|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,539
I'm just sayin' 10000+ posts
|
I'm just sayin' 10000+ posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,539 |
Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.Snarf is bald.........by Gob you're right BSAMS.
It's a dog eat dog world & I'm wearing milkbone underwear.
I can get you a toe.
1,999,999+ points.
Damn you and your lemonade!!
Booooooooooooooobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
He's using circular logic against us!
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
MEM is now quoting Raw Story quoting media matters!   it's like when john malkovich went down the john malkovich tunnel!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
Another Fox flub that conveniently hurts Democrats
By Daniel Tencer
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 -- 2:45 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
Network reduces Obama's bank bailout savings by 99 percent
You probably think we're talking about last week's flub.
But no -- another day, another Fox News reporting "mistake" that conveniently supports the news network's editorial bias.
The nation's most-watched 24-hour news channel has made no less than two politically-loaded math errors in the past several days. First, the network reported that a vast majority of Americans -- 94 percent -- believe that climate scientists have falsified research into global warming (see picture below). The only problem is, according to Fox's poll graphic, the total number of participants in the poll adds up to 120 percent.
The network had been reporting on a Rasmussen poll that shows considerably different numbers. It appears Fox added the number of people who said data falsification was "very likely" (35 percent) to the number of people who thought it was "somewhat likely" (24 percent) and then presented that sum -- 59 percent -- as the number of people who said it was "somewhat likely."
Any independent observer will certainly note the coincidence that the fudged number makes it look like a disproportionately large part of the US population is opposed to climate change legislation, a favorite whipping boy of Fox news hosts.
"It's impossible to tell what motivated Fox to distort Rasmussen's data this way," writes Simon Maloy at media watchdog MediaMatters. "The network as a whole has quite obviously sided with the 'skeptics' and regularly plays host to a whole roster of petroleum industry-funded climate change deniers. Then again, it very well may be that the graphics department simply got confused once they started adding percentages together and didn't catch the mistake before it went on the air."
An innocent mistake? Perhaps. But given that Fox presented the numbers broken down the same way as the Rasmussen poll, why would they have even bothered adding those numbers up in the first place?
Then, on Tuesday, as the network broadcast a speech by President Barack Obama in which the president announced that the US will spend $200 billion less on bank bailouts than previously estimated, the chyron at the bottom of the Fox News screen announced that the president's bailout savings would amount to ... $2 billion.
Raw Story has confirmed that, as of press time, Fox News hasn't corrected the error on air. But they certainly must know what the actual figure is, as the online version of the story correctly cited the $200-billion figure. (That bit of good news for taxpayers is buried way at the bottom of Fox's story.)
Fox's factual errors -- which somehow always seem to lean towards the network's conservative bias, rather than against it -- are quickly becoming the stuff of legend.
... FOX made the errors fellas. Why beat up on that being talked about?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quoting yourself quoting Raw quoting Media matters only makes it funnier. It's like you're collapsing into a black hole of partisanship.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
I'm sure it doesn't make a difference to some but FOX's errors are not just being noticed by just RAW or Media Matters.
This morning, Media Matters called attention to a questionable graphic from last Friday’s Fox & Friends, and several media sites latched on to what appeared to be an error.
TVNewser simply added up numbers in their headline: “59% + 35% + 26% = 120%” while Huffington Post noted “Fox News’ Fuzzy Math.” And later, Media Matters sent an open letter to Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who had recently put Fox staffers on notice after a few mistakes that there was now a policy of “zero tolerance for on-screen errors.”
“The erroneous percentages Fox & Friends showed in its graphic added up to 120 percent (even without the 15 percent who responded that they weren’t sure).,” wrote Ari Rabin-Havt, Media Matters’ vice president of communications and research. “More importantly, Fox News' presentation of the data made it seem as though 94 percent of Americans think it's at least "somewhat likely" that climate scientists falsify their research data.”
Here's the breakdown: Fox's "somewhat likely" number of 59 percent in the graphic includes the Rasmussen categories of "somewhat likely" (24) and "very likely' (35). But then the "very likely" category gets a spot of its own underneath. So its understandable why a viewer would look at the numbers stacked up like this on-screen and assume that "94 percent of American's think it's at least 'somewhat likely' that climate scientists falsify their research data."
But Lauren Petterson, executive producer of Fox & Friends, told POLITICO that she sees no error in the graphic. And for that reason, there will be no reprimand of staff under the “zero tolerance" policy.
“We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen,” Petterson said. “We didn’t put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent.”
Indeed, here’s the paragraph from Rasmussen’s article that Fox was referring to with the graphic:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
While Petterson maintains that Fox & Friend’s didn’t err in displaying the information from Rasmussen, she acknowledges that the presentation wasn't perfect. “The mistake I do see is we could have been a little clearer here,” she said.
UPDATE: Media Matters' Rabin-Havt responds to POLITICO:
"Lauren Petterson clearly did not watch the segment in question. Host Steve Doocy agreed with Media Matters’ interpretation seeing as he attempted to add up these numbers as they appeared on air and said “so you get 90 – you got a lot of people.” On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, "zero tolerance" means unless we get caught."
Looking back at the clip via TVEyes, Doocy did mention the number 90, which was followed by some joking about whether the number could move closer to 100 percent.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
But, unlike Raw and Media Matters, Politico pointed out that Fox accurately quoted Rasmussen: - Indeed, here’s the paragraph from Rasmussen’s article that Fox was referring to with the graphic:
- Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
So all you've done by showing us the Politico article is drive home how biased the Raw/Media Matters version was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
cock eater man, if you're so mad at fox why don't you send them an e-mail? As far as I know no one here works for them. Why should we have to answer for someone else?
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
By "cock eater man" I mean matter eater man. You don't have to answer that one g-man.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
....
While Petterson maintains that Fox & Friend’s didn’t err in displaying the information from Rasmussen, she acknowledges that the presentation wasn't perfect. “The mistake I do see is we could have been a little clearer here,” she said.
UPDATE: Media Matters' Rabin-Havt responds to POLITICO:
"Lauren Petterson clearly did not watch the segment in question. Host Steve Doocy agreed with Media Matters’ interpretation seeing as he attempted to add up these numbers as they appeared on air and said “so you get 90 – you got a lot of people.” On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, "zero tolerance" means unless we get caught."
Looking back at the clip via TVEyes, Doocy did mention the number 90, which was followed by some joking about whether the number could move closer to 100 percent.
Politico also notes that Doocy added up the percentages in a graphic that FOX even admits could be confusing. Considering that their own on air people came up with a wrong tally of percentages using it that really isn't a big admission. Errors do happen with any these guys but FOX keeps racking them up so it does start to look fishy.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
You didn't say they were "confusing." You parroted the tune that they were wrong.
Backpedal.
And nice use of hyperbole there (see also: "wracking up").
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
cock eater man, if you're so mad at fox why don't you send them an e-mail? As far as I know no one here works for them. Why should we have to answer for someone else?
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
cock eater man, if you're so mad at fox why don't you send them an e-mail? As far as I know no one here works for them. Why should we have to answer for someone else?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
To be fair to Nambla Zick, he has as much right to complain about Fox as any of us do about the center-left media (the big three networks, the NY Times, CNN, PBS, NPR, Washington Post, AP, Rueters, etc.).
However, when his only basis for doing so is the extremely biased, if not inaccurate, editorializing over at Rawmediamatterstory (which tends to be less about facts and more about calling differences of opinion "lies") it doesn't lend very credibility to his arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
By "cock eater man" I mean matter eater man. You don't have to answer that one g-man.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
It must kind of burn a little for the partisans here (G-man the pedophile in particular) that Raw and Media Matters busted FOX on this.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
You're right mem, not that heroic and brave websites like raw and media matters have brought down the evil empire known as fox news the world is a much better and safer place to live.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
It must kind of burn a little for the partisans here (G-man the pedophile in particular) that Raw and Media Matters busted FOX on this. The thread (and the Politico article you, yourself, cited when called out on your source) demonstrates that Fox wasn't busted at all . The thread also demonstrates that, after rex and BSAMS blasted you for your incessant bitching about Fox I defended you...which resulted in you attacking ME. You're a class act, Nambla Zick. A real class act.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
Interesting take on the Politico story. Sort of the Bagdad Bob version but not surprising coming from G-man the pedophile.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
