Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed 1352

Posted by samzenpus
from the fair-balanced-and-simple dept.
A survey of American voters by World Public Opinion shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. One of the most interesting questions was about President Obama's birthplace. 63 percent of Fox viewers believe Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear). In 2003 a similar study about the Iraq war showed that Fox viewers were once again less knowledgeable on the subject than average. Let the flame war begin!

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed

Comments Filter:
  • Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AnonGCB (1398517) <7spams@gmail . c om> on Thursday December 16, 2010 @01:59PM (#34576200)

    Correlation != Causation. This is basic guys, cmon.

    • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wjousts (1529427) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:01PM (#34576234)
      You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.
      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:02PM (#34576272) Homepage

        Remember folks, just because you agree with it doesn't make it unbiased!

        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LordLimecat (1103839) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @06:08PM (#34580714)
          Not a Fox viewer myself, but I rather like some of the facts this article gives:

          72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

          While a quick google search shows this article [alternet.org]-- By the very site claiming that "economy getting worse" is misinformation-- from august, stating that "the economy is getting worse"! Wow, just wow.

          72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

          As opposed to a NY Times article [nytimes.com] stating that thats EXACTLY what will happen. So we're sitting here bashing on how bad Fox is, when an avid reader of the times could walk away with exactly the same impression? Sort of like how above someone could have read an alternet article about how the economy is sinking, only to be called stupid for doing so in an article 4 months later? Fantastic. Not to mention "healthcare reform bill reducing deficit" is speculation ANYWAY (you saying there will be NO differences from projected costs?), so its rather brash to call anyone who believes otherwise "misinformed".

          60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

          I would wonder A) how the question was worded (ie, "do you believe MAN has caused significant global warming" vs "do you believe the climate is changing"), and B) what the poll statistics were for other news networks, or the population in general. Sadly the link to the poll is down, if anyone managed to grab it I would be interested in seeing it.

          In fact the big problem with the article is that its so biased its not even funny-- the headline puts the worst of slashdot's to shame. You've got flamebait, wild speculation, and assumptions of causation when only correlation is shown. The links to previous polls are hillarious-- we have one poll, by NBC, showing that NBC viewers are smarter (didnt we just get done laughing at poll by Microsoft showing that Microsoft's browser is the best?). And their conclusion, that I particularly liked:

          The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason.

          Yes, that totally follows-- first, we're going to assume causation, and then we're going to assume intent, and then we're going to claim, whats more, that there is a reason behind all this, and finally that all of this is corroborated by the poll.

          Excuse me, while I dont much like a lot of what I see on Fox, its a hell of a lot better than this sort of garbage (well, the news segments at least).
          Commenters, if you dont much like Fox, thats great, but please note just how biased this story you're applauding is. Its practically a parody of itself.

          • Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Internetuser1248 (1787630) on Friday December 17, 2010 @04:37AM (#34585014)
            While you may be right that the article is hugely biased, I myself have seen fox news on several occasions and

            The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason.

            There is not even enough doubt about this for it to be worth writing an article, and the failure of this article to conclusively prove this fact is laughable and somewhat sad. Fox news is known around the world to be deliberate misinformation. I think it is also silly to simply shout correlation != causation as the first post did, as though correlation proves the complete absence of causation. We learn from and gain our understanding of the world from the news sources we read. To say that a news source that so blatantly disregards even the basics of journalistic integrity has no effect on it's viewers' level of informedness about the world is absurd and untenable.

      • You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

        Reminds me of a recent Simpsons episode news helicopter [mediaite.com] for Fox.

      • a large part of the Faux News audience is folks who think they know it all already, and are only seeking reassurance of their obvious superiority.

        they won't be angered by this, because they are only good for words of one or two syllables. just nod at the rest.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Not completely, I watched some very smart and high IQ people de-volve over the past 2 years as they started to watch Fox news.

        The only way I can explain the effect of Fox news on a person... It's like hitting yourself in the head. Once or twice is not so bad, but over and over and over day in and day out does really bad things to your brain.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ackthpt (218170) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:50PM (#34577216) Homepage Journal

        You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

        In my experience (and observed in a recent conversation with a conspiracy theorist who blames everything on lawyers and/or Obama) some people gravitate towards information sources which reinforce their own present views.

        If your only source of information is one with a certain bent or otherwise narrowed view, that could become your view as well. It's best to seek out differing opinions and evaluate each on the strength of its case, rather than whether or not those views agree with your own or not. Changing your mind is exercising your liberty.

        Critical Thinking is an important skill best developed early.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Johnny5000 (451029) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @03:09PM (#34577600) Homepage Journal

        You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

        That's like looking at a school which consistently produces kids with terrible grades and terrible test scores and saying "Well, it must just be that stupid kids are going to that school."
        Maybe it's the school that's the problem!

        People are using Fox News to learn stuff about the world. If they end up misinformed, chances are it's because of the misinformation that Fox News is providing them.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by formfeed (703859) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @03:32PM (#34578040)

        Correlation != Causation. This is basic guys, cmon

        You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.

        Except, that they don't talk about uninformed, they talk about misinformed
        It's not that the viewers have no information, they have wrong information. And if people claim to get their information from that particular source it stands to reason, that there is causation. -At least on a statistically relevant level. Not for each individual of course. A smoker with lung cancer could also have spent half of his live in his parents radon filled basement..

        And the things they were asked are facts. Someones birthplace, when a law got passed, who initiated it, or the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers are just plain facts.

        No, this is not a liberal rant. It is a civility/democracy rant. Sadly, politics and journalism has sunken to the point, where anything goes and fact checking is replaced with the pseudo-objectivity of he-said she-said. Fox, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are despicable, but so was Air America on the left.

    • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:03PM (#34576298) Journal
      While I ordinarily find the "zOMG correlation != causation" brigade to be a trifle tiresome, there is a good bit of evidence from other studies that people find ideologically conformant information comfortable and ideologically nonconformant information uncomfortable(albeit to varying degrees: your fundamentalist of any stripe can barely restrain himself frothing at the mouth over the fact that nonconformant information even exists. Joe user just tends to change the channel).

      Now that there is a media outlet for almost any political persuasion, it is quite reasonable to suspect that people are congregating around channels reporting from their preferred reality. Trouble is, of course, that there is only one reality actually out there, and it has numerous pitfalls and teeth. We ignore it at our peril.
      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nadaka (224565) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:17PM (#34576538)

        What news media outlet exists for a frustrated rational progressive with strong constitutional tendencies completely dissatisfied with every party?

        • by ray-auch (454705) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:25PM (#34576684)

          Wikileaks

        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:25PM (#34576690)

          The daily show

        • Slashdot
        • by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:32PM (#34576840) Journal

          colbert report

        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Gibbs-Duhem (1058152) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:34PM (#34576876)

          NPR? At least so long as you don't mind hearing from frustrated rational conservatives as well. I've found that the guests that I disagree with I find I can at least respect for their thoughtful analysis. Also, not guiding your programming by what will improve your ratings the most helps a lot towards making the discourse more informative and less bombastic.

          • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LocalH (28506) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @03:12PM (#34577662) Homepage

            If a left-leaning person is not even willing to hear from anyone labeled a conservative, I would posit that they are part of the problem as much as they harp on the right.

            • Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @07:06PM (#34581356)

              If a left-leaning person is not even willing to hear from anyone labeled a conservative, I would posit that they are part of the problem as much as they harp on the right.

              I would tend to agree, at least when that conservative makes well reasoned arguments (we can agree to disagree about the solutions, at least). But I would not consider Fox News in that category.

              The times I've attempted to watch Fox, I've found the fallacious-arguments-per-minute rate to be so high that it's pretty impossible to make much sense out of any of it. In fact, it's a veritable textbook of such argument styles. I'm left to conclude that it's viewership must be pretty incapable of recognizing basic fallacies such as the straw man, false dichotomy, guilt-by-association, omission, etc.

              I've caught "progressive" media making those sorts of fallacious arguments too, and I think it does neither the progressive nor conservative case well in using them.

        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:41PM (#34577048)
          If we vote with our wallet when we buy things, and we vote with our eyeballs when we choose a channel, then may I remind you of your right to abstain? Cut the cable. Choose none. Ignorance is bliss. I hate to say it, but I've definitely been happier since we cut cable TV to our house and I stopped watching the news. If something is important, I'll hear about it secondhand from friends, bloggers, aggregators, or some other method. News that's actually important will get to you one way or the other. And when it comes to being informed in important matters, a few minutes of research online will serve you far better than the hours of spin, propaganda, and advertising that you're getting now from the boob tube.
        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)

          by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:53PM (#34577274) Homepage

          Besides the many other good suggestions, I'd highly recommend Salon [salon.com], and Glenn Greenwald in particular. You might also try The Nation [thenation.com], although it can stray into bleeding-heart territory at times.

          You can also learn a heck of a lot by reading foreign news media, such as the BBC or Al Jazeera.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)

        by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:30PM (#34576794)

        Not only that, but if you look at the actual study [worldpublicopinion.org], even non-FOX News viewers believe a lot of crazy stuff, and it's more indicative the personal biases and beliefs of people who choose to watch FOX News, not that FOX News "makes you stupid".

        You might find this study [ucla.edu] an interesting read.

        Notable:

        "All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist."

        and

        "Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.

        Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). ...the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. ...Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. ... The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims."

        Keep in mind that they are ONLY looking at the evening news shows; if you included the opinion/editorial shows from FOX News, which constitutes nearly all of the evening/prime-time programming, I'm not sure what would happen to the results... ;-)

        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Capt_Morgan (579387) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:40PM (#34577024)
          The people that wrote that report might want to look up the word liberal in the dictionary. The democratic party isn't even close to being "liberal". They, like the republicans, are authoritarian statists....
        • by dr2chase (653338)
          Note that the study you cite speaks only of bias, and says nothing about misinformation:

          Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference.

    • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by catchblue22 (1004569) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:19PM (#34576574) Homepage

      Since TV news is how most people become informed, I would argue that on the correlation to causation scale, this would lean towards the causation side.

  • Sheesh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mark72005 (1233572) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @01:59PM (#34576212)
    Can you mod an entire article "troll"?
    • Re:Sheesh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cream wobbly (1102689) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:02PM (#34576258)

      Can you mod an entire news agency "troll"?

      • Re:Sheesh (Score:4, Informative)

        by Kenja (541830) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:57PM (#34577362)
        The thing to keep in mind is that what people think of as "Fox News" is not Fox News. The actual news program only runs about two hours a day. The rest is commentary disguised as news. However, if pressed on the subject, Fox will tell you that its not "news" programming.
  • Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fructose (948996) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:04PM (#34576306) Homepage

    FOX also makes sure to point out any 'controversy' in science stories.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/fox_news_bureau_chief_told_staff_to_cast_doubt_on_climate_change.php?ref=fpb [talkingpointsmemo.com]

    This is just the result of their policies. They probably designed it this way to make people want to watch/read more FOX news. If you are unsure about something going on today you try to learn more, and you learn what's going on in the world by watching the news, right?

    • Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:21PM (#34576606)

      FOX also makes sure to point out any 'controversy' in science stories.

      Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?

      • Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld.gmail@com> on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:27PM (#34576726) Homepage
        Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?

        Yes, if one of the sides is clearly false. Ignorance is not a point of view.
  • by fridaynightsmoke (1589903) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:05PM (#34576324) Homepage

    Slashdot readers are shown by a recent survey to have significantly higher IQ scores than average, yet with higher rates of social anxiety. What is it about Slashdot that makes its readers so smart, yet so awkward?

    THIS JUST IN- people who buy the most gas/petrol also tend to have larger cars than average. Scientists are trying to find out why putting more gas in a car's tank causes the car to grow.

  • by alta (1263) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:06PM (#34576336) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps people who believe that Obama was not born in the US are more likely to be watchers of fox news, not the other way around?

    The flame war should be towards you for posting such drivel! This is neither news, or for nerds. Here's an idea, why don't you just replace your news feed with one from Huffington/Politico, since it appears that's the way you want to go.

  • by metrix007 (200091) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:07PM (#34576366)

    People have to separate the channel as a whole from the actual news shows. Their actual news is fairly decent and objective. The rest of the shows on that channel are pure columnist style speculation and opinion however.

    • by HBI (604924)

      Shhh, you're making sense and being fair. The leftists here can't handle that.

    • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:17PM (#34576522) Journal

      People have to separate the channel as a whole from the actual news shows. Their actual news is fairly decent and objective. The rest of the shows on that channel are pure columnist style speculation and opinion however.

      Bullshit. [talkingpointsmemo.com] The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:21PM (#34576612)

      People have to separate the channel as a whole from the actual news shows. Their actual news is fairly decent and objective. The rest of the shows on that channel are pure columnist style speculation and opinion however.

      There have been numerous instances that make me disagree with this. The Newscorp organization pushes disinformation for profit. For example, the news program regularly reports that there are "reports of..." reports which are simply quoting what the lunatics in Fox News talk shows say. They don't bother to look into it or debunk, it, they just report it like it is credible news. And then there is corporate ethics. As far as I know, Fox is the only news corporation that went to court and argued that it was their first amendment right to fire reporters for refusing to knowingly lie about the dangers of drugs produced by one of their advertisers. And they're right, they do have the right to fire those reporters and lie to the public or bury the story... but that completely destroys their credibility as a news channel and that of any program they carry.

      Basically, while there is a lot of bias and poor research going on in US media today, Fox is actually worse than all the others and this study reflects some of that. Frankly I think the only reason to anyone would trust anything seen on the Fox news channel is ignorance about what kind of an organization is running the show.

  • bias maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:12PM (#34576450)
    Worldpublicopinion.org founded by Pipa.org
    http://www.pipa.org/sponsors.htm

    Their sponsors are a who's who of liberal politics.

    Sponsors

    PIPA's activities have been supported by:

            * Rockefeller Foundation
            * Rockefeller Brothers Fund
            * Tides Foundation
            * Ford Foundation
            * German Marshall Fund of the United States
            * Compton Foundation
            * Carnegie Corporation
            * Benton Foundation
            * Ben and Jerry's Foundation
            * University of Maryland Foundation
            * Circle Foundation
            * JEHT Foundation
            * Stanley Foundation
            * Ploughshares Fund
            * Calvert Foundation
            * Secure World Foundation
            * Oak Foundation
            * United States Institute of Peace
  • Say what you mean. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:14PM (#34576494)

    There is a difference, and a significant one at that, between all of the following statements:

    1) Fox News makes its viewers less informed. (What headline said, which is impossible.)
    2) Viewers of Fox News tend to be less informed. (What headline meant.)
    3) Fox News makes its viewers more mis-informed. (What summary said.)
    4) Viewers of Fox News tend to be more mis-informed. (What summary should have said.)
    5) Viewers of Fox News tend to believe stuff that I think is hogwash. (What summary meant.)

  • by s0litaire (1205168) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:25PM (#34576686)

    I'm not saying all the viewers of Fox news are moronic idiots...
    It's just that a lot of moronic idiots watch Fox News.

  • by unitron (5733) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:26PM (#34576710) Homepage Journal

    ...having already made up their minds and not wishing to be confused with the facts, they go there to have their preconceptions re-enforced.

  • by trout007 (975317) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:37PM (#34576948)
    Here are things the survey says are false and the percentage of Fox News viewers that believe it. My comments are in parenthesis.Most questions are opinions or confusing definitions not facts. It is obvious that this people that made this survey intended it to show people don't agree with their interpretation of the facts.

    91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs (Opinion. We have lost jobs since the stimulus was passed no way to say whether the stimulus helped or hurt)

    72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit (Opinion)

    72 percent believe the economy is getting worse (Opinion. Based on what measure?)

    60 percent believe climate change is not occurring (Opinion. At least this one has some scientific backing)

    49 percent believe income taxes have gone up (Confusing definition. People know the tax cuts are expiring and haven't been renewed)

    63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (Confusing definition. Cuts to whom and how much)

    56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout (Confusing definition. Bailout happened during 2009. Bush may have started it but Obama didn't stop it.)

    38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP (First somewhat good question. Could be phrased "Most Republican Congresspeople voted against TARP. You could actually verify this. Just saying Republicans doesn't mean elected politicians)

    63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear) (Second good question. Documents have been produced that show he was born in the US)
  • by TheSync (5291) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @02:47PM (#34577178) Journal

    TFA says:

    "Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

    91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
    72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
    72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
    49 percent believe income taxes have gone up"

    No economist can prove that the "stimulus" (exactly which one?) caused job gains or lost. They can speculate, but there is no control to the experiment. Money may have gone to hire various people, but then the unseen effects of the bill (such as fear of future high deficits) may have reduced aggregate demand and caused private job losses. Certainly if one looks at the unemployment rate graph, it certainly isn't clear that it helped much.

    We don't know what effect the ACA will have on the deficit because that is in the future. The deficit is taxes in (which is related to total incomes) versus spending out. No one knows what that will be in the future (especially as the regulation of ACA seems to be changing on a day-to-day basis, see the Mini-Med plan rule changes). Again, all we have are predictions.

    By the way, if anyone would like to bet that the Federal deficit will be lower in 2015 than now, I'll take that bet on the other side!

    "The economy getting worse" is a qualitative statement, not a provable quantitative one. You could believe that GDP is rising, unemployment claims are dropping, yet the large number of mortgage-backed securities still in the banking sector have not yet been marked down to their true value, possibly leading to a second financial meltdown. Or you could be fearing inflation in the future due to quantitate easing, or you could be fearing US sovereign debt crisis due to large future deficits due to Medicare and Social Security costs.

    "income taxes have gone up" is a true statement for me - I live in California. Federal rates are still going to go up at the end of the year unless a bill is passed.

  • by cartman (18204) on Thursday December 16, 2010 @04:13PM (#34578776)

    What astonishes me is that so few people even bother to "click through" to find the original source of this claim, even though it's so terribly easy to do so on the web (due to hyperlinks).

    This slashdot story is a "summary of a summary" and is several degrees removed from the original source.

    The news story upon which this is based, was taken from a lefty news source (alter.net), and is hysterically distorted. The original poll does not claim that "Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources." Nor does the original poll claim that Fox news causes viewers to become misinformed. Quite the opposite, the original poll claims that Fox news viewers are less informed about some issues, whereas viewers of lefty news sources are less informed about other issues, and that "...this suggests that misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on."

    The alter.net story has drastically distorted the original poll. The story picked and chose specific issues about which fox viewers were less informed, while ignoring (and failing to re-print!) other issues about which they were better informed. Then the story then concluded (contrary to the poll's specific language) that Fox viewers were "less informed".

    What astonishes me, is that lefty commentors here on slashdot appear to have read a drastically distorted and incorrect news story, then swallowed it whole, without any criticism or research, all the while believing that they are open minded, critical, and better-informed than the stupid people who watch Fox.

    It's especially ironic that the alter.net article was complaining about bias in the news on the conservative side, when the article itself was a particularly striking example of not just bias but outright flagrant distortion in the news from the left.

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Working...