There May Be Hope for Flock Yet

[silverscreenselect]

Fox viewers transformed after watching CNN for 30 days, report finds

Fox News viewers who were paid to watch CNN for 30 days eventually became more skeptical and less likely to buy into fake news, according to a new study.
The study titled “The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers” by David E Brockman and Joshua L Kalla was conducted in September 2020 and published last week.

“Of 763 qualifying participants, we then randomised 40 per cent to treatment group. To change the slant of their media diet, we offered treatment group participants $15 per hour to watch 7 hours of CNN per week, during Sept. 2020, prioritising the hours at which participants indicated they typically watched Fox News,” the study said.

The study found changes in attitudes and policy preferences about Covid-19, evaluations of then president Donald Trump and Republican candidates as well as elected officials. “Despite regular Fox viewers being largely strong partisans, we found manifold effects of changing the slant of their media diets on their factual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of issues’ importance, and overall political views,” the authors of the study said.

They found that participants became more likely to agree that if Donald Trump made a mistake, Fox News would not cover it. “CNN provided extensive coverage of Covid-19, which included information about the severity of the Covid-19 crisis and poor aspects of Trump’s performance handling Covid-19. Fox News covered COVID-19 much less,” said the study. It found that Fox News gave viewers information about why the disease is not a serious threat, while CNN provided a lot more information about the disease itself.

Fox News covered racial issues “extensively but selectively about Biden and other Democrats’ supposed positions on them and about outbreaks of violence at protests for racial justice in American cities”. The study found that CNN provided little information about either. The two networks also covered the issue of voting by mail, but again differed on the information provided about it in addition to offering different frames. A survey was conducted after three days on the participants, which captured significant shifts in beliefs.

On Covid, viewers who switched were six percentage points more likely to believe other countries handled the virus better than the US, five points more likely to believe that people suffer from whats known as “long Covid”, and 11 points less likely to say a president should focus more on containing violent protests than the pandemic. On Mr Trump, there was a nearly three point decrease in the “feeling thermometer rating” after switching from Fox to CNN. On then-presidential candidate Mr Biden, switchers were 13 points less likely to agree that “we’ll see many more police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists” if he was elected and 10 points less likely to believe his supporters were happy when police officers get shot. And on mail in voting, switchers were seven points more likely to support after watching CNN.

“We found large effects of watching CNN instead of Fox News on participants’ factual perceptions of current events (i.e., beliefs) and knowledge about the 2020 presidential candidates’ positions,” the researchers said. “They discovered changes in attitudes about Donald Trump and Republicans as well as a large effect on their opinions about Covid.”

The researchers concluded that this is an effect in part of “partisan coverage filtering”, wherein partisan outlets selectively report information, leading viewers to learn a biased set of facts. “Consistent with this, treated participants concluded that Fox concealed negative information about President Trump. Partisan media does not only present its side an electoral advantage — it may present a challenge for democratic accountability,” the study said.

This is what happens when you live in a news silo. Exhibit A: Flock and his wristbands. Exhibit B: The Russians who get a slanted view of the war in Ukraine.

[flockofseagulls104]

Never stops.

[silverscreenselect]

Never stops.

A typical Flock non-response when he has no reasoned response (which is most of the time).

[tlynn78]

Never stops.

A typical Flock non-response when he has no reasoned response (which is most of the time).

Yes, Flock should definitely go out of his way to "reason" with a grown ass man who continues to act like a pre-pubescent child who doesn't know what to do with his 'feelings' so he just pulls hair and pokes sticks at others for attention.
He's just not into you, SSS. Accept it.

[flockofseagulls104]

I see this bored as a microcosm of what's happening on a national basis.

I think I am the loudest voice speaking out against the e-bigots on this bored. Look what they do.
They take whatever I say, and they try and find 'experts' to dispute it. Of course, there will always be experts on any side of an issue that are completely and totally sure that their opinion is correct and good. What the hell does that prove?

Do they debate it? No. I tried to just show other people's perspectives of different issues without injecting myself into it. They didn't debate the perspectives to see where the messanger was coming from. They attacked the messengers so they didn't have to debate it. They attacked the website, even attacking it's name as a reason not to even consider the perspective's merits. They brought in 'experts' who had opposing viewpoints, as if those experts were completely unbiased and pure as wind driven snow. And of course, they attacked me. So I said the hell with it. Pissing in the wind.

So now, as the person who disputes their narrative the most, I have my own personal stalker, who answers every post I make with HIS side of the story and always includes a slight at me. Every post I make, whether it's directed to a specific individual or not, is met with an onslaught from the e-bigots, who change the subject to something else, who tell you I'm weird, tell you I'm stupid, tell you I have no mind of my own and am just parroting their chosen boogyman of the day, tell you that I hate everybody and build a totally ridiculous characterization of me. Anything to avoid having to address the real issue I am talking about.

Then look at the National Democratic Party, the main stream media, and the social media companies. Look at what they do to any person or entity that questions their narrative. Look at what they did to President Trump for 4 years, and continue to do today. Twitter, facebook and the rest went so far as to censor and cancel a SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, while letting the ayatollahs of Iran, terrorist networks and others go untouched. They cancel people every day who dare to question covid policy, election irregularities, anything they deem is 'misinformation'. Who the FUCK are they to determine that?

They've built and cartoon characterizations of every prominent conservative who threatens them. There were characterizations of Reagan, both Bushes, Gingrich and especially Trump. Where's the cartoon versions of obviously ridiculous people like Pelosi, Schumer. Schiff Harris and ESPECIALLY Biden? No, everything they do and say is serious business, no matter how stupid, innane and hateful it is.

So, you BBs who stay behind the fence. Look at what they do to me here, and extrapolate it up and see if you can see the similarities, as I do.

[silverscreenselect]

Do they debate it? No. I tried to just show other people's perspectives of different issues without injecting myself into it. They didn't debate the perspectives to see where the messanger was coming from. They attacked the messengers so they didn't have to debate it. They attacked the website, even attacking it's name as a reason not to even consider the perspective's merits. They brought in 'experts' who had opposing viewpoints, as if those experts were completely unbiased and pure as wind driven snow. And of course, they attacked me. So I said the hell with it. Pissing in the wind.

The reason that those of us who oppose your point of view bring in experts is because they are experts who have a greater degree of knowledge in a particular area than you or I do. You never bring in experts. You only reject what they have to say. This boils down to a five-year-old saying "Because I said so."

What the "e=bigots" on this Bored do is to inject a dose of reality and expertise into these debates which you summarily reject and resort to screaming and name calling. You moan about cancel culture. MIsinformation is misinformation if there's no factual basis to it. And over and over and over again, the arguments you make have no factual basis. Tucker Carlson and Lauren Boebert are not factual basis for anything.

If you would one single time put something factual instead of your vitriol-filled opinion into these arguments, then it would be possible to have a debate. I disagree with Spock a lot but at least he does refer to some documented sources to support some of the points he makes. You, on the other hand, ascribe hypothetical "agendas" to marginalized people who just want to live their lives in peace. If you'd been around sixty years ago, you'd have been complaining about the parents and grandparents of these same liberals trying to inject a racial agenda because black people wanted to sit at the same lunch counter with whites.

And if you want any of the BBs who haven't ventured into the political arena to support you, rants like this post aren't the way to go about that.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ignore the stalker behind the curtain.

[Beebs52]

The reason that those of us who oppose your point of view bring in experts is because they are experts who have a greater degree of knowledge in a particular area than you or I do. You never bring in experts.

SSS, serious question. Who do you consider an expert, either poly sci/gvt-wise or psychology-wise? Specific, objective expertise, and who defined that specific expertise?
Curious.

[flockofseagulls104]

The reason that those of us who oppose your point of view bring in experts is because they are experts who have a greater degree of knowledge in a particular area than you or I do. You never bring in experts.

SSS, serious question. Who do you consider an expert, either poly sci/gvt-wise or psychology-wise? Specific, objective expertise, and who defined that specific expertise?
Curious.

I certainly do and have, stalker, but you negate them as biased, criticize them, defame them, whereas your experts have no agenda at all, somehow.....

[silverscreenselect]

SSS, serious question. Who do you consider an expert, either poly sci/gvt-wise or psychology-wise? Specific, objective expertise, and who defined that specific expertise?
Curious.

People I consider as experts are the ones whose opinions I have quoted or linked to in the past. When challenged by Flock (who never lists his sources other than "our Partner Trump") or others, I've listed them and will continue to do so. I believe in regard to the "gay agenda" issue, I specifically mentioned Michael Warner, whom Krox had referenced.

But I find it tiring to find source material, link to it, quote from it, and then have Flock dismiss it because these people must have an agenda or otherwise they wouldn't be challenging his opinions on the subject. You'll note that Flock repeatedly takes pride in not reading expert opinion because he doesn't believe in the experts because they oppose what he says. The only "expert" I know of that Flock referenced was the embalmer from Alabama.

[Beebs52]

SSS, serious question. Who do you consider an expert, either poly sci/gvt-wise or psychology-wise? Specific, objective expertise, and who defined that specific expertise?
Curious.

People I consider as experts are the ones whose opinions I have quoted or linked to in the past. When challenged by Flock (who never lists his sources other than "our Partner Trump") or others, I've listed them and will continue to do so. I believe in regard to the "gay agenda" issue, I specifically mentioned Michael Warner, whom Krox had referenced.

But I find it tiring to find source material, link to it, quote from it, and then have Flock dismiss it because these people must have an agenda or otherwise they wouldn't be challenging his opinions on the subject. You'll note that Flock repeatedly takes pride in not reading expert opinion because he doesn't believe in the experts because they oppose what he says. The only "expert" I know of that Flock referenced was the embalmer from Alabama.

You did not define your parameters for an expert.

[flockofseagulls104]

SSS, serious question. Who do you consider an expert, either poly sci/gvt-wise or psychology-wise? Specific, objective expertise, and who defined that specific expertise?
Curious.

People I consider as experts are the ones whose opinions I have quoted or linked to in the past. When challenged by Flock (who never lists his sources other than "our Partner Trump") or others, I've listed them and will continue to do so. I believe in regard to the "gay agenda" issue, I specifically mentioned Michael Warner, whom Krox had referenced.

But I find it tiring to find source material, link to it, quote from it, and then have Flock dismiss it because these people must have an agenda or otherwise they wouldn't be challenging his opinions on the subject. You'll note that Flock repeatedly takes pride in not reading expert opinion because he doesn't believe in the experts because they oppose what he says. The only "expert" I know of that Flock referenced was the embalmer from Alabama.

You did not define your parameters for an expert.

LOL> You expose yourself again, stalker.
I NEVER even hinted in that thread that I thought that enbalmer was correct or incorrect in anything he said. My whole point in that thread was our good doctor's e-bigotry. And he still hasn't answered my 2 questions. Which are that he define what he means by 'anti-vaxxer' and if the photo in the enbalmer's story was, in fact, of blood clots and not a cartoon.
WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT NEITHER OF YOU ACTUALLY READS ANY OF THE STUFF YOU SO VEHEMENTLY CRITICIZE!

You would do better just shutting up. I only see the shit you write when someone else quotes it. I can only imagine the other bullshit you post that I don't see. Maybe I should post a guess as to what your stalking trolls are and others can tell me how accurate I am.

[flockofseagulls104]

You know what, stalker, If I am so wrong about everything I think and post, why don't you just shut up about it and let it speak for itself.
Most of my posts are answers to you and the rest of the e-bigots. Occasionally I'll start a thread or a topic myself. Unless you think everybody else here is ignorant and needs your guidance on what they should think about what I post, why don't you let them decide for themselves? If your viewpoint is so virtuous and all-knowing, you should be confident that everyone else will see through my dumb and hateful parroting of Tucker Carlson, or whomever you don't like today. And why do you think anyone else is drawn into your vitrolic personal swipes at me?

[silverscreenselect]

Most of my posts are unhinged, vitriolic, baseless rants about what you and the other Bored liberals post.

Fixed it for ya.

[Bob Juch]

[tlynn78]

Congrats - this might be your first step on the road to self-awareness. Best of luck.

[flockofseagulls104]

Congrats - this might be your first step on the road to self-awareness. Best of luck.

I doubt he has the least understanding of what he posted. You're assuming he can think that deeply. He has given no indication he has that capability.
I would love to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Just look at his avatar.

[silverscreenselect]

I doubt he has the least understanding of what he posted. You're assuming he can think that deeply. He has given no indication he has that capability.
I would love to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Just look at his avatar.

Flock:

You have yet to exhibit the slightest bit of independent thinking on this Bored on any political topic. You just spew back whatever the party line is. I imagine you had a panic attack when DirecTV cancelled OAN unless and until you found an alternate source. It must be real hard not knowing what to think.

I've seen a lot of people posting online about how they talk with friends or, in many cases, former friends in Russia since the invasion started. These intelligent people thoroughly believe the Putin party line about the war or "special military operation" all the way down the line. I'd like to think that can't happen here, but people like you and your refusal to face reality give me great doubts about that. At least those Russians have the excuse that's it's very difficult to get an alternate source that gives them accurate information. You simply choose to ignore everything that doesn't fit in with your preconceptions.

[Beebs52]

But sss, you and the bobs get your talking points from daily kos and cnn. What to do. What to do.

[Bob78164]

But sss, you and the bobs get your talking points from daily kos and cnn. What to do. What to do.

Not correct. I pretty much never read Daily Kos and rarely read CNN. It turns out that most of my "talking points" are simply reflections of reality, which means they're widely reported, except in the Fox ecosystem.

Try spending a month relying on alternative sources of news, as did the subjects of this experiment, and see whether you fall among the subset who changes her views after that exposure. --Bob

[Beebs52]

But sss, you and the bobs get your talking points from daily kos and cnn. What to do. What to do.

Not correct. I pretty much never read Daily Kos and rarely read CNN. It turns out that most of my "talking points" are simply reflections of reality, which means they're widely reported, except in the Fox ecosystem.

Try spending a month relying on alternative sources of news, as did the subjects of this experiment, and see whether you fall among the subset who changes her views after that exposure. --Bob

Please review my highlight and reflect on all y'all's past statements.
You have no idea where I get my "news" from. Projection much? And, reflections of what particular reality?

It really is amusing all this.

[tlynn78]

But sss, you and the bobs get your talking points from daily kos and cnn. What to do. What to do.

Not correct. I pretty much never read Daily Kos and rarely read CNN. It turns out that most of my "talking points" are simply reflections of reality, which means they're widely reported, except in the Fox ecosystem.

Try spending a month relying on alternative sources of news, as did the subjects of this experiment, and see whether you fall among the subset who changes her views after that exposure. --Bob

Please review my highlight and reflect on all y'all's past statements.
You have no idea where I get my "news" from. Projection much? And, reflections of what particular reality?

It really is amusing all this.

Right? It's a good thing I don't normally have a beverage at my desk - the keyboards I'd have to replace...

[flockofseagulls104]

But sss, you and the bobs get your talking points from daily kos and cnn. What to do. What to do.

Not correct. I pretty much never read Daily Kos and rarely read CNN. It turns out that most of my "talking points" are simply reflections of reality, which means they're widely reported, except in the Fox ecosystem.

Try spending a month relying on alternative sources of news, as did the subjects of this experiment, and see whether you fall among the subset who changes her views after that exposure. --Bob

So I guess you don't get all your opinions from Tucker Carlson, like I do. Or has it changed today? Used to be Hannity. I am so confused.....

Maybe my stalker will remind me where I get all my opinions from....

[Beebs52]

Reflections...
https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJ ... e&ie=UTF-8