What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
> In addition the CNN viewers were 13 points less likely than the Fox News viewers to agree that: “If Joe Biden is elected President, we’ll see many more police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists.”
I don't regularly read political stories nor the Guardian. What do they mean by 'points' here? Are they percentage points (and what are their absolute values) or something else? Basically how significant are these quantities?
> A percentage point or percent point is the unit for the arithmetic difference of two percentages. For example, moving up from 40 percent to 44 percent is an increase of 4 percentage points, but a 10-percent increase in the quantity being measured.[1] In literature, the unit is usually either written out,[2] or abbreviated as pp or p.p. to avoid ambiguity. After the first occurrence, some writers abbreviate by using just "point" or "points".
After the one month experiment all viewers returned to Fox News.
So, what happens when a group of CNN viewers watch Fox News for a month?
>Watching Fox News can be like entering an alternative universe.
That's literally how they open the article?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/02/21/cnns-rat...
CNN ratings are WAY down.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/cnn-plus-low-viewership-numb...
CNN+ flopped. I could also link several high profile people resigning or being fired.
What this article should be about is understanding why CNN is collapsing and what Fox news is doing right.
>Given the steady stream of misinformation an avid Fox News consumer is subjected to, the viewers – predominantly elderly, white and Donald Trump-supporting
Fox news = steady stream of misinformation? really?
>Most of the CNN switchers stuck to the length of the task, according to the study. But once it was over, and the $15 an hour was taken away, “viewers returned to watching Fox News”, Kalla said.
Of course they did.
Lets discuss what they should have discussed.
Fox news during the oreilly/hannity era was pretty trash. How awful was hannity/colmes? Oreilly? omg no. They'd cut off guests who werent giving the answer they like. It was bad. They took the criticism and took a long time to improve.
Meanwhile on CNN you had Tucker Carlsen vs James Carville. That was some good stuff. 2 very smart people representing opposing sides going at it.
Now today... you have nothing but utter trash coming out of CNN. The most recent hilarity is that Brian Stelter was at a 'disinformation' event. Presumably to answer for CNN's disinformation? Yet it took some kid from the crowd to ask Stelter about CNN's disinformation and he had no response.
CNN needs to do some reflecting like fox news did back in the day.
https://theweek.com/cnn/1012688/cnns-new-ceo-leaves-twitter-...
Journalism leaving twitter predated elon's poll on free speech. Obviously the implication is that they have reflected some.
>"We can rely too much on Twitter as a reporting or feedback tool — which is especially harmful to our journalism when our feeds become echo chambers," Baquet said in a memo
Nytimes guy said it. What happened is that conservatives were censored enough on twitter that it resulted in people experiencing echo chambers. It skews your view and therefore they end up in a circular feedback that hides criticism of your work. You start hearing echos and you stop reporting on reality.
NYTimes during the Ottawa freedom protest https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/opinion/ottawa-trucker-pr...
>uring the protests after the murder of George Floyd — is to maintain a balance between public health and safety and a functioning society, with the right to free expression. Entertaining the use of force to disperse or contain legal protests is wrong.
The NYTimes escaped their echo chamber and provided a legitimate opinion here. I applaud them for being consistent here, they dont agree with the goals of the protest but they understand why it must be allowed to happen.
4 days after they published this, Trudeau used force to utterly crush the legal protest. Conservatives in Canada no longer have the right to protest.
I mean, I understand your response to the Guardian’s favourable/unfavourable descriptions of CNN and Fox News respectively, but … well, what do you expect, really? I agree that the endless “here’s what you should think” adjectival avalanche is extraordinarily boring, and personally I tune out of it too, but it’s also utterly ordinary and inevitable. Speaking for myself, I was much happier once I started treating other people’s views not as an assault on my own, but as … just that, really, another person’s view, a fact of life just like a chair or a cucumber.
I opened my post as such. I have no dog in the race. The far more interesting and poignant is indeed fox news good. Their ratings are sky high. Which is an important detail not to forget.
When the study gets involved. They are studying that watching CNN can change your opinion but ultimately they go back to fox news. Because it is better.
>The point is about the nature of people’s beliefs and whether they can be convinced by a news source which they have – as both left- and right-wing outlets strive to do – been primed to dismiss and distrust.
I agree, but what I quoted is that they ultimately go back to fox news and this can be confirmed by much higher ratings.
>I mean, I understand your response to the Guardian’s favourable/unfavourable descriptions of CNN and Fox News respectively, but … well, what do you expect, really?
Guardian is also not a primary news source for me. I generally had a good opinion of them but I just looked up their media bias. A below 'mostly factual' score card is bad. Your response kind of got me to check on that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
> I agree that the endless “here’s what you should think” adjectival avalanche is extraordinarily boring, and personally I tune out of it too, but it’s also utterly ordinary and inevitable.
Agreed.
>Speaking for myself, I was much happier once I started treating other people’s views not as an assault on my own, but as … just that, really, another person’s view, a fact of life just like a chair or a cucumber.
I am kind of inbetween here. Most people I find will not be an ideologue and usually can have a good convo with. However, there are absolutely people who are assaulting their views upon. They wish to force upon us.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/497005-when-you-wake-up-in-...
In a way I realize the author of the article won't read my nobody comment, I don't wish to turn my back to this author. The idea of my post is to show, 'what was fox news doing wrong back then? and what are they doing right now?"
Imagine they don't trust my words but they see nytimes and cnn admitting to their echo chamber. That they see the evil.
Where'd you see that? Ad Fontes Media has Guardian fairly high. Did you look at something else?
> However, there are absolutely people who are assaulting their views upon. They wish to force upon us.
There are certainly people doing this - I would say a majority of people IME - on both sides.
I'm a Rawlsian pluralist and I believe in giving everyone the maximum liberty consistent with the same for others (e.g. no right to enslave because others have a right not to be enslaved), but it's indisputable that there are certain issues where there is no "don't impose your views on others" option.
For instance, abortion. If I believe foetus are human beings (or. rather, persons), then the "don't impose your views on others" option would entail not murdering those human beings, as I would hypothetically see it. If I believe foetus are not persons, then the "don't impose your views on others" option is not to forbid women to control their reproductive cycles. Etc etc. The Millian/Rawlsian view falls apart when you start considering fundamental disagreements about the definitions of liberty and of human beings themselves.
> Imagine they don't trust my words but they see nytimes and cnn admitting to their echo chamber. That they see the evil.
This seems to be a mainstay of your comments: echo chambers and tendentious reporting are "evil" for one side, but par for the course for the other (incidentally, your own) side. I would consider them par for the course for both sides. It doesn't surprise me and (for the reasons stated above inter alia) doesn't influence my political philosophy.
-
Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion. I may not agree with your political philosophy, but I wish disagreements about political philosophy could be discussed as soberly and rationally as we'd discuss economic theory or music theory.
I'm exhausted by how polarised the atmosphere has got - and that certainly includes my own side (which more of us need to be able to admit), and also admittedly includes your own side (my exhaustion with the left wing doesn't cancel out my incomprehension at how utterly batshit most of the right wing has got recently - I mean, disagreeing with COVID lockdowns is fine and arguable and I would actually agree to a large extent, but whinging about being suffocated by fucking masks?? and fucking graven idols of fucking Donald Trump??? some of the people in your tribe are absolutely self-sabotagingly nutballs).
For me, it all comes back to the Rawlsian framing of the veil of ignorance. That's the fundamental political question. We need to stop screaming at silly caricatured bogeymen of one another on the internet, but just sit down – as friends and family and colleagues and neighbours – and ask ourselves: "If, before I was born, with no knowledge of who I would become, I had to decide what the rules of my society should be: what would they be?" That's all there is, really.
On the bright side, https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-issues-twitte...
NYtimes did some soul searching recently and discovered twitter was the sourcing their people being in echo chambers. Which does technically derive from conservative censorship.
CNN's new ceo also publicly quit twitter and is encouraging their journalists to do the same.
> It wouldn't matter if everyone on the right wing were angels and everyone on the left wing were Alec Baldwin - my political philosophy isn't a function of how much I personally like other people who also hold X or Y beliefs.
Take the Canadian freedom protest. The media smeared them as nazi confederates looking to overthrow the government. It was absurd, but the majority of canadians believed this coverage. Polls show the majority of canadians dont support. I dont frankly care.
>There are certainly people doing this - I would say a majority of people IME - on both sides.
Oh for sure. Joe rogan literally called steven crowder an ideologue to his face. He's not wrong.
>I'm a Rawlsian pluralist and I believe in giving everyone the maximum liberty consistent with the same for others (e.g. no right to enslave because others have a right not to be enslaved), but it's indisputable that there are certain issues where there is no "don't impose your views on others" option.
Wow must be decades since i last heard of rawls. I find rawls has influenced republicans quite significantly. Here in Canada you'd be peoples party.
>For instance, abortion. If I believe foetus are human beings (or. rather, persons), then the "don't impose your views on others" option would entail not murdering those human beings, as I would hypothetically see it. If I believe foetus are not persons, then the "don't impose your views on others" option is not to forbid women to control their reproductive cycles. Etc etc. The Millian/Rawlsian view falls apart when you start considering fundamental disagreements about the definitions of liberty and of human beings themselves.
Abortion is one hell of a subject. Here in Canada it's a political no-go, if the Cons say they'll bring up the abortion subject... guaranteed they lose the election. Meanwhile in the USA, it's a primary subject and this argument is totally what republicans argue often.
I personally don't hold any of these opinions. I actually don't know what I would do on the abortion subject if I were absolute monarch.
>This seems to be a mainstay of your comments: echo chambers and tendentious reporting are "evil" for one side, but par for the course for the other (incidentally, your own) side. I would consider them par for the course for both sides. It doesn't surprise me and (for the reasons stated above inter alia) doesn't influence my political philosophy.
It's a bit more complicated.
Where we are headed? progressives have twitter and the cons go to parler/gab/whatever. They are for sure in echo chambers. For Canada for example, omegacanada.win is a massive worthless echo chamber for conservatives. You'll also notice it's basically a ghost town. If it wasn't a ghost town, it would inevitably become terrible like twitter.
What do we get? The political sides stop talking to each other. Polarization is basically maximized. It would inevitable to produce a civil war. A social institution need only break for a few hours to spark that civil war. Peace is kept through communication and understanding. It can only be held together by force for a short period of time.
>Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion. I may not agree with your political philosophy, but I wish disagreements about political philosophy could be discussed as soberly and rationally as we'd discuss economic theory or music theory.
Politics should be boring. Nobody should really be discussing it. You get a single vote every few years. You should ignore politics and only update yourself on the current state of politics during the ~month before the election. That's not what is happening because we're on the verge of a not-election event.
>I'm exhausted by how polarised the atmosphere has got - and that certainly includes my own side (which more of us need to be able to admit), and also admittedly includes your own side (my exhaustion with the left wing doesn't cancel out my incomprehension at how utterly batshit most of the right wing has got recently - I mean, disagreeing with COVID lockdowns is fine and arguable and I would actually agree to a large extent, but whinging about being suffocated by fucking masks?? and fucking graven idols of fucking Donald Trump??? some of the people in your tribe are absolutely self-sabotagingly nutballs).
Take the ottawa freedom protest. For 2 years conservatives didnt march on ottawa. Only when the world started opening up because that's what the science said to do. Our PM saw the world opening up and instead of providing a roadmap and some dates for when we will open. He increased restrictions putting a bunch of people out of a job. Literally, 'you wont take the shot? fine you're not allowed to work and live anymore.'
A protest was inevitable to demand our human rights back. It was a legitimate protest. What did they do? They crushed the protest using force, seized bank accounts, arrested people for 'mischief' and the government news smeared them as nazi confederates.
covid restrictions are not that important. texas and florida had no mandates for how long at this point? Covid is just an excuse.
>For me, it all comes back to the Rawlsian framing of the veil of ignorance. That's the fundamental political question. We need to stop screaming at silly caricatured bogeymen of one another on the internet, but just sit down – as friends and family and colleagues and neighbours – and ask ourselves: "If, before I was born, with no knowledge of who I would become, I had to decide what the rules of my society should be: what would they be?" That's all there is, really.
I think that's what I am arguing for. That's what elon musk is arguing for.