PDA

View Full Version : What do informed people watch? Surprise!


Direckshun
04-16-2007, 01:39 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/business/media/16pew.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The survey of 1,502 adults, conducted in February by the Pew Center (www.people-press.org), was based on answers to 23 questions and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Only eight people answered all 23 questions correctly, and five answered none correctly. The average number of right answers was 12.
You're never going to believe this:
The six news sources cited most often by people who knew the most about current events were: “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” (counted as one), tied with Web sites of major newspapers; next came “News Hour With Jim Lehrer”; then “The O’Reilly Factor,” which was tied with National Public Radio; and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.
I understand TDS and TCR, because you can't enjoy the comedy on those shows without being familiar with public figures.

But the very idea that O'Reilly and Limbaugh have a knowledgable fanbase was beyond me. Very odd.

Direckshun
04-16-2007, 01:42 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/pewtv.GIF

HolmeZz
04-16-2007, 01:44 PM
I bet Colbert'll do a piece on this study.

|Zach|
04-16-2007, 03:02 PM
I have been reading some writings of a local Missouri State journalism and rhetoric professor. He had an interesting take that I hadn't really thought about. He believes that the general audience of the daily show is generally well informed and very literate when it comes to current events and news. Because if they weren't then the show isn't funny. Alot of the stuff isn't funny if you don't know whats going on.

Chief Faithful
04-16-2007, 03:38 PM
[url]

But the very idea that O'Reilly and Limbaugh have a knowledgable fanbase was beyond me. Very odd.

Why do you feel that is odd? I know you may not agree with their take on issues, but the only people who would be interested in those shows are people who are generally interested in current events. And, while you may disagree with them they are intelligent men otherwise they would not be able to hold an audience over time the way they have.

Limbaugh has been the most successful talk show host of all time. Why would you just off-handedly dismiss him and his audience?

Cave Johnson
04-16-2007, 03:42 PM
Why am I not surprised that Fox viewers are near the bottom?

HolmeZz
04-16-2007, 03:52 PM
Why am I not surprised that Fox viewers are near the bottom?

They probably whiffed on 'True or False - Barack Obama is a muslim'.

Pitt Gorilla
04-16-2007, 04:14 PM
They probably whiffed on 'True or False - Barack Obama is a muslim'.Awesome.
ROFL

Direckshun
04-16-2007, 04:16 PM
Why do you feel that is odd? I know you may not agree with their take on issues, but the only people who would be interested in those shows are people who are generally interested in current events. And, while you may disagree with them they are intelligent men otherwise they would not be able to hold an audience over time the way they have.

Limbaugh has been the most successful talk show host of all time. Why would you just off-handedly dismiss him and his audience?
Popularity != accuracy. Popularity != quality.

Call me crazy, but it's hard for me to believe in the audience of a guy who believed Michael J. Fox was faking the shakes.

O'Reilly is barely better.

Ugly Duck
04-16-2007, 11:40 PM
Why am I not surprised that Fox viewers are near the bottom?

How is it possible that Faux News listeners are on the bottom?

tiptap
04-17-2007, 06:29 AM
REPOST

INTRODUCED ON FOX IS FOX

Radar Chief
04-17-2007, 06:52 AM
Popularity != accuracy. Popularity != quality.

Call me crazy, but it's hard for me to believe in the audience of a guy who believed Michael J. Fox was faking the shakes.

O'Reilly is barely better.

So, you were “surprised” by the intelligence of Rush listeners ‘cause that’s what you’ve been told to do? :shrug:
When you parrot false talk’n points, that’s the impression I’m left with.

Mr. Kotter
04-17-2007, 06:59 AM
....But the very idea that O'Reilly and Limbaugh have a knowledgable fanbase was beyond me. Very odd.FTR, I don't listen to either of those clowns. I don't appreciate the polarized demagoguery and divisiveness promoted by bloviating self-aggrandizing blowhards.

Having said that, your own biases and ideological politics seems to be coloring the fact that....intelligent and reasonable people are entitled disagree with your politics--and can do do so in an informed and rational way. That says more about you, than them.

NewChief
04-17-2007, 07:06 AM
They probably whiffed on 'True or False - Barack Obama is a muslim'.

Followed up with 'True or False - Barack Obama wants to play chicken with our troops.'

BucEyedPea
04-17-2007, 07:19 AM
O'Reilly is barely better.
Your chart shows him at 51% though.
It has Fox News lower. :shrug:

I empathize on NeoCon Rush though.

Chief Faithful
04-17-2007, 08:50 AM
Call me crazy, but it's hard for me to believe in the audience of a guy who believed Michael J. Fox was faking the shakes.



If I remember Limbaugh claimed Michael J Fox did something with his medication dosage to cause the movements we saw for sympathy purposes. Later we found out Fox did increase his dosage, which created the odd movements we saw although Fox claimed it was not for sympathy, but to build awareness.

You chose a bad example to claim Limbaugh is a goof. Besides, he is a talk show host not a journalist or news reporter.

I think the issue here is not Limbaugh, but your inability to understand how intelligent people could have a view diverse from your own.

Baby Lee
04-17-2007, 09:01 AM
They probably whiffed on 'True or False - Barack Obama is a muslim'.
When did Katie Couric move over to Fox?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2007, 09:01 AM
If I remember Limbaugh claimed Michael J Fox did something with his medication dosage to cause the movements we saw for sympathy purposes. Later we found out Fox did increase his dosage, which created the odd movements we saw although Fox claimed it was not for sympathy, but to build awareness.

I thought he went off his meds which made him shake.
Anyhow same difference.

banyon
04-17-2007, 09:07 AM
Unsurprisingly, I watch both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. :thumb:

Chief Faithful
04-17-2007, 09:09 AM
I thought he went off his meds which made him shake.
Anyhow same difference.

That is what Limbaugh claimed, but it turned out he actually took too much. I saw the interview of Fox on Fox news. :)

Chief Faithful
04-17-2007, 09:12 AM
Unsurprisingly, I watch both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. :thumb:

The two best political comedies to come along in years.

patteeu
04-17-2007, 09:41 AM
Call me crazy, but it's hard for me to believe in the audience of a guy who believed Michael J. Fox was faking the shakes.

Yep, it's crazy to believe what Michael J. Fox says about Michael J. Fox.

tiptap
04-17-2007, 11:09 AM
Tardis Diskinesia is the result of many medications used to retard the Parkinson's like shakes. So on one hand you have uncontroleable continuous shaking with too little medication and rather violent, seemingly over gesticulated movement when the medication is too high. Over time the amounts for controlling Parkinsons vs the Tardis Movement meet at the same dose. Sometimes changing medications helps but the process begins again with the new medication. What I understood was the Michael J. Fox did have to high of his medication but that was in evidence from his Tardis. It isn't like the same dose works the same way each day. If you are suspiciously minded than you can easily see that he did so only for affect neglecting that it shortens the time that that drug can be used effectively to control his condition.

Chief Faithful
04-17-2007, 01:08 PM
Tardis Diskinesia is the result of many medications used to retard the Parkinson's like shakes. So on one hand you have uncontroleable continuous shaking with too little medication and rather violent, seemingly over gesticulated movement when the medication is too high. Over time the amounts for controlling Parkinsons vs the Tardis Movement meet at the same dose. Sometimes changing medications helps but the process begins again with the new medication. What I understood was the Michael J. Fox did have to high of his medication but that was in evidence from his Tardis. It isn't like the same dose works the same way each day. If you are suspiciously minded than you can easily see that he did so only for affect neglecting that it shortens the time that that drug can be used effectively to control his condition.

Tardis and the developing resistance to meds was the very thing Michael J Fox said he was trying help create awareness. In this case you did not have to be suspiciously minded because he admitted such in a Fox interview. I don't have a link I just remember watching the interview.

BTW - in the post Fox interview his Tardis was significantly reduced.