A Rigorous Scientific Look Into The 'Fox News Effect'

It almost certainly is a complete fraud, so it carries no weight with me unless someone I trust who is an expert at these sorts of things gets the data, goes over everything, and tells me that it looks legit.

Bret and Heather would be fine.

The best person to trust is you.

The raw unbiased data MUST be available. It isn't. The time and method of collecting it, and who collected it MUST be available. It isn't.
IF you had access to that data, you can run your own statistical summary on it and for a valid conclusion.
 
Oh, you poor man. Do NOT get sucked into that. All he and his troll sock, goat do, is make these statements, with no support, then when you ask them to prove it, like you just did, they give you babbling double talk and do anything except answer the question. Hawkeye10 and goat are troll sock brothers. Both do the same thing. Don't engage either, other than to flame them/him.

Inversion fallacy. Burden fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof. YALSA. Inversion fallacy. Bulverism.
 
Wrong! I pointed out the reason it was bad, among others. You come back with nonsense. It isn't the first statistical study I've panned for reasons related to the statistics involved.
Statistical math was not involved. Just a conclusion with no published unbiased raw data. The method of collecting it and the time of collecting it is likewise unpublished.
I think my best one was pointing out the bullshit studies used by radical Leftists in the Tucson Unified School District to claim their racist, hater, "Raza Studies" program was a success.

It was amazing in that case that the number of students per semester for five semesters never changed, nor did their racial make up...

That was an obvious major red flag right off. From there, things went down hill. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne picked up on that via a reporter at the Arizona Republic I was feeding that stuff to and used it, in part, to get the program shutdown.
That's what taking several years of statistics and then applying them for decades does. The poll in this case is bullshit regardless of what you think or don't.
They may have taken several years of statistics, but statistical math is not involved here.
Statistical math REQUIRES the use of published unbiased raw data.
This type of statistical summary REQUIRES the declaration and justification of variance, from which the margin of error is calculated, which MUST accompany the summary. It also requires picking from the raw data by randN, which was not done, since there is no valid raw data source that is unbiased and published.
 
A Rigorous Scientific Look Into The 'Fox News Effect'..........

Homer-Simpsons-brain-seen-with-MRI-X-ray-Image-reproduced-on-many-Internet-sites.ppm
 
You don't have to prove what you do not allege, TA.

They are not alleging that FOX caused it...they are merely saying that people who watch FOX score worse. Maybe the point is that the people who actually watch FOX are just fucking morons...so they would score worse no matter what.

Attempted force of negative proof. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.
 
You don't have to prove what you do not allege, TA.

They are not alleging that FOX caused it...they are merely saying that people who watch FOX score worse. Maybe the point is that the people who actually watch FOX are just fucking morons...so they would score worse no matter what.

Again, causation and correlation. If a person chose multiple sources, and let's just say for argument few or none chose a single source, then there's no way to know which caused what.
 
Again, causation and correlation. If a person chose multiple sources, and let's just say for argument few or none chose a single source, then there's no way to know which caused what.

We are not dealing with what caused it, TA.

If you see a car all smashed up on the road with someone hanging out the window...you know there was an automobile accident. You can say, "There was an accident."

One does not have to determine who was at fault. No matter who was at fault...THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT.

In the stuff we are discussing, it does not matter if FOX is the reason they know less than someone who does not follow news at all. They just do. They have determined how much people who do not follow the news know about current events...and how much people who watch (among other things) FOX know about current events. Somehow...some way...the people who watch FOX...know less about current events than people who do not follow news at all.

Perhaps the people who do tune into FOX...are generally stupid people, which not only is the reason they tune into that pretend news channel...it also is the reason they know very little about current events...even less than people who do not follow news at all.

That might easily be my guess.
 
Back
Top