Since so much of the blogospherical comment on media coverage of the Iraq war has focused on the BBC (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not), I was interested to read this Asia Times report (via Brian Leiter ) which tells us that there is a strong correlation between getting your news from Rupert Murdoch’s Fox and having false beliefs about the war. That doesn’t show, of course, that people got their false beliefs from watching Fox, another possibility is that having a lots of false beliefs just predisposes people to tune into that channel. Here’s the end of the article:
The study also debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of exposure to news.
Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news “very closely”, were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news “somewhat closely” or “not closely at all” held fewer misperceptions.
Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA.
As Kevin Drum pointed out, there’s a pretty big methological flaw in the survey. At least from the reports, it seemed like it only checked accuracy of beliefs about propositions whose truth was unhelpful to the pro-war side. (I’m not certain this is true, hence the reference to published reports. If I’m wrong, I’d love to know.)
It’s not too surprising that Republicans were more likely to get the wrong answer to questions when the right answer seems pro-Democrat.
However, it should be pointed out that this survey was concerned specifically with facts about the war in Iraq, in which the facts disagreed with the amdinistration’s build-up and talking points. I’d imagine you could relatively easily craft a survey that would show Republicans to be better informed than Democrats, although you might not see the same interesting link to news sources.
Actually, it strikes me that this might be an interesting way to try and get a handle on the actual biases of media sources. Not through some close reading of texts and Nexis searches, but by actually looking at the effects the news sources have on it’s consumers in terms of their beliefs. Obviously there’s a self-selection problem there, but I bet you could pull something interesting out of this.
In addition to the flaw noted above, the more obvious issue is the directionality of the results: Presumably, as I noted Friday, people predisposed to believe President Bush are more likely to watch Fox News?
James, are you saying that people who are predisposed to believe President Bush are more likely to have false beliefs about the war? Just what are you saying about Bush?
Anyway, I bet people who watch the Daily Show have no beliefs at all.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the misperceptions in the report were verified to be misperceptions, as thoroughly as it is possible to establish the falsity of any belief or idea.
If you feel you could organize a survey testing misperceptions in the opposite direction, you could either approach the Heritage Foundation for a grant, or establish if such a survey had already been carried out. If not the Heritage Foundation, there are more foundations than I can enumerate here. (Here’s a fruitful search string you might find helpful)
Grants for these studies are easily obtained. I’ll resist the urge to made snide quips about John Lott, because I’m sure examples could be found in the other direction.
And you know what? Make your study fine-grained. Select statements which can be objectively proven. You may actually contribute to our knowledge of social policy. But if you slant your questions so respondants are forced to choose betweenTo only check “the accuracy of beliefs about propositions whose truth was unhelpful to the pro-war side” doesn not seem to me to be a methodoligical flaw as asserted above.
Nothing said above invalidates the conclusion that “those who watch FOX for their news more frequently hold false beliefs about the Saddam 9/11 link, WMD, the popularity of the war in Iraq than are those who depend upon PBS.”
The study is certainly limited, but to be limited is not to be flawed. Of course it would be interesting to test the perceptions of the “anti-war” side as well, but failing to do so does nothing to invalidate the studies findings.
Are those who watch PBS for their news more deluded about, say, global warming? Perhaps. I’ll care a little more when 100 billion is allocated to air condition Antartica.
Actually, I read the entire report about the results and I’ve taked post graduate courses in administering surveys and in statistics. I’ve administered surveys myself, and I know how hard it can be.
The survey may focus on a subcategory that you disapprove of, but no, that does not mean it is biased or methodologically flawed. Those terms have explicit meanings. If I were to write about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and I talked 100% about bad things the Israelis did to the Palestinians, you might disapprove of my choice of subject matter (and my conclusions would probably be flawed) but if I stuck to enumerating facts, that would not make my study biased.
I don’t like it when I encounter similiarly one-sided reports like the hypothetical one I mentioned, but they are not prima facie biased.
As I say, you could design a survey which was ideologically switched, and, assuming you were sure that you were testing people’s perceptions of objectively verifiable facts, and your results were fine-grained, I would not call it biased or methodoloically flawed.
“Fine-grained” means that your results capture the actual scope of people’s possible responses. If you are testing perceptions and conclusions, then you would correlate perceptions to conclusions. If you think you can do it, write a grant. I guarantee somebody will fund it. And you’ll get far more publicity for it, too.
Well “To only check “the accuracy of beliefs about propositions whose truth was unhelpful to the pro-war side” doesn not seem to me to be a methodoligical flaw as asserted above.” — no, but it guarantees that the general conclusions will be flawed.
So, it is fundamentally dishonest and calculated to mislead, but basically fraudulent. …
So, it is fundamentally dishonest and calculated to mislead, but basically fraudulent.
It is no such thing. It is a piece of data that doesn’t fit into your world view. People who do research are under absolutely no obligation to ensure they somehow “offset” any conclusion you might draw. Such a remark reflects a resentment at the messenger.
Listen to yourself! The point of research is to establish an item of truth, not to accommodate “all sides.” Charles Darwin wasn’t obligated to give “equal time” to creationists. If you lose an argument then you should change your opinion. You’re saying the study is fraudulent because it doesn’t find errors that liberals have. Grow up! Do you think studies linking smoking to cancer should include just so much countervailing evidence that there’s no link? And if none exists, should researchers should sit on their results until they find some?
Smoking causes lung cancer! Humans evolved from other species of life! The Invasion of Iraq was based on lies! Watching Fox misleads! If you can make a case that these propositions are not so, then do so!
what anon is saying is this: assuming that people who watch Fox News are more likely to have misperceptions is an amazingly nonsensical and dishonest conclusion to draw for the data.
Let’s make it nice and simple:
1. People who watch Fox News are more likely to support President Bush and the war.
2. The misperceptions in question involve ideas that support President Bush and the war.
3. No questions were asked about misperceptions likely to be held by opponents to the war (“america went to war alone”, etc.)
People who support the war were therefore only shown to be more likely to believe pro-war misconceptions than others. That is, to put it mildly, completely obvious.
If the survey had included an even set of propositions, stuff either evenly advantageous(sp?) to both sides or stuff evenly devided between the sides, then it might have actually proved something. Otherwise, the conclusions drawn are absolute partisan nonsense.
heh, interesting spelling on the “deviding”. Should preview next time since there’s no edit.
Obviously, I can see why people label these misconceptions as pro- or anti-war. But it is worth pointing out that people could be pro-war without believing any of those things and that the case for anything isn’t strengthened by being based on demonstrably false propositions.
Nobody seems to have pointed out that large proportions of the viewers of the other stations CBS etc. shared the relevent misconceptions. Strange given that most conservatives would accept Fox has a right wing bias but that the others are liberal-biased, and the figures seem to cast grave doubt on that.
People seem to be dragging in a lot of baggage that the survey was not intended to address. The purpose of the survey was simply to discover where the large number of people who had been misinformed about Iraq (a group that had been identified by previous surveys) were getting their information. The survey raises a host of additional questions that the results can’t answer, like whether the misinformation affected support for the war and whether the war could have proceeded without that support.
Also, I fail to see why the survey should have addressed “anti-war” misperceptions — i.e., “It was all a neo-fascist/imperialist plot to steal Iraqi oil” — because only a small number of people believe such things, and there’s no reason to suspect those notions were being promulgated by mainsteam media outlets.
People seem to be dragging in a lot of baggage that the survey was not intended to address. The purpose of the survey was simply to discover where the large number of people who had been misinformed about Iraq (a group that had been identified by previous surveys) were getting their information.
I find that claim dubious for two reasons. First, at least one of the items which the article claimed was “misinformation” is actually true - namely the ties between the former Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. There has been enough information put out regarding meetings between high-ranking Baathist officials and Al-Qaeda members to show a link between the two regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein knew of or assisted in the 9/11 attacks (which has never been alleged by the administration). The WMD question is also still up in the air although the Kay Report does seem to indicate that the former Iraqi regime was planning on trying to reconstitute their WMD program if the sanctions were lifted.
Which brings up my second point, there seems to be even more misinformation believed by and put out by those opposed to the resumption of the Iraqi War. Not merely the strawman arguments about imperialism and trying to steal Iraqi oil but beliefs such as “the United States is going it alone” or “the United States armed Saddam Hussein and put or kept him in power” or “the Bush administration had no plan for the post-war Iraq” or “Bush said there was an ‘imminent’ threat and therefore lied” etc. Frankly I find it suspicious that a survey of misinformation and where people learned it from would not at least examine some of these more widely spread beliefs and their sources as opposed to merely focusing on the “misinformation” believed by pro-liberation proponents.
The one-sided nature of this “survey” and the fact that it seemed to focus on things which may not actually qualify as “misinformation” while ignoring more wide-spread misinformation, lends credence to the view that this is merely yet another partisan puff piece masquerading as an academic work IMNHO.
The claims that Al Qaeda had any relevant ties to Saddam Hussein are unproved in my knowledge. I think individuals who repeat them to be liers, or parrots. Remember BTW that Al Qaeda is not a formal organisation. In fact it seems that it is only a name that allows to magnificate the actions of small groups, as long as they follow broadly defined lines of action. That may give them the support of some of the rich Saudi fundamentalists, some of whom have been long-time associates of Bush, if they are not so now.
The USA wanted the war, it was their choice. The rest of the world was ordered to agree or shut up. The UK and some right-wing governments who don’t care about their own population have agreed. France, Germany, Russia, Brasil, Mexico, China, India and other have not.
And the USA, along other western states amongst which France, have helped Saddam in the past, till the invasion of Kuwait. You see as long as he killed communists, or that some of those he killed were called communists, the USA would not mind the deads.
DSW
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review