Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only show i make sure to see is FNSI think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
Ain't that the truth.... I watch the Saturday morning financial shows, but that's about it.
Oops, your cognitive bias is showing. lolYou have to admit that Fox doesnt even try to disguise its lies and misinformation. The liberal site (MSNBC) is obviously liberal but at least they do report the truth.While I agree with this analysis, the same can be said to be true of just about any media source tied to the CFR. If anyone wants to make this a partisan issue, they are being obtuse.I'm sure the cons on this forum will disagree, disregard and disavow.
The Science Of Fox News: Why Its Viewers Are The Most Misinformed
See Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent," or Bernay's "Propaganda."
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.”
― Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
In Propaganda (1928), Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:[17]
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
I see you forgot to take your doses of reality. Im afraid you may have a terminal caseIf it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
I'm sure the cons on this forum will disagree, disregard and disavow.
The Science Of Fox News: Why Its Viewers Are The Most Misinformed
We are all liberals when we are children. Some of us grow up, others remain liberal.If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
Uh-huh, doesn't change the fact that by all appearances the author started out with his own definition of "reality" and had already concluded that Republicans "reject reality" then set about conducting "research" to prove his highly biased conclusion, in other words, it's completely JUNK SCIENCE because the author was engaging in the same confirmation bias that he accuses "conservatives" of needing.Here's the best critical review of the book. It's not glowing but even while critical it's generally positive.LOL, the article cites the author of a book that started out trying to prove premise that "Republicans reject reality" and then goes on to complain about confirmation bias, talk about some thick, delicious irony sprinkled with a heaping, helping of JUNK SCIENCE.I'm sure the cons on this forum will disagree, disregard and disavow.
Chris Mooney wrote The Republican Brain from a liberal perspective, geared toward other liberal readers. The majority of the book confirms opinions that many scientifically-minded liberals hold about conservative bias and adds the latest in psychological research to explain why the dissemination of facts has become highly polarized in this country. To summarize:
1. Republicans distort facts for their benefit far more often than Democrats--global warming and history are cited most in this book, although Mooney uses a wide variety of examples.
2. There are known psychological reasons for these differences including development and use of different parts of the brain. These differences go on to influence personality, friends, career path, and even which states people move to. The most interesting study is the "smart idiot" effect, which means that politically knowledgeable conservatives are often more biased and less persuadable than ignorant conservatives or liberals (i.e., conservatives engage in motivated reasoning).
3. The liberal/conservative divide has widened over the past few decades not only because of the conservative revolution of the 1970s-80s, but also because of the growth of cable news and the Internet. The new sources allow conservatives to have easy access to like-minded thinkers and a wide array of "experts" to back up their erroneous claims and create a new reality that conforms to their worldview.
Overall, Mooney does an good job addressing the above points, and the book is well worth the read for anyone interested in the partisan divide. However, the book still left me disappointed and I found myself rushing through the detailed study with Dr. Everett Young, which should have contained less statistics and more analysis. As Mooney explains in the prelude, his previous book, The Republican War on Science, was highly popular among liberals but did nothing to change conservative opinions. The reason of course is the inherent propensity in conservatives to predispose of any information that contradicts their deeply held beliefs. But any liberal who has attempted to debate a conservative already knows this: facts, logic, and scientific reasoning always fail in such discussions. Mooney's writing style is geared toward liberals and he admits that conservatives will not buy his arguments--although at least now he knows why!
I was hoping for more advice on how liberals should address and debate conservatives considering the advances in psychology. Mooney offers a few tidbits, mostly in the conclusion. To address the problems with rewriting history, liberals need to leave the debunking to the experts and instead tell their own stories about historical figures that are accurate, interesting, and emphasize liberal values. He also elaborates on a political point that has been discussed among liberals in recent years--it is pointless to try and compromise with conservatives (especially Obama vs Congress). Liberals need to "be more conservative" not in their political views, but by acquiring some of the positive traits of conservatives such as unity, loyalty, and shared purpose. This theme is similar to the "pep talk" that Mooney has given to scientists in the past and it applies to any advocacy group looking for influence.
Based on the recent advances in liberal vs. conservative psychology, there is a book to be written about how liberals should address and debate conservatives. From the Republican Brain, we now know why conservatives refuse to accept certain facts, but what is now needed it a detailed guide for how liberals should go about changing conservative falsehoods and winning arguments.
I hesitate to give this book only 3/5 stars, but this book has some repetition, loses focus at times in the second half, and has some undeveloped ideas. Other authors such as Malcolm Gladwell and recently Charles Duhigg are better at grasping the applications of psychological studies. But considering that Mooney only worked on this book for a year, he is well on his way to becoming an expert on the liberal vs. conservative divide.
Conservatism is a fear based ideology.We are all liberals when we are children. Some of us grow up, others remain liberal.If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
Nah, lefties are run by their emotions, like children. Your lies won't cut it.The science has long been in. As I've been writing on these pages as long as I've been here, and other sites before, Fox Noise isn't there for information but to establish an emotional connection. The "us vs. them" mentality pervades everything because this just in, CONFLICT SELLS. Because conflict is drama, and if there's one thing passive sloths sitting in front of a TV master feeding them every sensory input, its drama. So Fox supplies it, whether it's "you against the scary black man" or "you against the scary Muslim" or "you against the scary Democrat" or "you against the scary environmentalist" it's a never-ending Association Fallacy soap opera starring You versus The Monster, and right after these words for pickup trucks and Viagra to plant a seed of fake hope into your hopeless lack of self-esteem, we'll be right back to scare you some more.
They go for the emotional jugular because that's what sells, and they go for the personal connection, telling you what the paranoia (that they just fed you) wants to hear, because that keeps the viewer coming back. And that means loyalty, and that means ratings that go up and stay up. It's the electronic media equivalent of the boys' tree house with "NO GURLS" painted on the side. Us and Them in a constant inane soap opera.
Rupert Murdoch made his fortune doing the same thing, selling tabloid rags. Fox Noise is simply a gossip channel using Washington politicians in place of Hollywood celebrities. Notice, not only is the audience thrust personal, so is the content --- it's always long on politicians...... short on actual policy. It's a grand plan of audience manipulation for the objective of profit, and whatever factualities are lost in that shuffle, well they consider that simply the cost of doing business, and the business is profit.
Liar. That's the other hallmark of the left.Conservatism is a fear based ideology.We are all liberals when we are children. Some of us grow up, others remain liberal.If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
Well, once in a while they have to throw something out there. That way some people can be fooled into thinking they're neutral. Sorry, but Kos is a hack site.I've seen a lot of articles on there critical of Obama, Clinton and Sanders. Maybe it's not as left wing as you assume.Leftwing hack site.How so?The source being Daily Kos ended the legitimacy of the story right there.
His theory was that Conservatives reject reality - no doubt formulated from experience with them. The research showed this to be true.Uh-huh, doesn't change the fact that by all appearances the author started out with his own definition of "reality" and had already concluded that Republicans "reject reality" then set about conducting "research" to prove his highly biased conclusion, in other words, it's completely JUNK SCIENCE because the author was engaging in the same confirmation bias that he accuses "conservatives" of needing.Here's the best critical review of the book. It's not glowing but even while critical it's generally positive.LOL, the article cites the author of a book that started out trying to prove premise that "Republicans reject reality" and then goes on to complain about confirmation bias, talk about some thick, delicious irony sprinkled with a heaping, helping of JUNK SCIENCE.I'm sure the cons on this forum will disagree, disregard and disavow.
Chris Mooney wrote The Republican Brain from a liberal perspective, geared toward other liberal readers. The majority of the book confirms opinions that many scientifically-minded liberals hold about conservative bias and adds the latest in psychological research to explain why the dissemination of facts has become highly polarized in this country. To summarize:
1. Republicans distort facts for their benefit far more often than Democrats--global warming and history are cited most in this book, although Mooney uses a wide variety of examples.
2. There are known psychological reasons for these differences including development and use of different parts of the brain. These differences go on to influence personality, friends, career path, and even which states people move to. The most interesting study is the "smart idiot" effect, which means that politically knowledgeable conservatives are often more biased and less persuadable than ignorant conservatives or liberals (i.e., conservatives engage in motivated reasoning).
3. The liberal/conservative divide has widened over the past few decades not only because of the conservative revolution of the 1970s-80s, but also because of the growth of cable news and the Internet. The new sources allow conservatives to have easy access to like-minded thinkers and a wide array of "experts" to back up their erroneous claims and create a new reality that conforms to their worldview.
Overall, Mooney does an good job addressing the above points, and the book is well worth the read for anyone interested in the partisan divide. However, the book still left me disappointed and I found myself rushing through the detailed study with Dr. Everett Young, which should have contained less statistics and more analysis. As Mooney explains in the prelude, his previous book, The Republican War on Science, was highly popular among liberals but did nothing to change conservative opinions. The reason of course is the inherent propensity in conservatives to predispose of any information that contradicts their deeply held beliefs. But any liberal who has attempted to debate a conservative already knows this: facts, logic, and scientific reasoning always fail in such discussions. Mooney's writing style is geared toward liberals and he admits that conservatives will not buy his arguments--although at least now he knows why!
I was hoping for more advice on how liberals should address and debate conservatives considering the advances in psychology. Mooney offers a few tidbits, mostly in the conclusion. To address the problems with rewriting history, liberals need to leave the debunking to the experts and instead tell their own stories about historical figures that are accurate, interesting, and emphasize liberal values. He also elaborates on a political point that has been discussed among liberals in recent years--it is pointless to try and compromise with conservatives (especially Obama vs Congress). Liberals need to "be more conservative" not in their political views, but by acquiring some of the positive traits of conservatives such as unity, loyalty, and shared purpose. This theme is similar to the "pep talk" that Mooney has given to scientists in the past and it applies to any advocacy group looking for influence.
Based on the recent advances in liberal vs. conservative psychology, there is a book to be written about how liberals should address and debate conservatives. From the Republican Brain, we now know why conservatives refuse to accept certain facts, but what is now needed it a detailed guide for how liberals should go about changing conservative falsehoods and winning arguments.
I hesitate to give this book only 3/5 stars, but this book has some repetition, loses focus at times in the second half, and has some undeveloped ideas. Other authors such as Malcolm Gladwell and recently Charles Duhigg are better at grasping the applications of psychological studies. But considering that Mooney only worked on this book for a year, he is well on his way to becoming an expert on the liberal vs. conservative divide.
The conclusions should follow the research not the other way around.
Nah, lefties are run by their emotions, like children. Your lies won't cut it.The science has long been in. As I've been writing on these pages as long as I've been here, and other sites before, Fox Noise isn't there for information but to establish an emotional connection. The "us vs. them" mentality pervades everything because this just in, CONFLICT SELLS. Because conflict is drama, and if there's one thing passive sloths sitting in front of a TV master feeding them every sensory input, its drama. So Fox supplies it, whether it's "you against the scary black man" or "you against the scary Muslim" or "you against the scary Democrat" or "you against the scary environmentalist" it's a never-ending Association Fallacy soap opera starring You versus The Monster, and right after these words for pickup trucks and Viagra to plant a seed of fake hope into your hopeless lack of self-esteem, we'll be right back to scare you some more.
They go for the emotional jugular because that's what sells, and they go for the personal connection, telling you what the paranoia (that they just fed you) wants to hear, because that keeps the viewer coming back. And that means loyalty, and that means ratings that go up and stay up. It's the electronic media equivalent of the boys' tree house with "NO GURLS" painted on the side. Us and Them in a constant inane soap opera.
Rupert Murdoch made his fortune doing the same thing, selling tabloid rags. Fox Noise is simply a gossip channel using Washington politicians in place of Hollywood celebrities. Notice, not only is the audience thrust personal, so is the content --- it's always long on politicians...... short on actual policy. It's a grand plan of audience manipulation for the objective of profit, and whatever factualities are lost in that shuffle, well they consider that simply the cost of doing business, and the business is profit.
Research? As in 2 liberal bobble heads agreeing?His theory was that Conservatives reject reality - no doubt formulated from experience with them. The research showed this to be true.Uh-huh, doesn't change the fact that by all appearances the author started out with his own definition of "reality" and had already concluded that Republicans "reject reality" then set about conducting "research" to prove his highly biased conclusion, in other words, it's completely JUNK SCIENCE because the author was engaging in the same confirmation bias that he accuses "conservatives" of needing.Here's the best critical review of the book. It's not glowing but even while critical it's generally positive.LOL, the article cites the author of a book that started out trying to prove premise that "Republicans reject reality" and then goes on to complain about confirmation bias, talk about some thick, delicious irony sprinkled with a heaping, helping of JUNK SCIENCE.I'm sure the cons on this forum will disagree, disregard and disavow.
Chris Mooney wrote The Republican Brain from a liberal perspective, geared toward other liberal readers. The majority of the book confirms opinions that many scientifically-minded liberals hold about conservative bias and adds the latest in psychological research to explain why the dissemination of facts has become highly polarized in this country. To summarize:
1. Republicans distort facts for their benefit far more often than Democrats--global warming and history are cited most in this book, although Mooney uses a wide variety of examples.
2. There are known psychological reasons for these differences including development and use of different parts of the brain. These differences go on to influence personality, friends, career path, and even which states people move to. The most interesting study is the "smart idiot" effect, which means that politically knowledgeable conservatives are often more biased and less persuadable than ignorant conservatives or liberals (i.e., conservatives engage in motivated reasoning).
3. The liberal/conservative divide has widened over the past few decades not only because of the conservative revolution of the 1970s-80s, but also because of the growth of cable news and the Internet. The new sources allow conservatives to have easy access to like-minded thinkers and a wide array of "experts" to back up their erroneous claims and create a new reality that conforms to their worldview.
Overall, Mooney does an good job addressing the above points, and the book is well worth the read for anyone interested in the partisan divide. However, the book still left me disappointed and I found myself rushing through the detailed study with Dr. Everett Young, which should have contained less statistics and more analysis. As Mooney explains in the prelude, his previous book, The Republican War on Science, was highly popular among liberals but did nothing to change conservative opinions. The reason of course is the inherent propensity in conservatives to predispose of any information that contradicts their deeply held beliefs. But any liberal who has attempted to debate a conservative already knows this: facts, logic, and scientific reasoning always fail in such discussions. Mooney's writing style is geared toward liberals and he admits that conservatives will not buy his arguments--although at least now he knows why!
I was hoping for more advice on how liberals should address and debate conservatives considering the advances in psychology. Mooney offers a few tidbits, mostly in the conclusion. To address the problems with rewriting history, liberals need to leave the debunking to the experts and instead tell their own stories about historical figures that are accurate, interesting, and emphasize liberal values. He also elaborates on a political point that has been discussed among liberals in recent years--it is pointless to try and compromise with conservatives (especially Obama vs Congress). Liberals need to "be more conservative" not in their political views, but by acquiring some of the positive traits of conservatives such as unity, loyalty, and shared purpose. This theme is similar to the "pep talk" that Mooney has given to scientists in the past and it applies to any advocacy group looking for influence.
Based on the recent advances in liberal vs. conservative psychology, there is a book to be written about how liberals should address and debate conservatives. From the Republican Brain, we now know why conservatives refuse to accept certain facts, but what is now needed it a detailed guide for how liberals should go about changing conservative falsehoods and winning arguments.
I hesitate to give this book only 3/5 stars, but this book has some repetition, loses focus at times in the second half, and has some undeveloped ideas. Other authors such as Malcolm Gladwell and recently Charles Duhigg are better at grasping the applications of psychological studies. But considering that Mooney only worked on this book for a year, he is well on his way to becoming an expert on the liberal vs. conservative divide.
The conclusions should follow the research not the other way around.
There is physiological evidence showing this to be the case. Do a search on 'amygdala'.Liar. That's the other hallmark of the left.Conservatism is a fear based ideology.We are all liberals when we are children. Some of us grow up, others remain liberal.If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.
Yeah so do large swaths of what people call the "news media" (primarily 24 hour cable based "news" outlets), it's become mostly infotainment with a heavy emphasis on the "tainment" portion and much of it is heavily biased one way or the other and has programming that caters to the propensity toward confirmation bias of it's target audience.The science has long been in. As I've been writing on these pages as long as I've been here, and other sites before, Fox Noise isn't there for information but to establish an emotional connection.
I'm afraid the problem has morphed beyond just tradition media my friend.My God, so many fat dumb Americans still actually believe their Government/Corporate Media is credible. Whether it's Fox News or other, they're all owned by just a few large Corporations.
And those Corporations are in bed with Government. The American Media is a sham. I'm shocked so many Americans haven't figured that out yet.
