Study Shows Fox Viewers Most Likely to Believe Misinformation

This may not be a surprise to anyone, but I appreciate when scientific studies support what I have always thought to be true. A study recently completed by World Public Opinion based at the University of Maryland found that voters are misinformed at a substantial level and that Fox News viewers in particular, are most likely to believe misinformation. After the Citizens United decision which enabled corporate contributions to political campaigns to increase, the researchers wanted to discover whether the level of misinformation disseminated to voters had increased and if so, whether or not it was effective (to be effective, it must be believed).

Image: jugbo

Some of the results are remarkable. I know that I stopped watching network broadcasts because most of what I was hearing was either incorrect, incomplete, or slanted in favor of the Republicans, but unless people are willing to devote a lot of time to the quest for information, cable or network news is probably their best best for political news. Using data gathered by government agencies who are generally believed to be non-partisan, questions about issues of the day were asked.

A few findings include:

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).

For people who watched Fox News, the results were to be expected. They were:

• 12 points more likely to believe that the stimulus bill caused job losses
• 31 points more likely to believe that the health care law would worsen the deficit
• 26 points more likely to believe that the economy is getting worse
• 30 points more likely to believe that there is no climate change occurring
• 14 points more likely to believe that the stimulus bill did not contain any tax cuts
• 14 points more likely to believe that their own income taxes have increased [we actually paid the lowest amount in 60 years]
• 13 points more likely to believe that the auto bailout was an Obama initiative
• 12 points more likely to believe that most of the Republicans were against TARP
• 31 points more likely to believe that Obama was not born in the U.S.

The most remarkable point above, is not the distance between what a Fox News viewer is likely to believe compared to someone who receives their news from other sources, but that party identification did not seem to matter. Democrats were just as likely to believe misinformation if they were regular Fox viewers.

When the results of this study were released, Fox News senior vice president for news Michael Clemente responded by stating that the University of Maryland was highly ranked as a school for Students Who Study the Least, and being the Best Party School (it is actually one of the highest ranked state universities in the east) and therefore, "...given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with..." It should be noted, that rather than dispute the findings of the study, Fox chose to attack the study itself. This is a classic strawman fallacy as Clemente creates something to attack to deflect attention from the issue.

I see as I finish this that Countdown did a segment on this report and I've seen a few tweets about it, but the whole article is well worth a read. I didn't think it would get this much attention or I would probably not have written this, but it's nice to have something I've believed validated by scientific research.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Palin's Time as Alaska Commander in Chief Trumps Time as Actual Commander in Chief?

You just cannot ask for a more. Regulars here will know of my love of fallacies - or rather, my love of pointing them out - and with Sarah Palin at the top of the news, I get to talk about them every day if I want to. In fact, I could start a new blog dedicated to Sarah Palin fallacies. hmmm.... [brackets enclose my comments]

 PHOTO: Credit Balloon Juice

Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this week, Palin responded to the news of Obama's proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty as a schoolyard fight, saying his agreement was like two kids getting ready to fight and one saying:

"Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."

Going on to deride Obama's vast experience as a community organizer [compared to her vast experience as a monitor of Putin's flight path], she goes on to say that:

"No administration in America's history would, I think [she shouldn't, really, or she might remember Ronald Reagan and his life-long dream], ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today."

Asked to respond to her comments, and obviously frustrated to have her remarks given that level of importance, Obama replied in as refreshingly an honest manner as we have seen. My trolls might need a review of the definitions of satire and fallacy, to appreciate the following.

Sadly No writes today of the exchange (via media of course) between President Obama and half-term Governor Palin regarding the recently proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty:

"Obama makes the common fallacious appeal to authority here, while throwing in some ad hominem and the appeal to ridicule:

“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News."

Hearing from the other side of the aisle, Confederate Yankee, whose blog banner reads "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state," we get the insightful comment:

"Palin’s view of nuclear weapons was shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard, our first line of defense against Soviet nuclear weapons. Obama has held his same views since he was a stoner college student and has showed no signs of maturing."

Sadly No continues his commentary, responding to Confederate by saying:

"Amen, Br’er Owens [Confederate Yankee]. I’ve always said that when it comes to knowing nukes, two-and-a-half years as commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard trumps one-year-and-change as commander in chief of an actual nuclear arsenal. Because 1) it’s longer and 2) don’t bogart that joint, fella!"

UPDATE: While Bob Owens is busy composing his ode to Sarah Palin’s stalwart defense of Cochinchina in the face of Red Tonkinese aggression, not to mention her leadership role in mediating talks with the Ottomans, we pause to alert you that our uppity POTUS has ’sassed’ the esteemed former part-time Alaska governor."

I would expect that people without much education would lack a basic understanding of logic, reasoning, and fallacies, but mainstream media? I understand bloggers commenting on what Sarah Palin says. I understand Fox News and other right-wing commentators reporting on the conference and her remarks. What I don't understand, is to give important to Palin's remarks about Obama's actions and to ask him, in an on-air interview, to respond. The only purpose served by such a question is to titillate the viewers and, quite frankly, to generate the level of buzz generated by blogs such as this.

As linked on Sadly's blog, The Nizkor Project contains an in-depth review of fallacies as well as a guide to arguments and logic that is well-written and easily understood. As the authors say, "In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is." If you do not (a premise, maybe two, and a conclusion), then I suggest you follow the link and review. Our "news" is full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Everyone (including me) has an agenda. In order to wade through the overwhelming amount of information available to us, the commentary thrown at us from all sides (and yes, there are far more than two sides), we all need to hone our critical thinking skills and learn how to listen and to analyze for ourselves what we hear.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Blogging, the 10 Fallacies, and Comments (and a brief note to the trolls)

I've been working on a couple of lengthy posts on personality disorders and mental health and a couple of unrelated issues, but keep getting distracted by other posts I want to write. I am also working on my book, so if my posts are not as regular as they have been, that is why. This post is in response to something that has been building for awhile and I believe, relevant to a lot of the activity on this site and elsewhere.


I've commented here and there on numerous blogs and other websites that accept comments, but do not have the time to stay on a blog to maintain a conversation as many are able to do so don't have a lot of people dropping by here to comment. I started this blog for myself as a form of self-expression but linked to it on a couple of boards whose posters I respect. Over time, I have generated quite a bit of traffic through links from other blogs, comments I leave, and Google searches. I receive comments from maybe 1% of my readers and although I am always happy to know what people think and would be delighted to generate some good dialogue, I've been around the tubes long enough to know that comments are not my driving force.

That said, I do not moderate my comments and leave up everything I receive. I respond to some if I have anything to say, but not everything. As a sociologist, I am fascinated by people and how they behave, and as a counselor, I'm always interested in what makes people do what they do. I have no problem with anything people have to say to me and will leave up all the ad hominem attacks I receive unless they are really over the line (and yes, I get to decide where that line is). I will however, delete immediately any comments that attack anyone else who leaves a comment.

If I think someone has made a comment with a good argument, I'll respond. I do not feed trolls nor respond to posters whose comments are completely fallacious. While I don't take down posts that attack, neither will I respond to them (again, I don't feed the trolls). I am realizing that many people do not understand logic, reason, and fallacies and I cannot really expect my readers to understand them either when most of the media is as guilty of building straw men, using unwarranted assumptions, mindless conformity, and overgeneralization as they report and comment on the news. In that effort, below is a list of the 10 basic fallacies to be alert for when listening to what you hear and read. Obviously, comments based completely on fallacies will be ignored. Carefully reading of what you are commenting on is appropriate as well.

As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said," Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Lately, we seem to be getting not only a lot of opinion, but a lot of opinion presented as fact. Politicians, pundits, and others throw facts around to support their arguments with no regard to the truth.

The 10 Major Fallacies

The fallacy of Inappropriate Authority

• Use of an 'authority' who is not actually an expert in the field in which they are presented. An appropriate authority generally has credentials such as degrees, certificates, or other qualifications required to speak with authority on the subject. An inappropriate authority would be using a TV doctor to sell aspirin, or Sam Waterston selling financial services. We see someone who we are used to seeing as a doctor, so trust his word about headache medicine, or someone who plays a role on television that has authority, so we respect him in other areas. This fallacy also occurs when someone with a lot of credibility in one field uses that credibility in an area they know nothing about.

The fallacy of Appeal to Force

• Appeals to accept a conclusion based on a threat of force. The threat may not be physical, but could be emotional, psychological, or social. If you do not do something, then some other action may or may not occur. The Republicans have used this tactic as they use the fear of 'death panels' and loss of Medicare for seniors to achieve their legislative agenda.

The fallacy of Attacking the Person

• This is often called an ad hominem attack and is used in attacking the individual by demeaning their character, intelligence or perhaps their social standing. Another common use is attacking the individual's sincerity, i.e., "How can you object to X if you do Y?" Suggesting that two wrongs make a right.

The fallacy of Oversimplification

• This happens when something complex is reduced to a simplistic, trite statement, often with the use of "one-liners" that then become over-used and meaningless (Obamacare). This then trivializes important issues, minimizes them, and if an issue that is emotionally loaded, can be used to generate that emotion by use of the "one-liner." The conclusions reached then usually have little to do with the complexity of the overarching issue.

The fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof

• This fallacy says that the burden of proof is shifted to the opponent to disprove the conclusion: if they cannot, then the conclusion is true. In other words, prove a negative. You cannot prove there are no ghosts, therefore, ghosts exist.

The fallacy of the Straw Man

• A straw man is a weak imitation. Straw men are one of the fallacies that are deliberate attempts to deceive as the individual "building" the straw man is misinterpreting or misrepresenting someone's words or point of view--often because of negative assessments of the individual and a lack of empathy. This is a frequent device used in the media and by politicians attacking our current administration as they put their own "spin" on the president's actions or words in a deliberate attempt to make him look bad, inept, or incompetent. They create a "straw man" to attack, an imaginary character that they can assign their own characteristics to and thus tear apart.

The fallacy of Mindless Conformity

• We all want to "fit in" and so tend to agree with those around us. Society depends on our need to fit in as we follow the mores, customs, and laws that hold us together. Mindless conformity, however, occurs when this need is taken to the extreme and we accept all ideas because they are popular, because they are what our friends, our neighbors or group, or our party tell us to believe. This particular fallacy has been studied extensively by social psychologists and I could do a whole post simply on some of the work done on the dangers of groupthink and conformity, however, the current Tea Party movement and many of those who watch Fox News are classic examples of mindless conformity.

The fallacy of Irrelevant Emotion

• This consists of using emotion to support your argument to divert attention from the situation to play on the emotion of the other person. Pleading with someone in authority to forgive the crime/accident/mistake because of some emotional manipulation designed to make the authority figure feel pity. Note the word irrelevant. I am not suggesting that emotion be removed from arguments--an expressive premise is appropriate if relevant to the argument, i.e., studies on child abuse typically make people angry and sad and generate feelings that child abuse is wrong. There is nothing wrong with these feelings and if these emotions generate action, then they are not irrelevant because the argument was built on studies. Irrelevant emotion is emotion brought in deliberately to manipulate the conclusion--emotional blackmail if you will. The fear of healthcare reform killing grandma, death panels.

The fallacy of Overgeneralization

• Applying the features of one to the entire group. These are called broad statements and are not necessarily bad. Some groups form because of common characteristics. The negative aspect is when the generalization is made over characteristics that the individual has no control over. Descriptors have to do with quantities (all, a majority, everyone, many, some). An overgeneralization exaggerates those characteristics (all dogs..., all blacks..., All Americans...) when it is obvious that not all dogs (or blacks or Americans) could all share the same characteristics other than all dogs are dogs and all Americans are people. A biased overgeneralization occurs when an attack on the person is also included. Overgeneralizations usually occur in the conclusion and occur when the evidence does not support the conclusion. This is the most common fallacy of reasoning as the broader the statement, the more support the statement needs. Schools don't..., Muslims...

 The fallacy of Unwarranted Assumption

• Found when the conclusion is based on information that is not known, that is false, and that is often controversial. The argument makes assumptions of fact in error. For example, if something is commonly understood, but is applied inappropriately as the basis of the argument, the whole argument falls apart. Many arguments made by the extreme right-wing today on social issues are based on unwarranted assumptions--that is, assumptions of something as proof that many other arguments are built on (the earth is 10,000 years old, therefore evolution is faulty science).

A fallacy is a "serious error in the quality of an implication" (Stratton, 1999). It is important to note as well, that not all fallacies are used to deceive--although there are many times when they are--but often simply errors in judgment. What is important, is to understand that logical, critical examination of the evidence will detect the fallacy and therefore, answer the argument. If the premise is untrustworthy, then so are the conclusions.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k