"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170720041853211941%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...

In article <tomdnf7QZ6LySGTdRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170720041837063432%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...

In article <8LudnSETSJcTT2Td4p2dnA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170720041820374070%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...

In article <eNKdnbcbs7NuVWTdRVn-uA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in

message

news:ILjKc.2184$f4.279@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:vegjf05d88kbk3esd46b9lcpt1pd07v2lu@4ax.com...

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:47:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in

message

news:170720041640159242%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...

Of course not. That's because Fox News doesn't lie

or

distort

and

Fox

News

watchers are better informed than the general public.

They know that, but they have to lie about it. The

problem

is,

Fox

News

has

better ratings, is mor popular with not only

conservatives,

but

with

moderates and Democrats, and they frankly are in a

panic

now.

More people watch CNN, dummy.

Those that watch Fox are better informed.

Is that why those who get their news more from Fox than

anywhere

else

were more likely to believe major falsehoods about the

invasion

of

Iraq?

That wasn't the case.

Did you read that report?

Yeah.

They mention many other news sources, not just Fox News.

So? That isn't the issue.

It is the issue, and you are the one who is misrepresenting what the

report

is about.
It isn't about Fox News, it is about problems in our media.

Moron.

You are pissed, I understand. But stop lying and distorting and I

wouldn't

keep exposing you.


I never said it was about any particular news agency. It was a

study to see who was the least informed and the most informed. Least
informed: Fox "NEWS". Most informed: NPR

Why don't you provide the entire list of News agencies they report as

having

misinformed listeners then?

Why? We were talking about Fox "NEWS!"

And I am talking about your source.
So go ahead and provide the entire list. Or can't you?

Now answer me
this. Isn't it misleading to just single out one source when

many

others

were mentioned as well?

Not at all.

Yes, it is and it is dishonest of you to not represent the report

for

what

it truly is.
You are trying to twist it.

Other than your ***** accusations, can you substantiate that?

Easy.
Provide the whole story, not just what you want.

That is a violation of the law. I know that has no relevance to a
guard. That is why I provided the url - so you could read the whole
story without breaking the law. Some guard.

And you just proven my point.
You are too biased to even consider discussing an issue with.

The one "source" was the source we were speaking of. The

source that was on the bottom of the list. Remember?

The study is about the media, not Fox News.

And Fox "NEWS" comes in dead last. Which is what I said.

No, it isn't what you said at all. Not until I caught you and

brought up

the

issue.
Now, you are going to sing a different tune.

LOL! Then what do you think I said?

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:31:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
<roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:260720040518192171%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...

In article <mz%Mc.13862$iK.13234@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:jjv8g09kr4usjgvt10s1m2jg53gg3i08sk@4ax.com...

Is that why those who get their news more from Fox than

else

were more likely to believe major falsehoods about the

of

Iraq?

That wasn't the case.

No, in fact it was.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Now, if you want to tell us that there's something wrong with

study, show us the problems.

The study does not support the assertion, "those who get their

more

from Fox than anywhere else were more likely to believe major

falsehoods

about the invasion of Iraq?" The study does not identify a single
falsehood.

Either you didn't read the study and don't know what you are

about or you have read it and you are lying.

Wrong. Those are not the only possibilities.

Just *one* of the misperceptions identified was belief that Iraq

directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. There are more,
specifically identified in that PDF link. Come back when you have

the paper instead of mindlessly regurgitating what Fox tells you.

Ahh, but misperceptions are not falsehoods. The study was presented

an

attempt to illustrate that "those who get their news more from Fox

anywhere else were more likely to believe major falsehoods about the
invasion of Iraq." FALSEHOODS. Not MISPERCEPTIONS.

When they start splitting hairs like this, they are screwed.

In other words, you do not understand the difference between falsehood

misperception.

So you're saying that believing something FALSE about the Iraq
invasion (say, that the Iraqi forces used chemical weapons) isn't
believing a FALSEHOOD?

What is it, then?

Let's check a couple of things:

Main Entry: mis·per·cep·tion
Pronunciation: "mis-p&r-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
: a false perception

Source: Merriam-Webster


false·hood Audio pronunciation of "falsehood" ( P ) Pronunciation
Key (fôlshd)
n.

1. An untrue statement; a lie.
2. The practice of lying.
3. Lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition

Gee, they look pretty congruent to me. I'm sure we'd all like to see
your explanation of how 'a false perception' isn't at all like 'lack
of conformity to truth or fact'.