>Although I dont' listen to Fox news on purpose, I've heard clips here and there. And his comments almost exactly echo theirs. And theirs echo the white house talking points for the day.
>He doesn't understand at all that he's the type of person people in power look for. All they have to do is find an enemy, ratchet up the level of fear (gays, Iraq, Iran....etc.). Then attack to show how strong they are. the 30% who still support bush are all ga-ga over this.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson's study:
"We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they fel. . . . Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed."
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3408"Those who said they watched the Fox News Channel "very closely" were more likely to say evidence of WMD had been found or that people in the world favor the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq than those who watched Fox "not very closely" or "not closely at all."
Here's an interesting twist on popular assumptions ('round these here parts anyhow):
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-30-2004/0002262661&EDATE="What should be truly frightening to O'Reilly is how the audience for "The
O'Reilly Factor" stacks up against that of "The Daily Show." Far from being a
bunch of stoned slackers, viewers of "The Daily Show" are actually smarter and
more affluent than those of "The Factor."
More Jamieson work about how some peoples are influenced:
http://www.pbs.org/elections/essays.htmlAnd gee, I thought PBS was a communist orginazation. ;-)
