On the Neuroticism of Fox News Viewers

[pax]

On the Neuroticism of Fox News Viewers
By Rev. Robert Vinciguerra
August 2, 2010
opednews.com

Christopher Nolan had it wrong, inception is pretty easy. Let's face it. Fox News isn't a news source, per se. It's a network that is, by design, set up to propagate a specific political view point, that of the American political right wing. Fox is neither fair nor balanced, and oftentimes "facts" conveyed on the network are demonstrably false. Yet fans of the network swear by it as the only source for news that they trust. The following is an analysis of Fox's tactics of manipulation and the defenses employed by their viewers. First, it is important to assume that the average Fox News viewer is intelligent, capable of reasoning, and is rational. Many are well educated and successful in their respective communities. So, what is it that allows them to be blinded from the obvious reality that Fox News manipulates them, and in some cases out and out lies to them?

'Us vs. Them.' There are many levels of conditioning involved. The most prominent one employed by Fox is the "us vs. them" mentality. Although Fox News is very much a part of the mainstream media, being owned and operated by News Corp. and having the largest market share of cable news, Fox positions itself as an outsider and paints the rest of the mainstream media is evil and biased. Cleverly, this position insulates Fox from and criticism in the mind of their viewers. If, for example, CNN runs a story that refutes all or part of a Fox News report, it's irrelevant because that's the "Communist News Network." If NPR, The New York Times, Washington Post, or any other reputable news agency contradicts a story run by Fox, it's incredulous because they're liberal and socialist. The "other" news outlets have a supposed agenda which instantly makes them illegitimate. In some cases, as with MSNBC or The Nation there is a clear, and often acknowledged, liberal slant. However the vast majority of reporting by mainstream news outlets is not biased.

As evidence of bias Fox News will often ask rhetorical questions, such as, "If the mainstream media isn't biased, why didn't they break the John Edwards affair scandal?" Well, why didn't the conservative members of the mainstream media break it, such as The Wall Street Journal, or Fox News themselves? Quite simply, they all got scooped, which is by no means evidence of a vast liberal conspiracy in the media. Another example of such rhetoric is, "Why isn't the mainstream media covering such and such story? Clearly they're biased." In fact, when Fox News makes these claims it's really an exemplification of their own bias. The story that they're highlighting has usually been covered in the rest of the media, but just not given the prominence that Fox as elevated it to. As a recent example, Fox devoted days of coverage to criticizing President Obama for appearing on the daytime talk show, The View. NBC, ABC, CNN, and print media all gave the event appropriate coverage. Fox News, however, exposes their own bias against the President by using the issue to attack him personally and tie it into a grand theory of a vast socialist conspiracy, which it's not. Really, it's just the President going on a TV show.

In yet other cases, the story that Fox is promoting simply isn't true. For example, the repeated assertation that the Obama tax plan gives refunds to Americans who don't pay income taxes, or that it ends all of the Bush tax cuts, when in reality it only ends some. In these cases, the rest of the media didn't provide coverage because the stories aren't true, not because they are in sinister league with the Obama White House. Unfortunately, Fox News fans don't know that such stories are, for lack of a better word, lies. By lying to their viewers Fox enforces the world view that they're propagating. By demonizing other forms of media Fox has conditioned its viewers not believe only what they say.

'Fair and Balanced.' The concept of equality is one that the United States is founded upon, and therefore the idea of fairness is one that is easily sold to, and accepted by Americans. Fox News doesn't have to actually be fair to market this point of view. Like a magician, they only have to convince the audience that what they're witnessing is fair, though it's simply an elaborate illusion. It is irrefutable that Fox News' biggest personalities, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly are partisan and have their own political agenda. A number of arguments are used to justify this fact.

'Fox's hosts bring people in from both sides of a position, so it's fair and balanced, and they leave it for the viewer to decide.' It is true that on several shows guests are invited to speak on behalf of both sides of an argument, but that is irrelevant. When the host spends the lead-in advocating one position, spends the discussion criticizing one party, and then follows it with mockery, there is nothing fair or balanced about the media presentation. The audience is being led to the conclusion that the network has preordained.

'Fox's hosts aren't partisan; they criticize republicans too.' Fox News, like many other conservative advocacy groups, the GOP included, doesn't one hundred percent support every position that every republican makes. Fox advocates ideology, their own version of America, their own sense of morality, and their own portrayal of history. When any person stands in the way of the perception of reality they're trying to sell, then Fox will aim their sights on them as well.

'But MSNBC is worse!' I don't know that that's true, and it doesn't matter. It is, for certain, that MSNBC does have several left-leaning partisan shows with an obvious liberal bias. However, the sins of MSNBC don't counteract the sins of Fox News any more than the sins of the murder's brother are counteracted because he's just a burglar.

'You have to know the hosts personally by watching them every night to know what they really mean.' For example: "When Glenn Beck railed against formal education and bragged that he was self educated at CPAC*, he really didn't mean that. You see, if you watched his show every night you would know that he really meant something totally different!" In this way Fox News can serve multiple types of people within the segment of the population that they're targeting. In the given example, Fox appeals to conservatives to look down upon people who've graduated from "the liberal elite Ivy League," while at the same time appealing to conservatives who do place value in higher education. The trick is to just say that's not what they really meant. Those who want to believe the original sentiment see this as a wink (after all, even Fox has to appeal to the liberals or else face their wrath), and those who don't take it at face value. [*CPAC, by the way, stands for the Conservative Political Action Conference. Imagine if Brian Williams gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. He'd be forced to resign.]

A Message of Concealed Hate

Perhaps to some the hate that Fox News wraps around some of its stories isn't all that concealed. But, unfortunately, it is the vast majority of its viewers. Since the time that Barack Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States hardly a night has passed where Fox News hasn't somehow compared him, democrats, or prominent members of the Democratic Party to some of the greatest monsters that history has to offer. The government is getting involved in health care, that's how Adolph Hitler and the NAZI's started their takeover of Germany. That statement, though preposterous, is the very message that Fox News' Glenn Beck has been echoing night after night; comparing the current administration in the United States to Nazis. Painting the President and democrats in the color of hated leads viewers to looking at them all, Nazis and democrats alike, in the same light, to have the same feelings about Obama as they have about Hitler. What follows these segments of what I call "distortionist history" is the blatant suggestion of armed revolt. "What's coming in this country is revolution, maybe," declares Glenn Beck on national cable television. These segments often include hysterical portrayals of a not-so-distant future where increased taxes due to socialist policies will lead to violence against the government; armed revolution. The show soon more closely resembles an assembly of neo-Nazis or anarchists than journalism of any kind. Fox News is so biased against the President that they allow talk of actual violence to be a part of their broadcast. They're biased against the President of the United States of America. Think about that for a moment.

The Victim Viewers

The same First Amendment that protects all media, of course, applies to Fox News. Until Fox begins to outright advocate overthrowing the government, they'll carry on with their same rhetoric, and no one would dare try to stop them. That alone would embolden their viewers, who are religious in their zeal. The best hope for them is that they have friends like us to bring that back to reality. Don't take it on your own to tell them that they're being lied to. They'll find it offensive that they're not smart enough to tell the difference between when they're being told the truth and when they're not. Fox's viewers are, in large part thanks to Fox, highly skeptical of media and most authority. But you they know personally. Select a few irrefutable facts. Start small, and then go bigger. There are several media outlets that exhibit very little bias to any particular point of view. Exposure to some can be helpful. Sometimes it only takes the slightest crack in the darkest dungeon for sunlight to shine through. Unfortunately, many of them may simply be lost in the imaginary dream world designed by Fox News, unable or unwilling to escape.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/On-t ... 2-581.html

[PerryPeabody]

pax-
That oped pretty much mirrors a piece I posted in April:

This is an interesting article that came out serendipitiously on Left Bank/ Right Bank day:

Five key ‘moral triggers’ polarize politics

By Rachael Rettner
updated 8:19 a.m. ET, Tues., April 13, 2010
msnbc

The health care bill may be passed, but the road to reform certainly painted a polarizing picture of America. From a six-hour summit that failed to sway a single Republican, to shouts of "baby killer" and Tea Party protests, politicians and the public seemed to be from different planets.

Psychologically speaking, perhaps they are, say experts, who weigh in on the reasons behind the seemingly endless acrimony these days over a slew of issues, from gay marriage to abortion.

The reasons are many-faced, involving deep-seated personality differences, contrasting moral views, polarized political parties and today's 24/7, tell-it-all-in-great detail media, all of which prevent liberals and conservatives from seeing eye-to-eye, experts say.
And at the end of the day, these divisions could explain why we can't all just get along.

Conflicting morals
Before they even get to the issues, liberals and conservatives are already starting off on the wrong foot for bipartisan agreement. Fundamental differences in morals and personality, paired with emotion-driven logic lead to a basic disconnect between the political bents.

Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia and his colleagues have pinned down five basic "moral triggers," or the factors people use to judge right from wrong and that have evolved in human societies. Different cultures and even individuals place more emphasis on certain triggers compared with others.

In a broad sense, they boil down to:

Harm/care: People are sensitive to suffering and have negative feelings toward those who are harmful and cruel. They value kindness and compassion.
Fairness/reciprocity: A history of cooperation means humans have evolved a sense of fairness and reciprocity, leading to altruistic actions.
Ingroup/loyalty: People place moral value on those who do what's good for the group; are loyal to the group; and dislike disloyal members.
Authority/respect: Humans tend to respect authority and tradition.
Purity/sanctity: The idea that we view our bodies as sacred. This idea ties into religious views about the body and human actions.

Studies have shown that liberals tend to care only about harm and fairness when considering whether something is moral or not, said Peter Ditto, a professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, who is involved with Haidt's research. In contrast, conservatives have a more traditional moral structure, and tend to care about all five morality factors, he said.

"So that's where a lot of the problems come in, is that the things that really bother conservatives don’t bother liberals very much," Ditto said. "And the two groups don't understand each other's morality very well."

Take gay marriage, for example: "From a liberal standpoint, gay marriage isn't a problem, it doesn’t harm anybody, and it's only fair that gay people be allowed to be married just like straight people can," Ditto said.

But for conservatives, gay marriage goes against the traditional idea of marriage, and so presents a real moral problem, Ditto explained.

Twisting the facts
These basic moral differences can then go on to drive the biased perception of facts , Ditto said. Often people don't agree on an issue, because they interpret — or misinterpret — the facts differently, or they simply ignore facts that don't fit their view. People on both sides of the political aisle do this, studies show, and so even what might seem like simple notions of "right" and "wrong" are judged based on altered realities by both parties.

"People process information, and it's biased to supporting their moral ideological view," he said. "And what you end up with is these sort of radically different perceptions of fact, so that it's not like they're just arguing about morals anymore; they perceive the world completely differently."

This bias worldview might have its roots in emotions as well as morals.

"You tend to form emotional ties to the belief that you hold," said Steve Hoffman, a professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Buffalo in New York. "And so you seek out that information, or those convictions, and those people that convey the convictions that you think you already have."

Psychology research has also identified personality differences that might lead people to identify as either liberal or conservative.

"If you have a high need for certainty, you like things to be very sure or certain, [and] if you have a high need for order, if you tend to see lots of threats and danger out in the world, you're more likely to identify as a conservative," said Christopher M. Federico, a professor of psychology and political science at the University of Minnesota.

On the other hand, people with a lower need for certainty and order and who are less likely to see the world as a threatening place are more likely to identify as liberal, he said.

In other words, ideological sorting is not meaningless. "It's not that you like Coke and I like Pepsi, or something like that; it's something that seems to go much deeper, and it's not psychologically arbitrary so to speak," Federico said.

Polarized parities
So liberals and conservatives are different down to the core. And perhaps that's how it's always been. But are we really more partisan today than in years past? The answer depends on how you define "we."

If you're talking about the American public at large, the answer is not so clear.

For instance, the number of Americans who identify as either Democrat or Republican has remained relatively constant over the last 25 years, said Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford University. And the number of Independents hovers around 30 percent to 40 percent, he said, suggesting that most Americans actually have moderate views.

However, gauging the extent of American partisanship remains difficult, Hoffman said, and there are some political scientists who would say America is more partisan today, he said.

What is generally agreed upon, however, is that those who are actively involved in the Democratic and Republican parties seem to have become more divided in recent years.

"If you were to randomly draw a Republican and a Democrat from the population today, they're likely to be further apart than if you randomly drew a Republican and a Democrat from the population 40 years ago," Fiorina said.

In other words, each party is more ideologically homogenous, yet both are at more extreme ends of the spectrum, University of Minnesota's Federico said. "You don't see too many liberal Republicans anymore or as many conservative Democrats," as was the case about 50 years ago, he said.

Case in point, no Republicans voted for Obama's health care bill in either the House or the Senate.

Added on top of this division is the fact that those who are more partisan are the ones who are most engaged in politics, according to Federico.

"The people who are most likely to have an impact on politics, to get involved, to go to marches, to vote, to pay attention to the political media, are those that are especially undergoing all these processes that make people more partisan in a sense," Federico said.

These extreme voices on the left and the right help to fuel the perception that America as a whole is more partisan, Fiorina said.

"The people who are the public face of politics, who get on TV and who are on all the talk shows, and so forth, they are not only highly partisan, they are the most partisan of the partisans," he said.

Same divisions, new media
Speaking of media, experts agree part of the blame for American partisanship, or at least the perception of partisanship, rests with the endless number of politically biased TV and radio shows, newspapers and Internet sites.

While people have likely always had differences in their moral beliefs, and had a tendency to take a skewed view toward the facts, today's media allows such distorted notions to be reinforced, said Ditto, of the University of California, Irvine.

"If I'm a liberal I can go to MSNBC, I listen to NPR, read liberal magazines, I read the Huffington Post," Ditto said. "If I'm a conservative, I go to Fox News, I read Michelle Malkin, I listen to Rush Limbaugh.

"The two sides come in and they just fundamentally don't agree on even the most basic facts, because they want to believe certain things, and they're reinforced [by the media]" Ditto said.

Hoffman agrees.

"There is this kind of rhetoric of absolute conviction, and it's either kind of a right wing conviction or a kind of liberal conviction," he said. "What effect that has, is that it both exacerbate the sense that we live in an increasingly polarized world, and [media pundits] also appeal to people's emotions and their kind of emotional processing," Hoffman said.

The media and the Internet likely also play a role in fueling the spread of radical beliefs. For instance, a recent poll, conducted by Harris Interactive, found that 32 percent of those polled believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and about a quarter of Republicans in the poll think he may be the antichrist. The poll was widely criticized for not properly representing the public, but Harris pollsters stood by its validity. Either way, it illustrated a big gap in how the left and the right view things and how those views can be supported by the media.

"The media give you the support that you need, and you're able to go and find those things, whereas in the past, it was much harder to find something that would support your beliefs, particularly crazy ones," Ditto said.

While many extreme beliefs today, like those expressed in the Harris poll, seem to be coming from the right wing, the same biases also occur on the left, and at another point in history, extreme leftist views might have been more ostentatious.

"To a certain extent the same thing happens on the left, and maybe at different historical times it would be more prominent on the left as well," Ditto said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36325869/ns ... behavior//

[yankee-in-france]

Nothing is etched in stone. Rupert Murdoch hasn't learned that yet, but he knows what he has to do to get the American right up in arms. It doesn't matter whether the shows are fair and balanced. He is playing to a captive audience. He knows what they want to hear and he gives it to them ... Fox News.

[pax]

Thanks PerryPeabody.

[pax]

Nothing is etched in stone. Rupert Murdoch hasn't learned that yet, but he knows what he has to do to get the American right up in arms. It doesn't matter whether the shows are fair and balanced. He is playing to a captive audience. He knows what they want to hear and he gives it to them ... Fox News.

I agree his media properties tell a lot of people what they want to hear. Why they want to hear all that negative bullshit is beyond my comprehension. They were unhappy when they were in power and now they're unhappy out of power. Not an attractive way to persuade anyone. 'Let's all be miserable!' LOL.

[DocTar]

Thanks for the excellent reading, Pax and Perry.

I believe that most people can be categorized in two segments: the positive thinkers and the negative thinkers. The negatives, who are pretty much FOX's most loyal viewers, are motivated and controlled by fear of everything. That's why they are never happy. However, when Bush was in power, they were less fearful. Oh but the bottom fell out when the black liberal muslim not a citizen was elected!

I will confess to this: Sometime back in the 90's, I was one of those FOX fans. I watched O'Reilly faithfully...but when Hannity and Coombs came on, I could not stand the way Hannity went after any and everything he didn't agree with...mocking and spewing hate out of one side of his mouth and being the good little Catholic boy out of the other...what a joke. That is how I got out of the FOX fascination.

[yankee-in-france]

.. interesting, DT, how you evolved.

I am not sure that all Fox viewers are negative thinkers. I think that some of them are friggin' nuts, but I also think that there are some who find security and perhaps even nostalgia for the good old days in conservative thinking ... not the radical conservative thinking just common sense and let's not do anything too quickly before we have a good think. I have respect for those viewers' positions even though I think that they are being duped and used by the station.

When we first moved here, Fox News was part of our Sky cable deal from the UK. Peter couldn't stand it when he would hear the TV on that channel. He is definitely not a Rupert Murdoch fan. I would have it on because it kept me in touch with the US not because I liked what I heard but at least I heard it. When we stopped Sky Cable, we no longer get Fox News. I liked Neil Cavuto and yes I liked Shep. I couldn't stand the morning news show. Don't ask me why ... I didn't like the three of them especially the woman with the pancake makeup that was two shades darker than her neck. [Sorry for the catty remark.]

[DocTar]

I still like Shepherd Smith and also Neil Cavuto! And there are one or two reporters who have been close to fair and balanced....at least there used to be....I no longer watch FOX, but one of my local stations is a FOX affiliate station and they feature Shep's around the world spots every night.

[pax]

I got turned off from cable 'news' through the Natalee Holloway case. Got tired of the histrionics. Dropped cable for two years and didn't miss much. Picked it up again for sports. Started watching c-span and enjoy its live feed coverage and features like 'book notes'.

[yankee-in-france]

... yes, I really enjoyed Book Notes. Is Brian Lamb still active?

[pax]

... yes, I really enjoyed Book Notes. Is Brian Lamb still active?

Yes, he's excellent. Others host 'Book Notes' as well.

[DocTar]

I read somewhere that Beck is a Mormon. In many religious circles, that is considered belonging to a cult. I am surprised he is not catching it from the religious right!

[yankee-in-france]

I read somewhere that Beck is a Mormon. In many religious circles, that is considered belonging to a cult. I am surprised he is not catching it from the religious right!

They need everyone that they can get.