Jazz, the facts are posted above, though I can understand why this would be hard to swallow: the statistics provided by PHP show that Democrats simply search out more news, from all sources, than Republicans. It isn't limited to evening news sources.
Aside from the O'Reilly factor (which in interviews he typically always debates the opposing side so both sides are given)... I always see both Democrats and Republicans represented. It was only a few days ago that I spent about 45 minutes watching CNN. It was an obvious left-wing guy who was ranting and raving with another left wing guy about Palin. As a conservative, I would be more inclined to watch something that had both sides of the fence to some degree, even if it leans a little bit one way. Percentages do not relate to how many people are watching news in general on one side or the other. Fox News is barely the less watched news station of all of them towards the top of the report. This just means that an overwhelming amount of Republicans prefer Fox News over other news sources and Democrats are more spread out across the stations. For example: 700 Republicans watch Fox News vs 300 Democrats(70% vs 30%) 100 vs 400 watch CNN (20% vs 80%) Based on the example, you see that there is actually 800 Republicans vs only 700 Democrats even if you total the percentages it might give the perception that there are more Democrats. In reality, there just aren't Republicans that watch many other networks. NPT - Thanks for making note of the double thread. Can someone please delete the other one? Something odd was going on yesterday when I tried to post this. EDIT: The more I delve into this the more I find the opposite to be true actually. Page 10 Verifies that the older group is much more likely to receive some form of news than would a younger person. Generally, the older people are the more conservative people. Not only that, but page 44 verifies that Republicans are at least, if not slightly more knowledgable within politics.
PHP, I'm sorry, but, respectfully, please give us all a break on Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is a mockery of "balanced." He is a rabid mouthpiece for rightist extremism in America, with zero honor. A perfect example: on Palin's daughters teenage pregancy: Just a wee time ago, This is incorrect. Firstly, your are splitting sample sizes by channels watched. In example given, are your sample sizes drawn from the study's actuality, or were you posing a hypothetical? I am investigating this by reference to the actual study, but presume you have a quicker answer, as you posed the hypothetical, if it is one. Secondly, your argument doesn't work, for several reasons. Firstly, looking at the back of the study, the study is fully randomized, with a sufficient sampling size overall to be able to have some statistical confidence in the result. Secondly, regardless of the sampling size, if for any given random sampling of people, provided the sample size threshold is statistically valid, a percentage reflects who seeks out more for the given choice in question. In other words, say, on paper news sources ("Tradtionalists"), if N=3, with Dems at 66%, Reps at 33%, then statistical extrapolation yields the conclusion that of people seeking paper news sources, more are Democrats. If n=50,000, and the same percentage holds, then the same conclusion holds. In other words, your hypothetical is flawed because the purpose of statistical research is not to give raw numbers of the sample breakdown - in your example, the study's purpose would not be to say 700 Republicans and 300 Democrats watch Fox news, 100 Republicans and 400 Democrats watch CNN. The PEW statistics allow us to extrapolate to the public at large what is going on. In your example, for Fox, with a sampling size of N=1000, with 70% Republicans watch Fox and 30% Democrats watch Fox, we can predict within a given margin of error that this is the percentage breakdown in the population. Given this, it appears a higher percentage of Democrats seek out news from all sources than Republicans. Or, again, Edited to add: I did not see your edit when posting: It says nothing of the kind, and I'm not sure where you're getting this. I have posted actual data from the study to draw my conclusions, and I guess, for the sake of convenience, I'd ask you to do the same to save a bit of time in going back to "reverse-engineer" from data. Here is what I see from page 10, that seems brought you to your conclusion: Please note two key things: Young people are not getting less news: Young people just spend less time on their news consumption: And this squares with what the study shows elsewhere, namely, that young people tend to be the "net-newsers," the consumers of news provided by online and other tech-sources. Your page 44 statement, Loses me entirely, since this is the entirety of what I see on page 44: If anything, the opposite to your conclusion can be drawn. You earlier said it was conservatives who were the older demographic. Can you please tell me how: Correlates with: Given Finally, from your example, please also note: I'm sorry, PHP, but by your own data, the opposite conclusion must be drawn to the one you stated.
Fair enough. My comment wasn't to say that O'Reilly is fair and balanced. I personally think he shows both sides of the fence on his program, despite the fact the he himself is unquestionably on the conservative side. It is hypothetical. In reality, CNN and Fox News receive about the same amount of viewers. CNN is slightly more, but the other two networks receive a far less amount of viewers. I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you are referring to here. This is exactly what i'm saying. The percentages do not correlate to raw numbers at all. Therefore, you can't assume by percentages that they somehow do correlate to a raw number. The only way we know how the numbers are broken down are by previous statistics given in the report. By lumping these percentages together you are making teh assumption that all networks receive the same amount of viewers. We know from (again, page 16) that this is not the case for this report. CNN and Fox News were overwhelming the majority. Having higher percentages for the Democrats on programs like MSNBC and CNBC as well does not mean that we can assume that the raw numbers can be identified. In the EDIT I made in the post above I made a comment about Republicans being likely more informed on politics (not to mention ages) verifies that your assumption that Republicans watch less news is flawed. The only thing that the graph you are showing there verifies is that the Republicans prefer Fox News over other networks while Democrats get their news from various sources. In no way does it verify that Democrats are more informed on news.
I am sincerely not trying to be insulting, PHP, but given the above statement, I have to ask - are you familiar with statistics? That sample percentages reflect population percentages within a margin of error, given sound sampling and sample size? (I won't reprint your other quotes, as they all deal with the same thing - what sampling tells us). Though, briefly, Is incorrect. The comparison is horizontal, not vertical. In other words, it isn't showing what percent of Republicans view Fox v. what percent of Republicans watch CNN, etc. - in other words, doesn't show that out of a pool of 100 Republicans, 70 watch Fox, and 30 watch CNN. It shows that out of a sample of 100 people, of those watching Fox, 70 are Reps, 30 are Dems, etc. Bottom line, It shows that of the viewership for any given news source - say, Fox - what percent is Republican, what percent Democrat, and so forth. It then goes to another news source, and does the same thing. The same method applies to the "overall news gathering" assessments. It shows that of "traditionalists," X percent are republican, X percent Democrat, and so forth. Key in this respect is the figure for "total," in other words, the breakdown in percentages of those getting news from any source. OF those getting news from any source, 36% are Democrats, and 25% are Republicans. My conclusion is correct, and yours is incorrect, PHP, sorry. Again, before I continue this, and please understand I mean this sincerely, and not to be an insulting prick, but I do want to ask if you have any training in statistics?
Perhaps I'm confused on what you are saying. Based on the information here, the percentages are based on the audiences of each network, not on the total population of America. If this was based on total population then I could see how you would be receiving that. But based on previous reports as well as the comments and title of the statistics you are referencing, we know that each percentage is taken from those who say that they watch that news network. Maybe this is how the information is being misconstrued? For example, the statistics DO show this: 33% of Fox News' Viewers are Democrats It DOES NOT show this: 33% of Democrats watch Fox News.
Every time the discussion ends up on O'Reilly, it seems the only people that actually listen to him are the liberals that hate him. Even Rush Limbaugh seems to have a huge "secret" following of liberals. And I don't think the liberals are trying to find out what the "sheeple" are hearing.... Why are the liberals on this forum, the ones that always know what these guys have said, or should I say "supposedly have said" since most of the time if you go and actually listen to the whole context of what they said, someone is twisting the quote to make it look like they (talk show host) said something they really didn't or make them look bad. In fact it always shows me the lack of integrity of the one doing the twisting.
@`northpointaiki - Is it bad thing that the news media is more favorable towards Obama, spinning everything pro Obama? McCain placed an ad Media Love Affair with Obama the ad was well liked by Obama as well. 90% of the media is for Obama. People do not have to be informed to vote. They can vote based on color, shoe size or for any reason. Media Love Affair with Barack Obama
Let's see if we're saying the same thing. No, but it is based on the total population viewing Fox news, or whatever source we're dealing with, which is why I've referred to "OF the people watching/seeking X news source, Y% are _____," etc. This is correct, which is why I said "OF the people watching...." above. Given this, however, please see: In other words, of those seeking news, more are Democrats.
It very much appears you're addressing this to me, Debunked. If so, it's regretful, since I hate hypocrisy, in all its stripes - one of the reasons, for instance, just yesterday I called Zibblu to task for his remarks on anti-abortionists "caring much more about fetuses than they do actual children." The same thing invokes me to condemn Karl Rove's slimeball lies, or any other thing, from any other person. If you are now accusing me of a lack of integrity or bad faith, on anything I've written on this forum, I invite you to back it up; in lieu of this, quite honestly, I'd invite you to stay this side of accusing me of "twisting" anything. To this, and to Homebiz's post, I invite you to join in the discussion based on the subject of the thread, which is the PEW study provided by PHP and the data contained in it. If you wish to play games, I don't think it's useful contribution to what has been an interesting, substantive discussion.
I can not agree with the last statement. Republicans are shown to be equally as informed on politics and current events on page 44. Also, I would just revise your comment to: There are other sources of news, including newspaper, internet, as well as other news networks including local news.
PHP, why are you simply repeating this, when this has shown to be false in the above post, by your own page referral, and your own reasoning? . PHP, I am going to ask you sincerely, I'd be glad to continue the conversation, but if I post something, I'd appreciate you read and understand my post before posting a reply. The table in question is on page 45. It includes a figure for Democrats v. Republicans across three modal news sources: It also includes a FIGURE TOTALLING FOR ALL OF THESE SOURCES, WHICH IS THE FIGURE I QUOTED; the "Totals" figure is the figure combining all three. In other words, a "totals" percentage breakdown of 36% Democrats, and 25% Republicans, means that of those people using TV, newspapers, radio, and online sources, 36% are Democrats, and 25% are Republicans. The implication is clear, or should be. Or, Is correct, unless you wish to argue there are substantial news sources outside of TV, newspapers, radio, and online sources. I've asked a couple of times, but you haven't answered, and the answer will help me to decide whether to continue or not, to be honest: do you have any training in statistics?
The post was a general observation post after reading this thread and a couple like it in nature. The one post that I directly made comment towards was Grim's with the sheeple part, but I had to reread the thread to see who said sheeple in order to reply to you, because I wasn't thinking about any one person while I wrote that post. You may not want to believe anything I wrote and just attack me on it. Since I still feel I can't have any discussion with you without you trying to bring up your misunderstanding of one of my posts a while back, which has led me to reverse my prior praise of you.
To NPT: Sorry, I quoted the wrong page number. I was referencing page 42 not page 44. (Acrobat Reader does not match the page numbers on the document). Page 42 is a reference to which party has the most informed people in it. Republican comes out on top. Due to there being some leniency for error, it is safe to assume that they are roughly the same. It is definitely not safe to say that Democrats are more informed about politics though. As far as statistics training: Yes, I do have some training in statistics via a college course.
Debunked, I'm sorry, but you made the comment on this page, after my couple of posts, and after my specific comments on Bill O'Reilly. Your reply: Would have to at least include me, and, particularly when it was posted after my several posts, and my post on O'Reilly specifically, well, you do the math, brother - also, particularly when you jumped in with an insubstantial comment, clap to Homebiz for his post - itself a direct reply to me, specifically naming me as the intended audience. As to whatever prior post you made where we had a misunderstanding, I remember that we did have a misunderstanding, but don't remember the specifics, and, regardless, long ago moved on, Debunked. It appears to be on your mind still - so if it's anything to comfort you, no, nothing I've said in this thread - or the pleasant exchanges we've had over the last several exchanges - is informed by any retained malice on my part. Bottom line, your reply came out of left field in my opinion. I consider it very much an issue when PHP names O'Reilly as "balanced," etc., and I showed him why, with specifics, and also without malice. You'll note that PHP saw apparently saw where I was coming from, and didn't seem to feel my comments were generated by some presumption of leftist lunacy. Anyway - no, no malice, Debunked. I long ago moved on. Oh, and it really, really hurts my feeling that you once "reversed your praise" of me. Can't I get some love, before I turn to a puddle?
OK, I understand. I will take a look at the page you're referencing and get back to you later. Still, do you have any thoughts on the following: -You said older people tend to be more conservative; -You said older people tend to source more news, and younger people, less; -You said that Republicans tend to be the same, or more knowledgeable, on the news based on (what turns out to be) page 42. (Please correct me if I misstated anything in the above - I may have; the eyes do blur after awhile). Any thoughts on the data showing that: Older people and younger people both tend to equally source the news throughout the day; Conservatives - to follow your correlation of older people with conservative people - tend to get the news wrong, more often than younger people? Edited to add: Thanks for letting me know re: your statistics understanding. It helps us both speak a common language. Also edited: Just quickly for now, but the "knowledgeable" question you reference only includes three questions - "which party holds a majority," "who is the British Prime Minister," and "who is the U.S. Secretary of State." I personally wouldn't call that a great indicator of which party is "up" on the news, generally, actually. It is interesting to note the same point is made referencing the 10% of CNN viewers - tagged to an older demographic, at 63% of CNN viewers being 50 or older - answered these three questions correctly.
This is an assumption I am making. There really is nothing to gain from it except for the comment below. To be honest there is no basis on that argument from this source of research. It just seems to be generally agreed upon and a personal observation. This based on the bottom graph in the report on page 8. There is a 60% difference between people over 65 and people 18 - 24. The percentage increases with age despite the younger generation relying more on internet than the older generations. Yes, this is on page 42. They asked 3 political questions. The averages: 47% of Republicans knew the answer versus 41% of Democrats. Democrats did not beat the Republicans on any 3 of the questions. It seems accurate to me. There is a difference and it is shown via the graph at the bottom of page 8. This is a possibility. I have not seen any statistic in the report that represents this though. Can you please send that to me? No problem. I'm not going to consider myself an expert. My brother has a PHD and probably exceeds my understanding greatly when it comes to research. But, I don't think I'm totally oblivious.
Partisan views are apparent with the media coverage on the networks just as the left Partisan views are apparent in the forums.