O'Reilly & Rush Fans Highly Knowledgeable

That’s what latest Pew Research Poll says. “Daily Show” viewers score even better. Network, Fox News and (ouch) bloggers bring up the bottom. I suppose those bloggers who practice mental hygiene drag down our average. The worst informed are those who watch inane morning news programs, where people like Rosie rule the cognitively challenged roost.

My demographic is the best informed. White men aged 50-64, with good educations and higher incomes are the most knowledgeable. This is not surprising. As Pew suggests, I watch the "Daily Show", "The News Hour", listen to NPR AND watch O’Reilly. Add “the Economist” magazine and a few business publications and you really do not need much more. Of course watching O'Reilly or the "Daily Show" is correlation, not causality, but the results of this study certainly do deflate the argument that O'Reilly or Rush fans are ill informed. It confirms the feeling most of us had about morning programs, such as "The View", however.

Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. I count many of our worthy blue blog opponents among them. But significantly more Democrats (31%) fall into the part of the public that knows the least. Maybe that explains those unhappy residents of Ohio or Florida who evidently cannot quite figure out how to cast a ballot without spoiling it. They thought they voted for Kerry, but actually only visited a stall at a public rest room. Perhaps that explains why they were so worried about the security of de bolt and demanded a paper trail.

Posted by Jack at April 17, 2007 8:03 PM
Comments
Comment #217177

Well said, Jack, right on the noodle. Because of this thread I’m gonna go back to listenin’ to Blush Brainburn an’ watchin’ ole Hanratty. Maybe a dose of Coulter as well. I sure am glad you set me straight on this.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 17, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #217189

Jack
Thank God. Finally some comfirmation that middle aged white men are smarter.
“Not need much more”’ I question that statement. Knowlege is a bit like sex or money. Is there too much?

An aside: As I recall you live in Va. Condolances. I know this tragedy hurts us all but it must be harder for those nearby.

Posted by: BillS at April 17, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #217196

It’s fairly shocking to see that 15% of the population know who Harry Reid is, while 93% know who Arnold Schwarzenegger is.

It’s too bad that Pew didn’t refine the question to ask if Arnold was (a) the Republican Governor of California or (b) a robot sent from the future. I have a theory about the real source of Arnold’s name recognition.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 17, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #217205

Jack,

A buddy of mine got me hooked on politics in my early twenties. It wasn’t until much later that I started listening to Rush. I listened enough to know that what he says usually makes a lot of sense, and he is often humorous, at the expense of Democrats, though. Having listened to Rush, although I don’t get to listen to him much any more, I can say the guy knows his politics. He often knows what Dems will say and do before they prove him right. Strategically, the guy really is informed on issues, and could hold his own in just about any political debate. He could certainly hold his own with any political journalist from the major networks that I have watched. If he was really allowed to break into the MSM, he could add to any show on network news, and the publicity would probably bring their ratings up tenfold. But, alas, this will never happen because liberals are not that interested in the other side. I would be willing to bet those that bash Rush have never listened to him for more than a few days.
The reason why Rush listeners tend to be well-informed is that he encourages them to study not only the words, but the actions, and consequences for actions of political figures. He encourages others to seek out information for ourselves, other than that we get from the MSM who seem to repeat each other over and over again. He actually teaches his listeners to be open-minded and inquisitive, exactly the opposite of how he and his listeners are portrayed.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 17, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #217212

JD,

“I would be willing to bet those that bash Rush have never listened to him for more than a few days.”

I’ve been listening to Rush on and off for about 17 years. At one time he was actually funny.
My problem with Rush is that he embellishes shamelessly.
I have heard him make a rumor into a truth within 15 minutes, just by repeating it over and over.
When he makes a mistake he won’t admit it.
Oreilly has the same problem, and they’re both blowhards that just love to hear themselves speak.

I would be nervous buying a used car from either of them.

Stewart, on the other hand, actually lets his guests talk. I think that people that watch his show are more informed because he is topical, and they can’t wait to see who or what he will lampoon next.

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #217213

BillS

Thanks. I know lots of people whose kids go to Virginia Tech. VT is our forestry school, so I know lots of graduates. It is a shock, such as peaceful place usually. The shooter killed at least three of the classmates from his old HS.

My daughter goes to University of Virginia, which is up the road and the VT “rival” school. It seems close. As a father, I feel for the families involved. Before I had kids, I used to feel very sure about the young shooters too. Now I have to say that I also feel really bad for him and his family. He was a very bad kid, but also troubled.

Posted by: Jack at April 17, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #217214

JD-
Do explain to me how a guy who teaches his people to be open minded and inquisitive has fans who not only become known as dittoheads, but use the appelation themselves?

My experience has been that the Right is very good at quickly spreading the same talking points all over the place. We get the same claims repeated again and again, even after debunkings have been brought out.

Also, there’s a difference between being well-informed in the sense of having heard about something, and being well informed in actually understanding and having accurate information about it. However, such complex situations are beyond the power of a poll to measure well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 17, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #217221

Oh, and BTW,

Stewart gets that he is entertainment.

O’Rielly and Rush don’t seem to get that.

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 11:58 PM
Comment #217223

Jack,

Upon reading your link, the thing that struck me most is the low threshold of information that defined respondants as knowledgable. Apparently this is not new:


A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. …God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson’s reaction to Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, which was a revolt (1786) against a regressive tax, that resulted in wealthy easterners taking the farms of poorer western massachusetts farmers. The suppresion of the revolt was funded by a mercenary army hired by monied easterners and legitimized by propoganda and lobbying of G.Washington and others. It portrayed the westerners as “communists” who wanted to redistribute wealthy land owners property in a communal way. It was, of course, a lie. They opposed an unfair tax and economic policy. I particularly liked Jefferson’s choice of the word manure. Sounds familiar. So much for liberty.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #217224

JD,

ditto! You’ve made your point in the response
you got from Stephen D. and the inane ramblings
of “Marysdude”. Listening to a liberal try to
use reason is kind of like watching a fish out
of water. Just a lot of flopping around and gasping for that last breath of common sense.
It’s like with the Virginia Tech tragedy. The
first thing libocrats and Demerals want to do
is GUN CONTROL! Enforcing existing gun laws and
restricting sale of automatic weapons ( non-
sporting guns ) is part of the answer, but hardly
the only answer. I’m not sure who coined the
phrase, but I think the “coarsening of the
culture” is one of the reasons we’ve had the
Columbines and the V-Tech type incidents.

I could try to write a lenghthy discourse as to
how we as Americans should unite, no matter what our political or religious affiliation, to make our country truly great again. But I don’t have
the time, the space or the resources to do so.
All I can do is have hope that we can all, as
that great philosopher Rodney King once said,
“just get along”.

Posted by: Dale G. at April 18, 2007 12:29 AM
Comment #217227

I would be more than happy to explain Stephen.
The term dittos represents the fact that many who listen to Rush have come to many of the same conclusions as Rush has in the political spectrum. It does not mean that his listeners are robots being fed some memory chip information. Rush’s listeners come from all facets and walks of life. They are professionals in their fields who call in about all manner of subjects.
If a new tax was being put on small businesses, who would be better to speak about it than a small business owner? If the issue is homeschooling, who better to speak to about it than a mom who homeschools her three kids? This is what Rush does, and goes to the heart of the matter discussing with real people what they think about issues; unlike the MSM who have a roundtable of so-called elite experts telling people what to think, with no alternative view.
He invites liberals to challenge him with another opinion. But, usually they lose the debate. This is why he is so hated by the left. He rarely cuts a liberal off unless they go ballistic on him. If people called in to my show, if I had a show, and did nothing but rant and yell, I’d cut them off, too. After all, it is his show. I’m sure you don’t invite people into your house to scream and yell at you. Liberals sometimes get him riled, and he is not the type to walk away from a fight. This is another reason that liberals dislike him. He is not an appeaser! Neither are his listeners. This is why liberals have to demonize them, as well.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 18, 2007 12:46 AM
Comment #217237

That poll is pretty depressing Jack. Did anyone take the quiz? The questions were almost pathetically easy to answer, and had no depth whatsoever — and yet the results were that bad?
Not a good sign for the country, IMO.

Rocky:
“Stewart gets that he is entertainment.
O’Rielly and Rush don’t seem to get that.”

Man, is that ever the truth. Anger-filled, egomaniacal blowhards, the pair of them.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 1:23 AM
Comment #217241

Dale G.-
I’m glad you express such confidence in your own opinions.

Perhaps some guy may have successfully shot the attacker dead. Or maybe others rushing to the scene with their guns might have confused the police and other folks around, and we would have seen a situation get further out of control with people shooting each other, and a panicky policeman perhaps shooting an innocent but armed student. With Columbine, the easy availability of powerful guns to teens was part of what let these young hoodlums open up on their classmates.

Perhaps these guys would have been just sick bastards with knives had they been denied the guns. One thing’s for sure though: we must respect the fact in all these cases that a gun is an enabling technology, and a potential complicating factor in many situations.

You can kill many more people dead with an M-16 or an Uzi than a pistol, and a lot more people with a pistol than a knife. Some Gun Control is not only in the public’s best interests, but in the interests of gun owners and the Second Amendment. If you can say that there are safeguards against guns falling into the right hands, and if you’re realistic about the nature of these weapons and the respect that must be given to them, you can keep a lot more people calm about guns with others shoot up a schoolyard or a college.

As for Unity? Mostly, there’s compromise. People have to be willing to make the choice to settle for less than what doctrines and dogmas would say would be right for people to agree together on the actions we’re supposed to take.

JD-
Why should they come to Rush’s conclusions? What makes him so wise, and what is so wise about everybody thinking the same thing? If you talk to only the advocates of certain policies, and a few token liberals, of course it’s all going to seem so simple.

But this talk of elites… you don’t think Rush gets his daily feeds from the Thinktanks, where the PhD’s spin their theories? It’s not bad to have an academic, a guy who’s paid to look at home schooling from a POV beyond the advocate’s, or a historian who can tell you what the historical result of taxes on small business are. While it makes no sense to ignore people’s real experiences, too much focus on that level can not only miss the forest for the trees, it can ignore the opinions of others who don’t have the access or support of Rush, his base, and his media cohorts. The rancorous talk about media elites just hinders truly free discourse.

As for Liberals on Rush? It’s like I said somewhere else: you don’t play poker with a guy you know cheats. You can blame the lack of their presence on their reaction to him, but do you like going the house of a person you know has badmouthed you and alleged you to be the scum of the earth. Getting around him, there’s a dense smug advisory. Just read his book titles.

People like him are part of the reason your party is in such bad shape. They apologize for, rather than confront the problems. They generate ill-will on the part of others. They encourage people to share their airs of superiority, to smugly dismiss the claims of the other side, to reject their policies as weak and ineffective.

That has gotten your party nowhere but out of power. It is as important to a party to gain adherents as it is for them to keep old ones. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats have done a better job of that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 18, 2007 1:33 AM
Comment #217244

Adrienne,

I think they get it. They get it, and rack up large bank accounts with it. What is sad is their listeners don’t get it. I thought it was quite revealing when Abramhoff’s and Ralph Reed’s emails revealed the deeply cynical attitudes toward the nutcase bible thumpers which they used to pry clients money from their hands.

The pomposity of these right wing flag bearers reminds me of TV evangelists. Same modus operandi. It’s a cotttage industry.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 1:41 AM
Comment #217250

Stephen,

You win one election under circamstances that only if you didn’t win should that have made big news. Please, I’ll give you the benifit of the doubt and if you win two more I’ll give credibility to make that toot. Whats it been, the 70’s? I guess I feel your pain, no not really I was born in the 70’s, a would be liberal child saved by great parents.

I have nothing to apologize for him about, I’ll leave that up to yourself and media matters and, more importantly both your agenda’s. Fact is, I listen to npr and other liberal talk shows, and while I admit I gave a pretty large smile when air america couldn’t pay the rent, the call to censor any of these formats I feel is wrong.

By the way have to agree the poll was pretty simple, even a caveman or a conservative could do it.

Posted by: andy at April 18, 2007 4:37 AM
Comment #217253

BillS,

Finally some comfirmation that middle aged white men are smarter.

Since when being knowledgeable make you automagically smart?
That’s what you do with it that makes you smarter than the average, eventually.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 5:29 AM
Comment #217259

Gergle

As the study points out, Americans are generally not well informed. The misinformation affects both right and left, Republican and Democrat.

I view Shays Rebellion more like Washington did. It is great to be a rebel but you have to balance that with order. In the long run, strong property rights are THE key to effective freedom.

The U.S. was almost unique among the world’s nations that we had a revolution, kept a generally revolutionary outlook and still managed to contain and channel the passions. The is the lesson to be studied. If you are unsatisfied with our result, consider the French, Russian, Chinese … Most revolutions end in blood baths and leave the people no better off after all the smoke has cleared. Ours actually worked. If it had degenerated into a Shays style revolution, we all would be worse off.

Andy, Gergle, Adrienne et al

The questions were not hard. I bet most of us could get all ten of the sample questions right. The point is that the people you all often consider uninformed do well compared with the general population. You will have to give up your stereotype. I know that is hard.

I watch O’Reilly about every second day. It is not a news program in the sense of being informed. His service is to bring up issues that other media ignore or frame differently. For example, he was exposing the racist prosecutor in the Duke rape case long before “60 Minutes”. He gave prominent play to RaTHergate when MSM wanted to ignore it. He exposes the hypocrisy of judges who try pedophiles. That is the service he performs.

In addition, he has all sorts of people on his show. He tends to be aggressive, but they make their cases and usually get the last word.

Many liberals are unaccustomed to being questioned. I annoy them when they pull out what they consider the trump card and I keep on going. Most PC orthodoxies are wrong and many are silly. Many are based on conditions of the past and just are just no longer true. Liberals often cannot understand that their point of view is not the only interpretation possible and often resort to attacking the source.

Posted by: Jack at April 18, 2007 8:01 AM
Comment #217266

Jack,

The findings on individuals sources like Rush Limbaugh are not reliable, because the sample size is way too small.

Consider this: The sampled 1502 adults, and 8% of them mentioned to Rush Limbaugh. That’s 120 people.
By their estimate 51% of those people were highly knowledge. Unfortunately, they don’t give the margin of error. Using the formula you can find in any intro stat book, the margin of error was

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 18, 2007 8:57 AM
Comment #217267

Ooops… the margin of error was 9%. So between 42% and 60% of Limbaugh listeners are “highly knowledgeable”. That’s a pretty huge range.

Basically, their sample size is too small to actually compare the different news source.

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 18, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #217278

Jack

I think you made an excellent point from a Democrat’s view point. That the less fortunate (less educated) tend to be Democrats points the fact that Democrats like to think of themselves as more compassionate. Apparently the “dumb” agree. The educated either don’t care or are split. I don’t think Democrats would be unhappy with that conclusion.

By the way your crack about the voters is sort of funny. But, yeah, the dumb folks want proof that their vote was counted. Not such an outrageous request in a Democracy. Yeah, machines are more convenient and faster. I’m not dumb either.

But you make an excellent point. Conservatives are not dumb either. In my opinion, most of the differences between a liberal view and a conservative view is relative values each side assigns to conflicted values. For example, a liberal is more likely to favor civil rights over individual rights when it comes to hiring but favor individual rights over community rights when it comes to wiretaps. The conservative sees it the other way around. Neither is dumb nor uniformed. They just hold the individual or the community as more important on these two issues. Issues, because there is a clear conflict between things we all hold in high regard.


Posted by: JohnBoy at April 18, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #217282

Skimming the report there appears no difference between the groupings. One problem is the (r)wingers here will use basically a superficial “fun” poll as ‘evidence” that they know more than us “stupid dims/libs”

The real problem is that Limberger and O’Lielly are both intelligent and educated. They are also probably approaching PP status. When they speak, they use 10% fact (making their audience appear superficially informed), 80% opinion (their opinions are what drive the left batty with their craven pandering to baser instincts), and 10% totally made up bullsh!t (like that 75% of minimun wage earners are first job kids in high school or Rush saved Snapple).

It is embarrasing as a well educated high income middle aged white male that I might be confused with some hateful bigot who likes Limberger or O’Lielly.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 18, 2007 10:57 AM
Comment #217292

I only glanced at this, but it doesn’t look like the article is saying they are highly knowledgable, just that they know some basic things like who the Vice President is.

Basically, these folks are people with a little knowledge who believe they are highly knowledgable. That’s why they are so belligerant and unwilling to listen to other opinions, or anything they don’t know already actually. Just an observation Jack, but most O’Reilly listeners would agree with you that they are highly knowledgable but a lot of them are bone-heads.

Posted by: Max at April 18, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #217295

Hey Jack - funny post. Actually, funny in two ways; humorous, and funny that anyone can actually believe that Fox News conveys ‘knowledge’ in any way, shape or form…

Enjoyable stuff, thanks!

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 18, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #217308

Jack,

Please explain what Shay’s rebellion had to do with strong property rights.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #217313

gergle:
“I think they get it.”

Hmm… Perhaps you’re right there when it comes to Limpball, but I think O’Lielly’s eyes gleam with too much insanity, and his face is suffused with too much angry redness for him to actually be “getting it.”

“They get it, and rack up large bank accounts with it.”

Indeed they do.

“What is sad is their listeners don’t get it.”

YES. Tragic, in fact.

“I thought it was quite revealing when Abramhoff’s and Ralph Reed’s emails revealed the deeply cynical attitudes toward the nutcase bible thumpers which they used to pry clients money from their hands.”

Neocons seem to be lacking in morals.

“The pomposity of these right wing flag bearers reminds me of TV evangelists. Same modus operandi. It’s a cotttage industry.”

Well said.

Jack:
“The questions were not hard. I bet most of us could get all ten of the sample questions right. The point is that the people you all often consider uninformed do well compared with the general population.”

Yeah, they did well compared with the general population on the most pathetically easy of questions. I think the real point is, is that this is really nothing to crow about.

“You will have to give up your stereotype. I know that is hard.”

Nope. Simply being able to identify some of the people running our government and their party affiliation isn’t something I think proves someone is highly intelligent.

“I watch O’Reilly about every second day.”

The only pundit program I watch every week is The McLaughlin Group. I like the mix of viewpoints. Kind of like WB, now that I think of it.

“It is not a news program in the sense of being informed.”

No kidding.

“His service is to bring up issues that other media ignore or frame differently.”

I think he’s nothing more than a rightwing reactionary.

“In addition, he has all sorts of people on his show. He tends to be aggressive, but they make their cases and usually get the last word.”

He’s a rude, ill mannered blowhard that shouts at people and tells them to shut up. Very off-putting.

“Many liberals are unaccustomed to being questioned.”

Nonsense.

“I annoy them when they pull out what they consider the trump card and I keep on going.”

Oh you keep on going all right. Unfortunately it’s often off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the point that others were trying to bring to your attention. Fortunately for us though, you are rather intelligent in certain ways, and your tendency toward snide remarks can be very entertaining. ;^)

“Most PC orthodoxies are wrong and many are silly.”

Well, there’s an opinion.

“Many are based on conditions of the past and just are just no longer true.”

Too vague.

“Liberals often cannot understand that their point of view is not the only interpretation possible”

Nonsense.

“and often resort to attacking the source.”

Where it seems warranted, why not?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #217316

“Yeah, they did well compared to the general population on the most pathetically easy of questions. I think the real point is that this is really nothing to crow about.”
Adrienne: April 18, 2007

Rush says the general population has been dumbed down by the liberal-controlled public school systems over the last 40 years. Being smarter than the average American only takes showing up for the most part. Gee, Adrienne, you sound a lot like Rush! s-c-a-r-y-!

“Nope. Simply being able to identify some of the people running our government and their party affiliation isn’t something I think proves someone is highly intelligent.”
Adrienne: April 18, 2007

Hmm! George Bush is ignorant because he can not name the heads of state of other countries. Talking out of both sides of the mouth now Adrienne?

JD

Posted by: JD at April 18, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #217319

JD:
“Talking out of both sides of the mouth now Adrienne?”

Uh… Come again?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 3:16 PM
Comment #217320

“Nope. Simply being able to identify some of the people running our government and their party affiliation isn’t something I think proves someone is highly intelligent.”
Adrienne: April 18, 2007
Hmm! George Bush is ignorant because he can not name the heads of state of other countries. Talking out of both sides of the mouth now Adrienne?—JD

He’s the freakin’ President! Not some pimple faced kid flippin burgers in McDonalds. I hope there are higher expectations for people in authority. I for one want highly knowledgeble elite thinkers in authority. And, what does Adrienne’s comment have to do with yours? Adrienne says knowing simple knowledge doesn’t prove intelligence. Your comment that she said w is ignorant is hypocritical, how? This is exactly the false correlation and tangential illogic we’re highlighting.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 18, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #217321

Jack,

I thought it was nine questions? What do you make of so few knowing what the new minium wage number? My take is that I didn’t pay much attention to politics when I was in high school so maybe kids have not changed much.

Posted by: andy at April 18, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #217326

My point is, though some may prove themselves to be of the non-Rush listeners, therefore, unable to comprehend it, is that the liberals set this standard up as a measure of intelligence, and when Jack uses the same standard in his poll, he is ridiculed and bad-mouthed.
Most who are criticizing his simple revelation of a new poll from a predominantly liberal source are the same ones who vehemently called G.W. Bush ignorant for not knowing the leaders names from other countries. These same persons which claim to think Bush is ignorant because he doesn’t know some leaders name, according to the poll, can not even name the leaders of this country. And you call me hypocritical?

JD

Posted by: JD at April 18, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #217332

These same persons which claim to think Bush is ignorant because he doesn’t know some leaders name, according to the poll, can not even name the leaders of this country.

Even if true, which it isn’t and certainly not shown by the poll (I got 9 of 9 by the way when I took the poll), it’s

BECAUSE HE’s THE PRESIDENT!!!!

I know, “talking” louder doesn’t help the deaf, but it can feel good.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 18, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #217338

According to a University of Maryland Study,

“NPR, PBS audience holds most accurate views of Iraq war, says new study” Also according to teh study, Fox viewers were almost four times more likely than public broadcasting’s consumers to hold misperceptions about the war

You can read the full story hear.

http://www.current.org/news/news0319study.shtml

Posted by: jerseyguy at April 18, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #217339

JD, you’re just not making a whole lot of sense.
I happen to have gotten one of those “liberal” public school educations you so hate, yet I’ve done rather well for myself. How about you?
Is calling education “liberal” intended to be a new excuse for the stupidity that seems to be growing all over America? If so, that’s a very lame excuse.
Btw, as Dave has pointed out, the president is supposed to be highly intelligent. It’s a tragedy that the current one isn’t, and hoo-boy, does it ever show!

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 5:03 PM
Comment #217343

Let’s see if I can put it so that you’ll understand it:

Liberals claimed knowing names of leaders = smart and informed.

Not knowing the names = dumb and uninformed.

That is the liberal standard used for G. W. Bush.


Poll says Rushies and O’Reillys listeners knew the names of leaders = Rushies and O’reillys are smart and informed.

Listeners of other news sources did not know the names of leaders = listeners of other news sources are dumb and uninformed


Just applying the liberal standards here. I did not set them up. Direct your anger toward liberals who did not expect the standard to be applied to the general public especially liberals who get their news from other sources. Or, would you care to disavow the liberal standard and admit what they say about Bush is bunk?

JD

Posted by: JD at April 18, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #217356

just to touch on the schools thing. Liberals control the education structure in this country and they have greatly succeeded in turning out dumber students.

Posted by: tomh at April 18, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #217357

Well I use to say I might be dumb, but I am not stupid. Maybe the poll tells it otherwise.
Actually I find most bloggers to be very smart, smarter then those that don’t, even if they don’t agree with me.

KT

Posted by: KT at April 18, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #217390

“In the long run, strong property rights are THE key to effective freedom. “

Funny, I always thought that justice was the key. That and $700 billion in war spending every year, of course.


Posted by: Tim Crow at April 18, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #217408

Tim,

While property rights are essential to capitalism, I’m not quite sure what they have to do with freedom, either. Moreover, he makes the mistake of accepting the lies generated during the represive reaction to Shay’s rebellion, which many think ended the dream of the Revolution. The irony is it was the proponents of a strong central government which perpetrated this bit of propoganda. And here I thought Jack was a small government Republican.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #217432

Gergle

Maybe I will write a whole post on property rights. Suffice to say here that w/o property right, nobody can protect himself against a tyrannous government. W/o property rights people have no protection for their labor. They cannot save for the future. I cannot think of ANY country in the history of the world that managed to be create prosperity for its people w/o strong property rights protections.

Posted by: Jack at April 18, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #217441

Jack,

That’s all well and good, but you avoided my question.

I have no problem with protecting property rights.

Posted by: gergle at April 19, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #217467
But significantly more Democrats (31%) fall into the part of the public that knows the least.
Jack

I can’t hammer you too hard on this one Jack But you failed (on purpose I assume) to mention that 26% of Republicans also fall into this least knowledgeable category. Which isn’t significantly much different from the numbers of Democrats who fall within this same category. Especially when one considers the following:

For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Pew (from the About the Survey link)

I did enjoy the following passage from analysis of the Pew Survey.

The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events).

Which really just indicates that even if you choose various outlets for your information on current events, it is still possible to be uninformed. Jack I certainly couldn’t say you fall within this category. You do expose us all here with an eclectic group of links to peruse. However it is obvious not all are so discerning on how they choose their sources for information. Or as Fox News strives to prove everyday, not all news outlets are alike.

Posted by: Cube at April 19, 2007 2:51 AM
Comment #217502

Jack you failed (on purpose I assume) to mention that 26% of Republicans also fall into this least knowledgeable category. Which isn’t significantly much different from the number of Democrats who fall within this same category.
Cube: April 19, 2007

Cube,

I’m glad you noticed this and pointed it out. Those are the moderate Republicans!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 19, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #217546

Jack,

Are you happy that your people are the ones with this incredible example of deductive reasoning:?

Let’s see if I can put it so that you’ll understand it:
Liberals claimed knowing names of leaders = smart and informed.
Not knowing the names = dumb and uninformed.
That is the liberal standard used for G. W. Bush.
Poll says Rushies and O’Reillys listeners knew the names of leaders = Rushies and O’reillys are smart and informed.
Listeners of other news sources did not know the names of leaders = listeners of other news sources are dumb and uninformed
All based on ignorance and your false extensions. More evidence for “my” side. Thanks.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 19, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #217585

gergle:
“Moreover, he makes the mistake of accepting the lies generated during the represive reaction to Shay’s rebellion,”

Yes, lies and a mercenary force hired by the wealthy to steal the land from the Regulators after they’d been unfairly taxed to death. As a result, they had to sell their land well below market value to these wealthy speculators, were forced into extreme poverty, and because they no longer owned land, had their right to vote stripped from them (land ownership a requirement for sufferage in Mass. in those days).

“which many think ended the dream of the Revolution.”

It did, IMO. And it blazed the path to the future of this country, where the wealthy are perenially allowed to take advantage of the less wealthy in order to grow more filthy rich.

“The irony is it was the proponents of a strong central government which perpetrated this bit of propoganda.”

Yes, the Federalists ruined everything. Luckily though we had Jefferson and Madison — so at least
we ended up with something rather than nothing. The dichotomy between the Left and the Right has been clear and present from the beginning.

“And here I thought Jack was a small government Republican.”

Small governent only where it suits them, and when it doesn’t interfere with their ability to take advantage and become wealthier at the expense of others.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 19, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #217905

Anyone want to talk about Alberto Gonzalez here? Anyone?

Posted by: mental wimp at April 20, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #217948

I personally think the best right-wing pundit (okay, a parody of them) is Steven Colbert (who comes on after the Daily Show). It’s amazing the way he repeats the same talking points they use in such a hilarious and absurd manner. The scary thing is that you’ll learn much more about the world from the Daily Show and Colbert Report than what passes for the real thing these days.

Posted by: mark at April 21, 2007 6:02 AM
Comment #218057

Cube

My main point was the the fans of Rush and O’Reilly are NOT uninformed and that the Dem stereotype is wrong. Yes, 25% of Republicans fall in the bottom. But 31% of Dems do. That is both substantively and statistically significant and there is no way around that.

Mark

I watch Colbert. He exaggerates the stereotype. Yes, he is what liberals think conservatives are like. Tune into Rush and hear what conservatives think liberals are like and see if you agree.

I have not found conservatives smarter than liberals, but the opposite also is not true. Liberals are far more likely to anathematize free speech. When last was a liberal shouted down on a college campus? It happens to conservatives all the time.


Posted by: Jack at April 22, 2007 7:48 AM
Comment #218280

Jack:

>My main point was the the fans of Rush and O’Reilly are NOT uninformed and that the Dem stereotype is wrong. Yes, 25% of Republicans fall in the bottom. But 31% of Dems do. That is both substantively and statistically significant and there is no way around that.Jack:

>My main point was the the fans of Rush and O’Reilly are NOT uninformed and that the Dem stereotype is wrong. Yes, 25% of Republicans fall in the bottom. But 31% of Dems do. That is both substantively and statistically significant and there is no way around that.

Actually, from the report: “For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3 percentage points.”

The actual number for Republicans was 26% in the lower group. Democrats were 31%. Since the margin of error was plus or minus 3%, the Republican range could have really been anywhere from 23%-29%, and the Democrat range anywhere from 28% to 34%. Since the two ranges overlap, there is NO significant statistical difference between the two groups, at the 95% confidence level.

Posted by: Hotshot at April 24, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #218313

Hotshot

That is statistical sophistry. This is a statistically significant difference. You cannot add their ranges and then assume the best outcome for Dems and the worse for Republicans.

At the 95% confidence level, there is a statistical difference.

You really have to go into contortions to find that Dems know more. With all due respect, that is a very Democratic thing to do when confronted with evidence the disconfirms their preconceived notions.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2007 8:25 PM
Post a comment