New Study Shows that People Who Only Watch Either Fox News or MSNBC are Least Informed - The Dangers of Leaning Too Far Right or Left

[AxlisOld]

or it may just show that liberals are just more intelligent in general......................... ..

yea, just ask um

It's "Yeah"...............you pretty much prove my point.......... ........

You missed that it would be em', not um. You proved his point.

[SunnyDRE]

I watch neither.

I just read my local newspaper.

It has the news that most affects me.

[downzy]

You do get a lot of rubbish at unis, though. I couldn't keep a straight face when one girl, who I'd previously considered very intelligent, expounded on the theory that race is entirely a social construct.

Actually, many incredibly intelligent people make the same argument. It may not be a theory that you understand, hence why you mock it, but there is a lot of validity to that claim.

For the quintessential overview on race as a social construct and racial formation, read this essay by Michael Omi and Howard WInant (It's from their book, Racial Formation in the United States, a book I highly recommend anyone who has an opinion on race relations in the states to read).

Here's the pdf: http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc34/Soc34readings/omiandwinant.pdf

But I do agree that you'll meet some of the dumbest people at Universities/colleges.

Edited February 1, 2014 by downzy

[classicrawker]

or it may just show that liberals are just more intelligent in general......................... ..

yea, just ask um

It's "Yeah"...............you pretty much prove my point.......... ........

You missed that it would be em', not um. You proved his point.

Not at all, I figured one was enough to prove my point so no use piling on.................

[AxlisOld]

or it may just show that liberals are just more intelligent in general......................... ..

yea, just ask um

It's "Yeah"...............you pretty much prove my point.......... ........

You missed that it would be em', not um. You proved his point.

Not at all, I figured one was enough to prove my point so no use piling on.................

Lazy assed Democrat.

[Amir]

You do get a lot of rubbish at unis, though. I couldn't keep a straight face when one girl, who I'd previously considered very intelligent, expounded on the theory that race is entirely a social construct.

Actually, many incredibly intelligent people make the same argument. It may not be a theory that you understand, hence why you mock it, but there is a lot of validity to that claim.

For the quintessential overview on race as a social construct and racial formation, read this essay by Michael Omi and Howard WInant (It's from their book, Racial Formation in the United States, a book I highly recommend anyone who has an opinion on race relations in the states to read).

Here's the pdf: http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc34/Soc34readings/omiandwinant.pdf

But I do agree that you'll meet some of the dumbest people at Universities/colleges.

I understand the concept with specific examples like the woman in the essay who was classified as black because she had "one thirty-second Negro blood", and also understand the debate on why people perceive Obama to be black when he's half-white, etc., but to deny any biological differences between certain groups of people is ridiculous. Obviously, as pointed out in the essay, people tend to oversimplify things, referring to all people with dark skin from Africa as "black", etc., but it's just a question of how do you describe people. If you put me in a room full of WASP-y people, I'd be immediately distinguished by darker skin tone, Middle Eastern nose, etc. Now some may I'm of "Arab" race, others "Iranian", etc., and to be honest I have no clue what genetic mixture I am (surname is Arabic in origin, Iran is only 50-odd% ethnically Iranian anyway), but it is easy to say that I'm not a WASP, despite my penchant for waistcoats and Riesling.

The concept of raciailizing immigrants and other groups in the essay is more in line with the discussion over at the "Thug IS the new N-word" thread, but to deny that there is any non-social basis for race is ridiculous.

[classicrawker]

or it may just show that liberals are just more intelligent in general......................... ..

yea, just ask um

It's "Yeah"...............you pretty much prove my point.......... ........

You missed that it would be em', not um. You proved his point.

Not at all, I figured one was enough to prove my point so no use piling on.................

Lazy assed Democrat.

Don't you have a Vitamix to buy mate....................

[AxlisOld]

[classicrawker]

Look at it this way mate you could be buying her some useless piece of jewelry but with the Vitamix maybe she will whip up some awesome meals for you.......you will thank me later.....................once you get over the sticker shock.....

[SunnyDRE]

Occasionally I will drive for the VA. Means I have to go to a lot of Government buildings.

One thing I have always thought was interesting/weird is that 99% of the time, in the waiting areas, the TV's in the buildings are always on FOXNEWS.

Not talking shit, just an observation.

[bran]

not all that surprising. msnbc and fox news both suck and cnn is on its way to suckville as well. you have two networks one licks obamas balls endlessly and the other that hates his guts for everything.

cnn used to be that middleground but in the last couple of years they have gone downhill as well. usually for news i watch pbs listen to npr and read alot of blogs.

[Graeme]

I don't think many people in America have to worry about leaning "too far" to the left...

[downzy]

I don't think many people in America have to worry about leaning "too far" to the left...

No kidding. Anyone who thinks MSNBC is an extreme left-wing propaganda machine likely would have failed the test used by the researchers on international events/issues. I can think of one poster in this thread that comes to mind

[Guest Len B'stard]

They needed to do a study to figure this out?

I know, right? A survey of American televisual viewing habits is probably the least effective way of illuminating that. A better one would be looking at how many wars across this world were the result of extreme communist or fascist juntas, like that little skirmish called WW2 they had back in the middle of the 20th Century.

[Ace Nova]

I'd also find it funny that you conflate the two networks, considering how MSNBC and CNN viewers tied on domestic affairs (isn't CNN suppose to be a centrist, if not a centre-right network), and the drop off between MSNBC and Fox regarding both domestic and international news is fairly substantial.

I consider myself as moderate or "centrist" as one can get....and I would categorize CNN as center/left. I personally listen to NPR more than any of the networks listed for information value....and I occasionally listen to WDBO (Makes Fox News seem liberal.... ) purely for entertainment reasons (sort of like how someone views WWE Wrestling - you know it can't be real but it's nonetheless entertaining.... )

Edited February 1, 2014 by Kasanova King

[sweetness]

I don't think many people in America have to worry about leaning "too far" to the left...

Ha, you've never been here, have you?

[Rustycage]

Leaning far to the left only brings it back to the middle.

[MattElias]

You do get a lot of rubbish at unis, though. I couldn't keep a straight face when one girl, who I'd previously considered very intelligent, expounded on the theory that race is entirely a social construct.

Wait, what? Could you please explain better what she meant by "Race is entirely a social construct"? It's like, black, caucasian, asian, it's entirely social/media constructed?

[downzy]

You do get a lot of rubbish at unis, though. I couldn't keep a straight face when one girl, who I'd previously considered very intelligent, expounded on the theory that race is entirely a social construct.

Wait, what? Could you please explain better what she meant by "Race is entirely a social construct"? It's like, black, caucasian, asian, it's entirely social/media constructed?

As i posted earlier, this explains the concept.

http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc34/Soc34readings/omiandwinant.pdf

"Attempts to discern the scientific meaning of race continue to the present day. Although most physical anthropologists and biologists have abandoned the quest for a scientific basis to determine racial categories, controversies have recently flared in the area of genetics and educational psychology. For instance, an essay by Arthur Jensen argued that hereditary factors shape intelligence not only revived the "nature or nurture" controversy, but raised highly volatile questions about racial equality itself.6 Clearly the attempt to establish a biological basis of race has not been swept into the dustbin of history, but is being resurrected in various scientific arenas. All such attempts seek to remove the concept of race from fundamental social, political, or economic determination. They suggest instead that the truth of race lies in the terrain of innate characteristics, of which skin color and other physical attributes provide only the most obvious, and in some respects most superficial, indicators."

Edited February 1, 2014 by downzy

[foghat43]

Right versus left (as commonly understood in the media) is an out-of-date/false dichotomy that holds little value when discussing the political spectrum. It really boils down to collectivist/authoritarian versus individualist/libertarian. Both the "left" (Democrats/liberals) and the "right" (Republicans/conservatives/neo-conservatives) come down on the collectivist/authoritarian end of the spectrum.

http://www.stephenpratt.net/Politics/illusionOpposites.htm

[Graeme]

I don't think many people in America have to worry about leaning "too far" to the left...

Ha, you've never been here, have you?

Very briefly, but a basic understanding of economic models is enough.

[downzy]

I don't think many people in America have to worry about leaning "too far" to the left...

Ha, you've never been here, have you?

Have you been to any other part of the world?

"Far left" in America is fairly centrist is most countries. In Canada, our most conservative party at the federal level (the Progressive Conservatives) is further left than the Democratic Party in the U.S. No conservative politician in Canada would ever dream running on a platform that most Republicans run on. If a PC candidate were to ever run on a platform of eliminating the public health system and replacing it with one modelled after the U.S. he or she would never get elected.

Right versus left (as commonly understood in the media) is an out-of-date/false dichotomy that holds little value when discussing the political spectrum. It really boils down to collectivist/authoritarian versus individualist/libertarian. Both the "left" (Democrats/liberals) and the "right" (Republicans/conservatives/neo-conservatives) come down on the collectivist/authoritarian end of the spectrum.

http://www.stephenpratt.net/Politics/illusionOpposites.htm

I would agree with that assessment if it was any year between 1945 and 2008. But the Republican Party has moved much further towards the individual/libertarian spectrum. It's why you see Senators like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz receive so much attention and support. The libertarian faction of the Republican party has never been as vocal or popular since the 1920s and early 1930s.

There is no date on the link you provided, but I'd be willing to bet it was written in 2008, prior to a substantial sea change in Republican ideology.

Edited February 2, 2014 by downzy

[bran]

ted cruz and rand paul may get attention but neither will ever get even close to the presidency and both do more harm to the republican party than help it. i think their popularity is more regional not so much national.

[magisme]

I think the problem is more about getting your news from television than leaning too far right or left.

[foghat43]

I don't think many people in America have to worry about leaning "too far" to the left...

Ha, you've never been here, have you?

Have you been to any other part of the world?

"Far left" in America is fairly centrist is most countries. In Canada, our most conservative party at the federal level (the Progressive Conservatives) is further left than the Democratic Party in the U.S. No conservative politician in Canada would ever dream running on a platform that most Republicans run on. If a PC candidate were to ever run on a platform of eliminating the public health system and replacing it with one modelled after the U.S. he or she would never get elected.

Right versus left (as commonly understood in the media) is an out-of-date/false dichotomy that holds little value when discussing the political spectrum. It really boils down to collectivist/authoritarian versus individualist/libertarian. Both the "left" (Democrats/liberals) and the "right" (Republicans/conservatives/neo-conservatives) come down on the collectivist/authoritarian end of the spectrum.

http://www.stephenpratt.net/Politics/illusionOpposites.htm

I would agree with that assessment if it was any year between 1945 and 2008. But the Republican Party has moved much further towards the individual/libertarian spectrum. It's why you see Senators like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz receive so much attention and support. The libertarian faction of the Republican party has never been as vocal or popular since the 1920s and early 1930s.

There is no date on the link you provided, but I'd be willing to bet it was written in 2008, prior to a substantial sea change in Republican ideology.

I disagree...if the GOP was moving further to the libertarian side...then Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, would have been the nominee in the last election. A lot of folks in the GOP hate the so called "libertarian wing" of the party. If anything there is a division between those in the GOP who want to see it move more to the center/left/collectivist side versus those who want to see it move more in a libertarian direction. The libertarians are definitely in the minority. And in fact, most hardcore libertarians will not support a GOP candidate...and I'm talking about real libertarians, not Tea Partiers. Rand is seen as a sell-out/judas because of his endorsement of Mitt Romney. And Rand is no where near the libertarian his father was. The GOP is really divided right now. Among the libertarian minded folks there seem to be two types...those who think they can take over the GOP, reform it and return it to the principles of limited government/free market economics (which will never happen) and those who have gone third party or joined the ranks of the principled non-voters. I agree that libertarian ideology is becoming more popular among the masses (to a degree, but still a long long way from becoming the majority opinion) and its proponents are becoming more vocal...but the powers that be in the GOP are fighting it rather than embracing it.