, like (0+ / 0-)

    FOX, rots your mind.  Punditry is a scourge on our democracy as all it "reports" is political football and very little of substance on policy and events.  I find it deeply depressing whenever I hear people here suggest Maddow, Hayes, or Olbermann to host Meet the Press.  More punditry is the last thing we need.  We need real journalism that strives to report without commentary.

  •  MSNBC (0+ / 0-)

    is not really "news," is it?  I don't know, I haven't had cable for awhile.

    A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

    by Dinclusin on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:07:55 PM PST

  •  A glaring poll choice that's missing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peptabysmal

    is DailyKos.  I honestly get most of my news and info here.  I avoid the TM, and the myriad diarists and community monitoring here give me not only accurate info, but thoughtful commentary.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:40:45 PM PST

  •  faux noise's main purpose is to dispense gop (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B

    propaganda & insure that an environment of perpetual political psychodrama exists.

    i get most of my news from the guardian & dkos, which wasn't on the survey :)

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

    by bluezen on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:53:38 PM PST

  •  I often get frustrated with NPR because it would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope

    seem that constant GOP threats to the CPB over the last couple of decades has caused them to bend over backwards not to criticize Republican lawmakers and bills or simply fail to cover these issues. Lots of things seem "off limits" to them and to many of their talk show hosts. The very presence of Cokie Roberts and Mara Liasson, who often report totally unchallenged by hosts or other guests makes that reporting highly suspect to me.

    That said, I do find NPR a valuable recourse for news, but it is not my only one, of course. The MSNBC evening lineup is great, but as you point out, I can't rely solely on it. It IS fairly partisan, though some of the investigative reporting--especially by Hayes and Maddow--is excellent. I also read my local paper, the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram which for a small city newspaper has some great content especially on state issues and a star reporter you may have heard of, Colin Woodard, who has written a number of books including a great study on geographical politics in the US. Internet sources like the Guardian's website, and for a European perspective, the independent Austrian newspaper Der Standard are helpful as well as, of course, Daily Kos. Stewart and Colbert, besides being really funny, often report on stuff you don't hear anywhere else.

    However, I suspect many of us here are in the minority: not everyone is a news junkie, who follows the news as a hobby like I do and many of you do. Current events were always discussed in my family and I grew up with following the news as part of life. Many don't have the time or the inclination. I can understand why there are so many people who are so woefully uninformed.

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:26:00 PM PST

  •  None: Poll only has broadcast sources (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope

    I haven't watched TV or listened to news on the radio in this century, yet, I think I'm pretty well informed from my RSS feed that includes a number of both domestic and foreign newspapers and blogs. After doing this for so long, it is sometimes hard for me to remember that people—lots of people—actually use broadcast sources for all or most of their news. It's like a bizarre vestige of the distant past, sort of like driving into a some new town and noticing that everyone is wearing hats and/or gloves, riding horses, and writing actual letters to each other.

  •  You could put someone in a hole (0+ / 0-)

    Bury them, with no stimulation, no light, no sound and they would be more informed. Well Duh.

    “He talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans.” James Carville

    by Mokislab on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:44:11 PM PST

  •  Knowledge Acquisition (0+ / 0-)

    Is my only formal religion.

    http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

    by DAISHI on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:05:24 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site