CNN set to be exposed by O'Keefe

#76
#76
FLVOL_79 said:
Maybe its the beers I've been slamming but what questions did they ask?........................................................................................................:unsure:

I mean I could walk into the hood and ask people to divide 56 by 8 and probably replicate the same results..
Click to expand...

RTFA

"Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
Septic said:
RTFA

"Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad"
Click to expand...

So what if 87% of them worked evening shifts and didnt have cable tv or watched tv?

You know what I mean..slinging burgers, dish washing, spooge mopping, etc.



=edit=

Funny thing the only people I work with who listen to NPR during their waking sober hours are the biggest pieces of shciesse at work. Correlation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
Septic said:
RTFA

"Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad"
Click to expand...

You don't watch Watters World do you? He shows how ignorant people really are on current or past events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#79
#79
Septic said:
That's all well and good and you're right, correlation doesn't equate to causation.... But, the fox watchers scored worse than people who got no news.

I mean.

Damn.

How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the demographic data on the Fox News viewers. If it skews older, less affluent, and less educated, that would explain a lot. It has been widely demonstrated (by Pew Research, in particular) that people falling into those demographics, especially less affluent and educated, are not as informed as others. They also vote at lower rates than the general population. I would guarantee you that the NPR listeners are more cosmopolitan, affluent, and educated; that is why they are better informed, not because they listen to NPR. Most of these surveys confuse correlation with causation.

Fairleigh Dickinson tries to downplay this aspect of the survey in their write-up, but these are really pretty small differences. Yeah, Fox viewers are the most uninformed/misinformed because they only get 1 of the questions right, but MSNBC viewers only get 1.2 questions right, which is the same as if they had watched nothing. About half of the NPR listeners also only get 1 question right. If NPR viewers were getting 4 or 5 of them correct, or even 3 correct, then the differences would be much more striking.

Sounds like the public generally speaking is badly uninformed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#80
#80
I'm not a math scientist but its apparent that many liberal leaning tards people have literally no understanding of math and how it applies to polling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#81
#81
05_never_again said:
I'd like to see the demographic data on the Fox News viewers. If it skews older, less affluent, and less educated, that would explain a lot. It has been widely demonstrated (by Pew Research, in particular) that people falling into those demographics, especially less affluent and educated, are not as informed as others. They also vote at lower rates than the general population. I would guarantee you that the NPR listeners are more cosmopolitan, affluent, and educated; that is why they are better informed, not because they listen to NPR. Most of these surveys confuse correlation with causation.

Fairleigh Dickinson tries to downplay this aspect of the survey in their write-up, but these are really pretty small differences. Yeah, Fox viewers are the most uninformed/misinformed because they only get 1 of the questions right, but MSNBC viewers only get 1.2 questions right, which is the same as if they had watched nothing. About half of the NPR listeners also only get 1 question right. If NPR viewers were getting 4 or 5 of them correct, or even 3 correct, then the differences would be much more striking.

Sounds like the public generally speaking is badly uninformed.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would be interesting to see the demographics of those polled, beyond the "source" of their news.
 
#82
#82
FLVOL_79 said:
I'm not a math scientist but its apparent that many liberal leaning tards people have literally no understanding of math and how it applies to polling.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could elaborate on what or how it's "apparent" instead of making generalized blanket statements that appear to be based solely on personal opinion?
 
#83
#83
Septic said:
Perhaps you could elaborate on what or how it's "apparent" instead of making generalized blanket statements that appear to be based solely on personal opinion?
Click to expand...

Reference 2016 election.

giphy.gif





















(thats you in the blue shirt mouth agape..typical)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#84
#84
luthervol said:
CNN has vied strongly in the ratings war. And by making the corporate decision that regressive globalism / public responsibility be damned / party collusion was a higher priority than journalistic integrity, truth, and a more informed society; they have spearheaded the decline in msm. What are we willing to sacrifice for viewers / $$? For CNN, the answer was "pretty much everything".
Click to expand...

Truly, I corrected your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
Septic said:
You're unwittingly conceding to them by ignoring their points and resorting to whatever it is you're attempting with insults.

I don't want you to pull a hammy, so start slow, couple an insult with a fact or bit of data that shows how or why they're wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, I just responded to one part of the post with a funny gif. And it's even better because I'm a fan of the BBC version of "Top Gear."

Too bad some have to take it so serious...
 
#86
#86
FLVOL_79 said:
Reference 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Cute gif, but it doesn't answer the question. You made a mile wide statement about liberals not understanding how polls work.

Referencing that the 2016 polls were wrong has nothing to do with how they function and it certainly doesn't support and argument that " many liberals literally have no understanding."

Was that really your argument? Sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
Grand Vol said:
Actually, I just responded to one part of the post with a funny gif. And it's even better because I'm a fan of the BBC version of "Top Gear."

Too bad some have to take it so serious...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're pointing this out, my post wasn't in reference to or a reply to your top gear gif.
 
#88
#88
Septic said:
Cute gif, but it doesn't answer the question. You made a mile wide statement about liberals not understanding how polls work.

Referencing that the 2016 polls were wrong has nothing to do with how they function and it certainly doesn't support and argument that " many liberals literally have no understanding."

Was that really your argument? Sheesh.
Click to expand...

You refernced a poll that literally was like saying:

We interviewed 2000 random people and asked them if they loved air. 1300 said no. Obviously 65% of Americans hate air...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#89
#89
Septic said:
I'm not sure why you're pointing this out, my post wasn't in reference to or a reply to your top gear gif.
Click to expand...

It was in response to your post in reference to Luther's butt-hurted-ness over my reply.

Like the VN version of six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
 
#90
#90
luthervol said:
That's a load of crap.

If you think every news organization puts the same premium on journalistic integrity vs. profits, you're the delusional one.

That's like saying since every one sins, they therefore must sin equally and any attempt to differentiate is futile.

Fox was the leader and the worst offender. The demise of msm that we have witnessed lies on their shoulders. There are sill many news sources that hold truth and fairness at a premium. They all have flaws and occasionally let their biases show through, but to claim they are all equal is asinine.
Click to expand...

Feel free to stay in the safety of your closed mind.
 
#91
#91
FLVOL_79 said:
Reference 2016 election.

giphy.gif





















(thats you in the blue shirt mouth agape..typical)
Click to expand...

The polling was actually fairly accurate for the 2016 election. In the days before the election Hillary had a 2-4 percentage point lead in the national popular poll. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Polls in many swing states showed Trump either with a slight lead (Ohio) or within the MoE (basically every other swing state).

The fact that he won the election was mildly surprising, because he had to win every swing state and Clinton only needed a couple, but it shouldn't have shocked anyone.

What was completely inaccurate were the group of pundits and "analysts" who liked to interpret these polls for us, viewed of course through their Beltway/NYC prism in which they simply could not fathom somebody like Trump winning the Presidency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#92
#92
MT LeConte said:
I really don't get your point. I agree that Fox News is unAmerican. They've done a terrible disservice to this country for years.

The article also says "There's a shocker - a CNN editor thinks a rival network is horrible". What do you think they say about CNN and MSNBC over at Fox?
Click to expand...

It says there's a shocker trying to make fun while leaving out part of her comment.

Funny, you think Fox is unAmerican while my point was she was basically saying she could vomit because Fox was so American.
 
#94
#94
05_never_again said:
The polling was actually fairly accurate for the 2016 election. In the days before the election Hillary had a 2-4 percentage point lead in the national popular poll. She won the popular vote by 2.1%. Polls in many swing states showed Trump either with a slight lead (Ohio) or within the MoE (basically every other swing state).

The fact that he won the election was mildly surprising, because he had to win every swing state and Clinton only needed a couple, but it shouldn't have shocked anyone.

What was completely inaccurate were the group of pundits and "analysts" who liked to interpret these polls for us, viewed of course through their Beltway/NYC prism in which they simply could not fathom somebody like Trump winning the Presidency.
Click to expand...


Really?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLK-2j65das[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg0Qss1ah_Y[/youtube]

:good!: :eek:lol: :lolabove:

-edit- Trigger warning for libtards like Dink..there is metal guitar in one of these videos!
 
#96
#96
FLVOL_79 said:
Really?
:good!: :eek:lol: :lolabove:
Click to expand...

I meant it was only mildly surprising to me, and it should have been only mildly surprising to anybody paying attention to the polls in the swing states.

I agree that it was a total shock to the system to many progressives.
 
#100
#100
luthervol said:
And we know which news station the most ignorant of those watch.
Click to expand...

Obviously not FOX. The majority of these illiterates never heard of Jesse Watters. These same fools were democrats and could probably tell you what Kanyes shoe size is. You know.....real world stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top