Media Bias and Misinformation

Channel Zero

The election campaign is hotting up now, with both main parties stepping up their attacks. Fact checking consequently seems to go out the window in some quarters, either deliberately or not. The first casualty of election war it seems.

Many people i gather have widely differing views on this, as to which network is the worst offender, and whether there is a liberal or conservative bias in general in the media. I think we can all agree that TV news and analysis is a very powerful medium in the States and has a major part to play in shaping opinions and thereby garnering votes.
What happens when it becomes a tool for disinformation and the propagating of mistruths though?
Even though they are all corporate owned at this stage, and as such there is no obligation to be 'fair and balanced', there are i presume minimum standards of broadcasting that need to be adhered to. The question is are these standards being flouted. I personally think so. What does anyone else think?
And does anyone have other examples from different networks?


Just to give two possible examples to get the ball rolling. The first goes back to the Wisconsin election in June.

From Media Matters:

As protests against Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget continue in Madison, WI, right-wing media have continued to push the misleading statistic that public employees in the state of Wisconsin make more money than their private sector counterparts. In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, when education and experience are factored in, public sector employees in Wisconsin earn less than workers performing comparable jobs in the private sector.

The second example is from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Recent campaign coverage has focused on a supposed Barack Obama "gaffe" that was made to appear to be an attack on small business owners. This came during an Obama appearance on July 13; the quote, in the isolation preferred by the Romney campaign, was this:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that.

What Obama said was actually this:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business–you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

According to Media Matters, Fox News alone spent 42 segments and more than two hours of airtime manufacturing a scandal by deceptively editing comments made at a campaign appearance in Virginia.
(short vid of one of them here)

Amerika

Disingenuous from the start! Why not just retitle your thread… FoxNews Sucks!

But lets start with your Media Matters. Their strategy is an all out War On Fox. How can you even think to use them in this context as a benchmark against media bias?
　
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html



( I'll see your Media Matters and raise you a http://newsbusters.org/ )

Channel Zero

Amerika wrote: »

Disingenuous from the start! Why not just retitle your thread… FoxNews Sucks!

My personal opinion is that Fox are the worst offenders. By far. Hardly disingenuous to make that observation. If you notice, i'm also asking for examples from other networks. Cool the jets!!

Amerika

So we'll end up with FoxNews coming from one side and I'll give examples of the NY Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN (better now than they were but their ratings have dropped off the earth), LA Times, Politico, DailyBeast, etc, etc, etc. from the other.

Read my NewsBusters link.

It will just be a slugfest and the neverending taunts of "there you go again with the liberal media bias." But hey, I'm always up for a good and fair fight. I'll start with the NY Times tomorrow.

Amerika

In my opinion: Now if you're primarily talking about television media, stick to C-Span for as unbiased as you can get in politics. Everything else seemingly has a slant. CNN is better then they had been, but their ratings have suffered because of it, and will have to go more to opinion reporting going forward to have any relevancy. FoxNews to the right, most everything else to the left. The key though is do they provide information in a fair manner? Do they balance it out? Do they report on issues that go against their tendencies? And do they ignore stories, or only present them in a manner which only supports their ideologies?

I said I will start with the NY Times. They have often been accused of bias with a left leaning slant. I think their news stories are presented in a pretty good manner, but their Opinion pages are filled with left leaning ideologies which does at times bleed into their news reporting. I'll start with something more recently. The New York Times outgoing public editor, Arthur Brisbane who was also tasked with critiquing the paper's reporting, wrote a piece called by some the "Progressive worldview 'bleeds through' the Times" piece, accusing them of bias and championing causes. I will highlight the important part to this discussion.

"Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

"As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/success-and-risk-as-the-times-transforms.html?_r=4&smid=tw-share

Channel Zero

Amerika wrote: »

their Opinion pages are filled with left leaning ideologies which does at times bleed into their news reporting.

Well, it seems to encompass all opinions, so describing it as "the chief media organ of the American liberal left" as someone did in another thread, is far from realistic in my view.

You're saying the opinion pages are filled with left leaning 'idealogues'.
What about David Brooks? He's hardly a sandle-wearing Marxist now is he?:) More of a dyed in the wool conservative last time i looked, and he gets plenty of column inches for his views.

If anything, the more constructive occasional criticism of NYT comes from progressives/centrists:

"David Brooks, Santa Claus, and the Serious Mr. Ryan", from Beat the Press

Robert Reich here

And there's always plenty in NYTimes Examiner to mull over.

Cork boy 55

I don't follow US politics much lately I only have limited time and can
just about keep up with Ireland and Europe.

In terms of network TV
I only have CNN and the BBC(24 and world) on our cable
they both appear biased (pro-obama) from what I have seen

Is there not an a Major Harvard study from 2009 which shows that in the 2008 election all networks had a pro-obama bias except Fox which has judged neutral

Overheal

Harvard is in bed with the GOP.

Brian?

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I don't follow US politics much lately I only have limited time and can
just about keep up with Ireland and Europe.

In terms of network TV
I only have CNN and the BBC(24 and world) on our cable
they both appear biased (pro-obama) from what I have seen

Is there not an a Major Harvard study from 2009 which shows that in the 2008 election all networks had a pro-obama bias except Fox which has judged neutral

Any study that showed Fox to be neutral is deeply flawed.

The only truly partisan networks IMO are MSNBC on the left and Foxnews on the right. They clearly have editorial bias.

CNN varies depending on the story and presenter which makes it fairly balanced. The only possible issue I can see with CNN is they might invite more Dems on as guests than Reps.

I don't watch enough of any other news to make an informed opinion.

Except for the local affiliates here in Arizona. They're a joke.

Memnoch

So what do you do when one candidate is genuinely better than the other. What do you do when one teams picks a vice president who seems to be utterly clueless when asked the most basic questions that someone applying to lead the most powerful nation on the planet in the event of an emergency should be able to comfortably navigate. What do you do when one set of ideas is genuinely better than another. What do you do when it's clear that debate is being driven not by a search for a true answer but by the interest of those with power and wealth?

To me, balance isn't pro-Obama or pro-Romney. Balance is when you report the facts correctly and fairly taking context into account. Balance is when you always do your best to report things as they really are rather than try to spin them into something they are not.

In America the conversation seems to be that BALANCE is when equal weight is giving competing republican/democratic opinions rather than taking those opinions individually and evaluating them on their own mertis/demerits. This is a narrative largely driven, in my view, by the American right.

As an example:

Saying that every presidential candidate in the country for the last fifty years has released their tax returns, because they felt this was something the electorate deserved to know in order to make an informed choice about who to vote for, and that this is a GOOD tradition that should be maintained is not unbalanced.

Taking Obama's speech about community, snipping a single sentence from it our of context in order to misrepresent what he was clearly saying, IS unbalanced because it's a lie. This is further compounded when you build a campaign around it. And further STILL when you start claiming a 'liberal media bias in the mainstream media,' but they don't give equal weight to your fabrication as some other factual story that reflects poorly on your side of the argument.

Balance should be about truth, not opinions.

Amerika

Just saw this today. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.


For those who still need the “words,” here is the article from Michael Ramirez of Inventor’s Business Daily that lays out how the media is in the tank for Obama.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/082712-623715-one-sided-media-coverage-shows-bias.htm?p=full

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Just saw this today. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Hate to break it to you Amerika, but's a cartoon not reality. It's worth one word: cartoon.

For those who still need the “words,” here is the article from Michael Ramirez of Inventor’s Business Daily that lays out how the media is in the tank for Obama.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/082712-623715-one-sided-media-coverage-shows-bias.htm?p=full

A one man rant. Big deal. You can't prove a point with comment pieces from a clearly biased author.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Hate to break it to you Amerika, but's a cartoon not reality. It's worth one word: cartoon.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" eh?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" eh?

No, not really. More like "someone's pictorial depiction of the relationship between the media and Obama doesn't reflect reality".

joseph brand

What, according to Romney supporters, is the reason for the supposed 'liberal media bias'? Obama has bought all the worlds journalists bar those working for Fox 'news'?

"He tik er jebs!"

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

What, according to Romney supporters, is the reason for the supposed 'liberal media bias'?

Since 1962, there has been at least 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. Every single one has indicated the majority of journalists consider themselves liberal. Does this affect the way they cover the news… Of Course! They’re only human after all.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" eh?

I've another shock for you, the wizard of Oz was also fictional.

A catoon is a cartoon. This particular cartoon does not reflect reality. I've yet to see you or anyone produce anything of substance to convince me otherwise.

Mjollnir

Why, Fox 'News' isn't biased or prejudicial one little bit!

I'm sure this was just another in a long, long list of their 'honest' mistakes.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/fox-news-unemployment-obama-fail.php?ref=fpa

"Fox News compares apples to rotten oranges to make it appear as if Barack Obama has presided over a near-doubling of the ranks of the unemployed.

Media Matters first spotted the inconsistency. Simply put, Fox & Friends juxtaposed unemployment in January 2009 — calculated to measure the number of unemployed people actively looking for work — with a different measure of unemployment in August 2012, calculated to include disaffected and marginally attached workers.

A direct comparison is less misleading, but also less eye-popping."

7.8% to 14.7%? Really? No, really?

Overheal

briankeating wrote: »

A one man rant. Big deal. You can't prove a point with comment pieces from a clearly biased author.

Don't resort to the Ad Hominem.

I read it.

I do have a major complaint with the author's argument, and it relates back to other points in the article where he makes reference to other Obama and Biden gaffes:

But this story, like many others, can be found in the same place where the stories about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, the real cost of the GM bailout, Sec. 407 of the Welfare Reform act, the source of national intelligence leaks and the truth about Operation Fast and Furious reside.
And that, as far as the media are concerned, is nowhere.

I'm sorry, but if I, a plebian, know about the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers situation, the GM bailout, Welfare Reform complaints, Intelligence leaks/Wikileaks, Solyndra and Fast and Furious, birth certificates and 57 states and You Didn't Build That etc. etc. etc. ...

Well then clearly the media is doing it's job reporting it to me.

In fact it's doing such a good job reporting negative obama news that sometimes I have to go do my own research just to filter out the truth from the lies. "You didn't build that."

Just saying. It's a complete farce to say the media isn't reporting things when these things are in fact being reported and the average person has a passing familiarity with them.

Otherwise, the man is entitled to his opinions - but on this, he needs to have his head checked.

jank

Mjollnir wrote: »

No, not really. More like "someone's pictorial depiction of the relationship between the media and Obama doesn't reflect reality".

Are you seriously suggesting that the media in general are not pro Obama? Even the Dems themselves admit this, with Clinton being one voice.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the media in general are not pro Obama? Even the Dems themselves admit this, with Clinton being one voice.

The media not parroting the fiction that the GOP would LIKE to be the Obama presidency is not the same as being pro Obama or anti GOP. It's just them TRYING, a little, to be pro reality.

Considering the amount of nonsense put out by republicans and the deluge of lies and misinformation, any news outlet that even remotely reflects reality and truth is going to appear 'biased.' That is, if you consider the centre point to be between two contrasting opinions (dem/gop) rather than taking each individual situation and basing the centre on the facts in CONTEXT.

Eliot Rosewater

There's an interesting article on Real Clear Politics about the media's casting of the Democrats as a pro-science party.

Indeed, the only reason Democrats are considered the “pro-science” party is because the media, for whatever reason, has decided to give them a free pass on scientific issues. It is time the free pass be revoked.

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There's an interesting article on Real Clear Politics about the media's casting of the Democrats as a pro-science party.

Compared to the republicans they are pro science,
Evolution, climate change, stem cell research, even how men and women have babies are all denied by republicans.

Amerika

Media Bias... I guess if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a pigeon. :rolleyes:

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Media Bias... I guess if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably pigeon. :rolleyes:

I suppose the media are biased towards evolution. The biased media won't run stories supporting Young Earth Creationists. The biased media don't even seem to have the slightest interest in the dangers of falling off the side of this flat Earth. Damn them all.

If it looks like a lie, sounds like a lie, and factually IS a lie, then Romney said it.

"Blast those meddling, truth-seeking, fact checkers." M. Romney :pac:

joseph brand

It's Not Just Bias: Four Fox News Contributors Work For Romney.

Thanks to a new report by Media Matters, we now know that many Fox News contributors don't just play Romney campaign workers on TV, they actually do work for the Romney campaign.

John Bolton, Elaine Chao, and Pete Snyder are all Fox News contributors, while Walid Phares is a terror analyst. Bolton is a foreign policy advisor and campaign surrogate. Phares is a special advisor for foreign policy and National Security Advisory Team, and the co-chair of the Middle East and North Africa working group. Chao is national chair of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Romney, and Snyder is a surrogate. Plus, there's Karl Rove, co-founder of an anti-Obama super PAC and regular guest Jay Sekulow, who frequently appears on Fox to bash Obama, yet also serves as an advisor to Romney.

Full article.

Well I for one am shocked! :rolleyes:

And they call themselves a news channel, lol.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Media Bias... I guess if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a pigeon. :rolleyes:

Interesting that you say that. You can probably dig up a quote from me during the last election cycle or near it where I said 'if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be damn sure I want to be sure it's not a goose.'

I think I was actually in a thread about a gun violence incident but the point stands. I like to think at least on the board here we're all critical thinkers

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

The media not parroting the fiction that the GOP would LIKE to be the Obama presidency is not the same as being pro Obama or anti GOP. It's just them TRYING, a little, to be pro reality.

Considering the amount of nonsense put out by republicans and the deluge of lies and misinformation, any news outlet that even remotely reflects reality and truth is going to appear 'biased.' That is, if you consider the centre point to be between two contrasting opinions (dem/gop) rather than taking each individual situation and basing the centre on the facts in CONTEXT.

So it that a round about way of saying that the media is in fact pro Obama.
The media was totally in the tank for Obama in 2008. Both Clinton's publicly commented on the fact, did that mean that Hillary Clinton's campaign was not based on reality?

Manic Moran

In fairness, I think they all suck equally. All the stations are pretty reasonable at the top and bottom of the hour when they are going over the headline news, but when they move into the filler content, I switch off.

Amerika

The American public is now figuring out the media establishment pretty much does everything within its power to downgrade Mitt Romney and upgrade Barack Obama at every turn. No surprises here IMO, kinda like the public is figuring out that 1+1=2.

From Gallup:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

joseph brand

Fox 'news' can take a lot of credit for helping to bolster the distrust that US citizens have for the mass media.

Stewart, Maher and Colbert are more reliable when it comes to the news, even though they don't claim to be like traditional news programs.


Let's not forget the news websites such as; Reuters, BBC news, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Rolling Stone and Politifact to name but a handful. The internet has the added benefit, whereby, we the viewers don't have to blindly take the article as fact. We can fact-check the article, view comments underneath or visit a message board such as this one and view both sides of the political argument.

Rural Americans confined to having propaganda rammed down their throats by the 'journalists' and anchors over on Fox deserve sympathy. If they could see outside their Republican bubble, they wouldn't for this rich mormon who believes in, amongst other crazy ideas, 'trickle-down-economics'.

"I can't tell what loopholes in the tax code I'll close, just trust me, that the tax breaks I award to myself and my octogenarian billionaire buddies will slowly but surely trickle down to 'you people'. Mitt Romney.

Don't believe the Myth, Romney!

Corkfeen

I'm really not getting how Amerika keeps pretending that Fox isn't a mainstream news network. All the flaws are clearly outside of fox going by his logic. I glanced at it the other day to see what they were saying in regards to the Romney comment but they were acting as if he could do no wrong. A bit of honest journalism wouldn't go astray.

Amerika

I can't see how FoxNews is to blame for the preception of the media as a whole, but of course it's FoxNews' fault... "self evident" I guess, eh? :pac:

Corkfeen

Amerika wrote: »

I can't see how FoxNews is to blame for the preception of the media as a whole, but of course it's FoxNews' fault... "self evident" I guess, eh? :pac:

I'll happily admit that the likes of MSNBC is rather left wing and has similar tendencies to fox. But you have to recognise that the issues exist on both sides. And to be blunt, news stations for the most part are god awful...

Amerika

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll happily admit that the likes of MSNBC is rather left wing and has similar tendencies to fox. But you have to recognise that the issues exist on both sides. And to be blunt, news stations for the most part are god awful...

I'll admit that the number of the American public that only gets their news information from Fox News is next to nothing.

And according to a poll taken back in 2010... Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

InTheTrees

Fox news is really responsible for the degeneration of american politics.

You could say they encouraged the celebration of stupidity that gave us George Bush. Followed by the "tea party" and sarah palin.

Its coming full circle though. At least the bias of fox is accepted now so we dont have to argue about that anymore and that has encouraged the rise of MSNBC as an alternative;

But its early days yet.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'll happily admit that the likes of MSNBC is rather left wing and has similar tendencies to fox. But you have to recognise that the issues exist on both sides. And to be blunt, news stations for the most part are god awful...

I'll admit that the number of the American public that only gets their news information from Fox News is next to nothing.

And according to a poll taken back in 2010... Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

Are you defending the journalistic standard of Foxnews?

Amerika

Since Fox has been viewed as the most trusted television news network in the country, I’d say it’s Fox that keeps the American public’s viewpoint (that the mass media inability to report the news fully) from being even higher than 60%.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Are you defending the journalistic standard of Foxnews?

I'm just reporting on how the general public feels.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

And according to a poll taken back in 2010... Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country.

In 2010 everyone wanted a Blackberry too.

Here's a good site for ratings. Fox news's dominance is certainly in decline. ten years ago and five years ago they dominated. Now MSNBC plus CNN together beat them handily.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

The American public is now figuring out the media establishment pretty much does everything within its power to downgrade Mitt Romney and upgrade Barack Obama at every turn. No surprises here IMO, kinda like the public is figuring out that 1+1=2.

It's amazing how this synopsis and the article you linked have very little to do with each other.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

In 2010 everyone wanted a Blackberry too.

Here's a good site for ratings. Fox news's dominance is certainly in decline. ten years ago and five years ago they dominated. Now MSNBC plus CNN together beat them handily.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings

Interesting… Thanks. So I guess that would mean that the growth of the likes of MSNBC and CNN might perhaps be the main contributing factor as to why the American public distrusts the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting… Thanks. So I guess that would mean that the growth of the likes of MSNBC and CNN might perhaps be the main contributing factor as to why the American public distrusts the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

QED

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I'm just reporting on how the general public feels.

I see that. So when you talk about mainstream media bias from now on are you including Foxnews?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

I see that. So when you talk about mainstream media bias from now on are you including Foxnews?

Yup... equilavent to as Gary Johnson is a presidential candidates in 2012. (small fish in a big pond sort of thing.)

But I also believe it is Fox that keeps the recent 60% viewpoint about mistrust of the media from being an even higher percentage.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Yup... equilavent to as Gary Johnson is a presidential candidates in 2012. (small fish in a big pond sort of thing.)

But I also believe it is Fox that keeps the recent 60% viewpoint about mistrust of the media from being an even higher percentage.

So you think the no.1 rated cable news network is a "small fish in a big pond"? Hilarious. There is no logical way you can support that viewpoint. It's pure delusion.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

So you think the no.1 rated cable news network is a "small fish in a big pond"? Hilarious. There is no logical way you can support that viewpoint. It's pure delusion.

When you put Fox News up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Weekly Standard, Bloomberg, Drudge, Politico, HufPo, Slate, Salon, and the other tens-of-thousands of cable, newspapers, and online news outlets scattered across the nation - "All Part Of The Media"… then Yes! Seems purely logical.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

When you put Fox News up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Weekly Standard, Bloomberg, Drudge, Politico, HufPo, Slate, Salon, and the other tens-of-thousands of cable, newspapers, and online news outlets scattered across the nation - "All Part Of The Media"… then Yes! Seems purely logical.

No it doesn't. You've named centerist and slightly left leaning news agencys and some right leaning ones that line up with Foxnews.

The no.1 rated news network is Foxnews. Ergo Foxnews is the largest part of the main stream media. Ergo there is no liberal bias in the main stream media.

It's fairly simple:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conservative_news_outlets

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Liberal_news_outlets


Are you going to say sourcewatch.org is liberal?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Are you going to say sourcewatch.org is liberal?

What I’ve said is FoxNews is but only one facet of all the different avenues that comprises what is considered to be "The Media," which is what the American public considers when taking these polls.

joseph brand

I may have found a reason why so many of the top media outlets have a 'liberal bias', as some posters have pointed out.

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism.

Aren't these the prerequisite traits for anyone joining the GOP?

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice.

"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

Would this explain why the GOP presidential candidates (Santorum, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann and Romney) all focused on religion in their campaigns? Intelligent voters aren't concerned with listening to religious sermons from politicians, especially in times of low employment. They want to hear their proposals for kick-starting the US economy and lowering the unemployment rate.

"Jesus spoke to me one night and he said, "Hey Newt, listen here."" "If you run for POTUS, you'll get it." Newt wasn't the only one who was told that they were destined to be POTUS by jesus/ god 'himself'. (see Rep Cand. Thanksgiving debate)

The 'birther issue', as crazy folks like Trump, Taitz and Romney like to draw attention to, is a blatant appeal to the prejudice of the mentally lazy in America. For a more up-to-date example of this infantile tactic, see Scott Brown accuse Elizabeth Warren of lying about her Native American heritage while his staffers whip the ignorant supporters into a frenzy with 'Indian war whoop' noises and 'tomahawk chop' hand movements. Pathetic.

From the comments section of the above site:

Posted by mra500:
Well, this will blow your minds:
A study from the University College, London (see www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/1012/10122301) strongly suggests that the brain structures of liberals and conservatives are different. "People with liberal views tended to have increased grey matter in the anterior cingulated cortex, a region of the brain linked to decision-making." Conservatives have "increased grey matter in the amygdala, an area of the brain associated with processing emotion." So conservatives tend to get angry and frightened more easily and do not reason as well.

Check out the study for yourselves. I always thought conservatives seemed less able to deal with facts that conflicted with their childhood programming; this study seems to say why. Put these 2 studies together, and you have a picture of people with lower IQs who adopt conservative philosophies and have smaller ability to understand the complexities of our world. Interesting, yes?
A different breed of human? Feels like it to me.

A good example of what this poster was alluding to is the whole 'Global warming is a Hoax' lie, perpetrated by gangsters like Republican Jim Inhofe, amongst other members of the GOP who are in bed with Big Oil. Some have even tried to use the bible as their proof that global warming is a hoax. Unbelievable.

Otacon

joseph brand wrote: »

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism.

This is like when Yuri Gagarin left the Earth's atmosphere and confirmed that the planet was indeed a sphere. We all knew it, he just confirmed it.