Fox News is less informative than no news

Fox News Channel

If you want to know what's happening in the world, and your viewing choices are between Fox News Channel and a blank screen, the latter would be more informative, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University researchers.

While New York Times and USA Today readers are twelve percent more likely to know that Egyptians recently overthrew their government than people who abstain from all media sources, Fox News viewers are eighteen percent less likely. (The latter are also six percent less likely to know that Syrians have not overthrown their government.) A previous poll found that Fox News viewers are more misinformed than Americans who receive their information elsewhere, but this new study indicates they are more misinformed than people who receive their information nowhere.

"[T]he results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all," said Dan Cassino, a political-science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University. "The fact that Fox News, the preferred media outlet for many of the candidates, doesn't do better in informing viewers is very surprising."

So what should Fox News viewers do instead? (Besides watching paint dry, which is apparently more educational?) According to the press release, "Listening to NPR also helps, but the biggest aid to answering correctly is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." But you already knew that... unless you watch Fox News.

Commentarium (20 Comments)

Nov 22 11 - 1:16pm

That so funny.


That's not funny. That's really scary. The electorate is uniformed. These might willingly elect a moron.

Nov 22 11 - 2:17pm

already did: Dubya.

Nov 22 11 - 2:18pm

you mean again? as in 2000 and 2004?

Nov 22 11 - 2:19pm
Even more hilarious

is that people who watched The Daily Show had a significant lead. Think about that: Fake news being more informative than "real" news.

Nov 22 11 - 3:48pm

"Infotainment", a horrifying neologism.

Nov 22 11 - 3:54pm

What I also find interesting is that both Fox and the Wash Times are run by immigrants, foreigners come here to (successfully) change our country from within. Why doesn't that bother "real Americans", or - in the case of the Moonie Times - real Christians?

Nov 22 11 - 4:12pm

Murdoch is white, so it's not an issue.

Nov 22 11 - 7:05pm

Nice racism there, Gazbo.

Nov 22 11 - 9:59pm

What on earth did Gazbo say that was racist? How is asking the question, "Why are some immigrants frightening while others are unquestioned?" racist?

Nov 23 11 - 3:19am

It's because Observer is a racist, but his MO is accusing everyone else of what he's guilty of. *Yawn*

Nov 23 11 - 3:32am

Welcome back, @troll. You're comment is interesting since it comes from the only commenter on here that has openly used racial epithets in their replies. Nothing worse than that.

Nov 23 11 - 1:24pm
your vs. you're

That was really convincing, conservatroll. We all know who the real racist is: You.

Nov 23 11 - 1:40pm

It's not my fault that I don't like black people.

Nov 23 11 - 8:55pm

Oh no, people can use different names on here? Who'd a thunk it?

Nov 22 11 - 5:06pm

Has anybody outside of Farleigh Dickinson University ever heard of FDU? Nerve really pulled this study out of their asses, didn't they.

Nov 22 11 - 7:04pm

The "previous poll" was debunked by Politifact. Perhaps the nerve authors are not as well informed as the rest of us?

Nov 23 11 - 3:19am

was debunked by reality.

Nov 23 11 - 3:35am

I didn't think that anything was less newsworthy than the drivel that Nerve calls news.

Nov 23 11 - 3:23pm

I hate Nerve. That's why I read it 24/7 and comment like a troll every chance I get.

Nov 23 11 - 8:54pm

Der, eye am dum. Der