Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Informed – Fox, Not So Much

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has published a new study that measures the public’s knowledge of national and international news. The results are not likely to surprise anyone but Fox viewers, who come in at the bottom of the list (they probably don’t know that there is a list – or what a list is). And, although I’m not surprised to see the Daily Show/Colbert Report place high on the list, it is a bit of a jolt to see them at the very top. It would not likely shock Stephen Colbert, and not just because he would have felt it in his gut. While still with the Daily Show he explained why their audience reportedly got much of their news from the comedy program.

“Stephen Colbert, a Daily Show correspondent, has said that he doesn’t believe that viewers learn anything from the show. He contends that, if they weren’t already knowledgeable about political and social affairs, they wouldn’t get the jokes.”

That, of course, is true, and may help to explain these new statistics.

Knowledge Levels By News Source:
News Source High Mod Low
Daily Show/Colbert Report 54 25 21
Major Newspaper websites 54 26 20
News Hour w/Jim Lehrer 53 19 28
O’Reilly Factor 51 32 17
National Public Radio 50 29 21
Rush Limbaugh 50 29 21
News magazines 48 27 25
TV News websites 44 33 23
Daily newspaper 43 31 26
CNN 41 30 29
Google, Yahoo, etc. 41 35 24
Network evening news 38 33 29
Online news blogs 37 26 37
Local TV news 35 33 32
Fox News 35 30 35
Network morning shows 34 36 30

These results confirm previous studies that showed Fox viewers as being, not only the least informed, but also more likely to hold beliefs about news that were demonstrably false. You might think that the quantity and frequency of these studies would have some effect on how the rest of the media deals with Fox. They are simply not to be taken seriously. And their viewers are not an audience that is open to diverse points of view. They are too focused on their fabrications of reality.

While I have not seen a study that confirms this, I don’t believe that Fox viewers are misinformed because of Fox. I believe that they self-select the news source that comports with their prejudices. Anyone who suggests that such an audience presents an opportunity for progressives to convey an alternate view is ignoring the deep-seated, built-in biases that attract an audience to Fox in the first place. Consequently, Democrats would have absolutely nothing to gain by appearing on a Fox-sponsored debate.

The study also makes some good points in support of the position that a decentralized and diverse media universe promotes greater knowledge. The study reports that…

“…people who use more news sources know more than those who use fewer sources.”

Some of this may seem obvious, but the Republican majority commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission still have to be convinced. They are presently conducting public hearings to determine whether media ownership caps should be loosened or repealed. This, despite the fact that numerous studies have agreed with the Pew Center’s conclusions. In October of 2006, the Benton Foundation released a set of studies that…

“…make clear that media consolidation does not create better, more local or more diverse media content. To the contrary, they strongly suggest that media ownership rules should be tightened not relaxed.”

And even the FCC’s own research concurred in a report that was buried, and ordered destroyed, by then FCC Chairman Michael Powell. [You can help persuade the FCC not to allow more consolidation by contacting them through the FreePress-sponsored StopBig Media campaign].

The importance of having varied and independent sources for news has never been clearer. The myopia of Fox and it’s audience is both frightening and depressing. If we ever hope to address the larger issues that face our country and our world, we will need an informed and energized citizenry. But the effect of corporate media megaliths works in diametric opposition to that goal. They are, in fact, producing a nation steeped in ignorance and division, and this study is just another nail in that coffin. Those of us who see through the veil must continue to fight for a truly free press, the keystone of democracy and the only path to true liberty.

The Pew Center has an online version of the survey that you can complete and compare your score with the rest of the survey group.

Democrats And Fox: Still Misunderstood

David Bauder of the Associated Press attempts to unravel the knotted complexities of the Democratic Party’s objection to Fox News hosting their presidential primary debates.

Note to David Bauder: It’s not complicated, and you’ve still missed point.

Bauder begins his exercise by asserting that Democrats are engaged in this dispute in order to “target” Fox, just as they do President Bush. So right off the bat he has reduced the dispute to a partisan triviality and is dismissing the genuine concerns that the network is verifiably unfriendly territory for Democrats. Worse than that, however, he perpetuates the utterly false and shallow accusation that by ditching Fox, Democrats are afraid to face the psuedo-news network:

“The risk to this strategy is it could make the candidates look like, well, weenies.”

Note to David Bauder: On the contrary, it makes them look stronger.

There is nothing about standing up for yourself, refusing to let known enemies exploit you, and challenging liars and propagandists, that can reasonably be construed as weakness. Fox’ own Bill O’Reilly pulls this stunt all the time, calling those who decline to appear on his program cowards. The real reason people turn down O’Reilly, and Fox News debates, is that they don’t want to dirty themselves with the biased, low-brow, anti-intellectual, sensationalism that Fox dispenses by the truckload. What’s more, poking a finger in the eye of the biggest bully on the cable news block is not the act of a coward.

The ludicrous notion that assertively rejecting Fox suggests an inability to face hostile foreign leaders, as Bauder reports, fails on two grounds: As previously noted, it is strength, not weakness, that is displayed by the shunning of Fox; and Fox is not the equivalent of a sovereign state that might have an impact on U. S. national security and it’s just plain silly to elevate them to such status.

While there has been voluminous documentation that Fox operates as a virtual arm of the Republican PR machine, Bauder obliging illustrates the problem in his own article, so we don’t even have to turn the page for corroborating evidence of Fox bias:

“A feud against Fox might not be the best long-term plan, either. People there have been known to hold a grudge.”

This ironic, and apparently inadvertent, admission really tells the whole story. Fox is not an impartial observer. If you cross them, they will “hold a grudge.” And Bauder acknowledges that they “have been known” to do so in the past.

Note to David Bauder: A reputable news organization does not hold grudges. And Democrats who refuse to certify Fox as a legitimate journalistic enterprise deserve praise for their integrity and their courage.