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

[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?

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.

I've been to the Bahamas and Canada several times, politics was never exactly on my mind though.

I'm sure other countries have more "far leaning" liberal politicians than the US, thats great, I'm talking about citizens though. I understand that in international media the US probably has a very conservative image, which I'm sure can be attributed to the older generations. That said though, I still find it surprising that even with the baby-boomer fronted cultural revolution that took place here in the 60's and 70's, the one that has had such a large infuence in not only the US but all of western culture, we're still labeled as the crazy gun toting cowboys.

There are some VERY liberal individuals in this country, and there are a lot of them. The majority of my generation is probably further to the left than the baby-boomers, of ocurse it depends on where in the country you live, the US is a very diverse body of land, but don't paint the whole country as Texas or Florida. Most people I know would look at you funny if you dare express any opinion that could possibly be associated with the Tea Party, its pretty much not even socially acceptable to share such views in most circles. It's worth mentioning these are the same people who started massive "Occupy Wall Street" protests in every major city, you can't possibly try to tell me that in other countries they would fall closer to the right on the bullshit "political spectrum" when compared to other citizens of the world.

Edited February 2, 2014 by sweetness

[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.

I've been to the Bahamas and Canada several times, politics was never exactly on my mind though.

I'm sure other countries have more "far leaning" liberal politicians than the US, thats great, I'm talking about citizens though. I understand that in international media the US probably has a very conservative image, which I'm sure can be attributed to the older generations. That said though, I still find it surprising that even with the baby-boomer fronted cultural revolution that took place here in the 60's and 70's, the one that has had such a large infuence in not only the US but all of western culture, we're still labeled as the crazy gun toting cowboys.

There are some VERY liberal individuals in this country, and there are a lot of them. The majority of my generation is probably further to the left than the baby-boomers, of ocurse it depends on where in the country you live, the US is a very diverse body of land, but don't paint the whole country as Texas or Florida. Most people I know would look at you funny if you dare express any opinion that could possibly be associated with the Tea Party, its pretty much not even socially acceptable to share such views in most circles. It's worth mentioning these are the same people who started massive "Occupy Wall Street" protests in every major city, you can't possibly try to tell me that in other countries they would fall closer to the right on the bullshit "political spectrum" when compared to other citizens of the world.

Well, the U.S. has long moved past its counter-culture past. The "new left" of the 1960s dissolved and crumbled while the civil and minority rights groups lost much of its clout throughout the 1970s (some of it justified). Moreover, unlike the rest of the developed world, the U.S. has seen a major decline in union membership and participation in the workforce. Relative to the rest of the western world, the U.S. is still very much a "crazy gun toting cowboys." Whereas the rest of the world moved to enact on many of the social welfare causes that were championed by 1960s "radicals" and politicians (President Johnson's "War on Poverty"), the U.S. has moved backward in rescinding its social safety nets, environmental regulations, and taxation policies.

I'd be interested to know who you consider VERY liberal. Trust me, I know that not all of the U.S. is like Florida and Texas (I've been to or through 32 states), but even the more "liberal" states would still be considered conservative in most other developed nations.

The OWS movement (for the most part), like the tea party, represent the fringe elements of American politics. I do agree that American in general are not as divided on partisan lines as their elected officials indicate. But on issues like female reproductive rights, global warming, inequality, gun control, healthcare, military force, and others, the vast majority of Americans generally are more conservative than citizens in most developed nations. I'd argue that that hasn't always been the case, that in the 1940s to the mid 1970s Americans were more likely to share the views on those issues I just listed with citizens of other nations. I don't have any research to back that up; it's just a hunch of mine. But I do believe things have changed quite a bit in the last 30 years.

[Ace Nova]

Hey, what's all this talk about Florida being "crazy cowboys"...conservatives? We went "blue" the last 2 elections...lol.....

[classicrawker]

Hey, what's all this talk about Florida being "crazy cowboys"...conservatives? We went "blue" the last 2 elections...lol.....

Must have something to do with all the liberal baby boomers joining the "bluehead" population in Florida...............

[shades]

I believe, for the most part most Americans want the same thing. To prosper and be left alone. we have always tended to govern ourselves on the local level until

about 20 years ago.

take any issue and both sides are basically right in reality.

no one 'likes' abortion,

the left wants to promote it while the right wants to discourage it. But the path to discouraging it by the the right is actually trampling on womens rights.

there's probably something in between......

everyone 'wants' everyone to have health insurance, the path the left has chosen is to give it to people either free or cheap and have the rest of us pay the difference. Doesnt make the left bad people, doesnt make the right bad people either though for saying enough is enough on these social programs, and there probably is something in between....

no one 'likes' war, the right feels there is a need to stand up to the hate toward the west, the left uses this to call us war mongers, doesnt make the left cowards for not wanting war any more than it makes the right war mongers for citing history as showing sometimes you have to fight.

There's probably something in between, the real 'arguing' is actually over when, how and who.

i.e. I believe that the majority of the 'political' fighting is brought on by those in power trying to govern based on the influences of special interest groups.

More and more the left seems to want to meddle in our personal lives through government policy. We on the right see that as simply catering to a voting base, at our expense. The left sees it as our obligation to humanity. there's probably something in between.

the media will spin it into an argument. It's what they do. Fox is as guilty but no less guilty than CNN. It just so happens, at present ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC have all jumped on the side of the left. Obama VS the right is their meal ticket.Television media on the right has FOX and FOX only, so I cannot see how denouncing FOX will do anything except kill the only conservative television media outlet there is. If that's the kind of country you want to live in, no check and balance, you might want to check yourselves.

[Guest Len B'stard]

What does blue or bluehead mean?

[downzy]

More and more the left seems to want to meddle in our personal lives through government policy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html

Sorry, you were saying?

I cannot see how denouncing FOX will do anything except kill the only conservative television media outlet there is.

There's nothing wrong with conservative television, or any form of conservative-slanted media per se. In fact, the country is better served when there is an open competition between ideas. The public is better served when competing notions have an open exchange and dialogue of ideas.

But that is not what Fox News represents. I have no problem with someone offering a conservative viewpoint. I do have an issue with a news organization that creates or perpetuates faux conspiracies and scandals to juice their ratings and inflame their viewers.

As Jon Stewart cleverly described it yesterday (using a GNR reference no less: "Appetite for Distraction"), Fox News is not interested in having a genuine and honest debate on the issues. It plays up scandals that have long been settled or investigated because it knows it will rile up its audience. As the article I linked to puts it:

On "The Daily Show" Tuesday night, host Jon Stewart took apart the pre-Super Bowl interview between Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and President Barack Obama - or, as he put it, the interview "between the most powerful man in the free world and Obama."

Unsurprisingly, Stewart sided with Obama, who had openly criticized O'Reilly and Fox News for what he said was unfairly drumming up "scandals" with Benghazi, the IRS, and the Affordable Care Act.

Stewart said he wasn't surprised by O'Reilly's line of questioning — after all, he said, before the Super Bowl, "you gotta play the hits." He was a bit shocked by Obama's blatant criticism of the network during the interview.

"That is quite an accusation!" Stewart said. "That Fox News unfairly promotes and creates scandals for the sole purpose of undermining this president! Although, in Obama's defense, it is true."

"How did Fox News respond to this outrageous — yet completely accurate — charge?" Stewart said, before launching into clips in which hosts accused Obama of attacking Fox to distract from scandals. Stewart thought that was a pretty curious charge, since Obama had agreed to come on the network to talk about the scandals before the most-watched event in television history.

Stewart played more clips of Obama's various "distractions" over the years — even the death of Osama bin Laden, which delayed talk about the economy for a few news cycles. In the end, Stewart could only conclude that any time Obama went off "script," Fox would say it's a distraction.

"You know, the president doesn't work for Fox. He can deviate from your script!" he said.

[classicrawker]

What does blue or bluehead mean?

the blue he was referring to are States here in the US are categorized by color depending on which political party they tend to support in the Presidential elections. If a State supports the Republicans they are considered a "red state" and Democrats a "blue state" the last couple of elections Florida was won by the Democrats so hence they became a "blue state" for those election but they have historically supported the Republicans and were considered a "red state".

I was referring to the large population of senior citizens living in Florida as it is a retirement mecca for seniors because of its weather and cost of living. so here is my reference to "bluehead"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bluehead

Google is your friend mate...........

Edited February 5, 2014 by classicrawker

[Guest Len B'stard]

I thought it was something like that, it's the opposite in England, the Labour Party is red and the Conservative Party is blue. Makes more sense too i think, red, communism, socialism etc

[downzy]

What does blue or bluehead mean?

Not sure if this is what they're alluding to, but in the U.S. blue represents the Democratic Party and red represents the Republicans Party.

I believe it was the political commentator Tim Russert who created the representations in the 2000 elections. It's actually a relatively recent development.

[classicrawker]

More and more the left seems to want to meddle in our personal lives through government policy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html

Sorry, you were saying?

I cannot see how denouncing FOX will do anything except kill the only conservative television media outlet there is.

There's nothing wrong with conservative television, or any form of conservative-slanted media per se. In fact, the country is better served when there is an open competition between ideas. The public is better served when competing notions have an open exchange and dialogue of ideas.

But that is not what Fox News represents. I have no problem with someone offering a conservative viewpoint. I do have an issue with a news organization that creates or perpetuates faux conspiracies and scandals to juice their ratings and inflame their viewers.

As Jon Stewart cleverly described it yesterday (using a GNR reference no less: "Appetite for Distraction"), Fox News is not interested in having a genuine and honest debate on the issues. It plays up scandals that have long been settled or investigated because it knows it will rile up its audience. As the article I linked to puts it:

On "The Daily Show" Tuesday night, host Jon Stewart took apart the pre-Super Bowl interview between Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and President Barack Obama - or, as he put it, the interview "between the most powerful man in the free world and Obama."

Unsurprisingly, Stewart sided with Obama, who had openly criticized O'Reilly and Fox News for what he said was unfairly drumming up "scandals" with Benghazi, the IRS, and the Affordable Care Act.

Stewart said he wasn't surprised by O'Reilly's line of questioning — after all, he said, before the Super Bowl, "you gotta play the hits." He was a bit shocked by Obama's blatant criticism of the network during the interview.

"That is quite an accusation!" Stewart said. "That Fox News unfairly promotes and creates scandals for the sole purpose of undermining this president! Although, in Obama's defense, it is true."

"How did Fox News respond to this outrageous — yet completely accurate — charge?" Stewart said, before launching into clips in which hosts accused Obama of attacking Fox to distract from scandals. Stewart thought that was a pretty curious charge, since Obama had agreed to come on the network to talk about the scandals before the most-watched event in television history.

Stewart played more clips of Obama's various "distractions" over the years — even the death of Osama bin Laden, which delayed talk about the economy for a few news cycles. In the end, Stewart could only conclude that any time Obama went off "script," Fox would say it's a distraction.

"You know, the president doesn't work for Fox. He can deviate from your script!" he said.

Careful with all those links in your post Downzy as we know Shades considers Google to be evil tool as it gives us all access to the actual facts as opposed to just making shit up as he does to suit his agenda of demonizing President Blackula...........................

I thought it was something like that, it's the opposite in England, the Labour Party is red and the Conservative Party is blue. Makes more sense too i think, red, communism, socialism etc

Your implying that the Democratic party here is somehow communist or socialist leaning rather than just caring to take care of the less fortunate..............interesting commentary on the claim by Republicans that the Democrats are Socialists

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-knoll/obama-romney-economy_b_1615862.html

Edited February 5, 2014 by classicrawker