From my "saved to read/maybe post later" file ~ this is an interesting read, with some startling statistics ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte
Why Conservatives Opt for Propaganda Over Reality
Conservatives are consuming a right-wing media full of lies and misinformation, whereas liberals are more interested in media that puts facts before ideology.

October 22, 2014 | Pew Research set out to find what’s behind what it considers the increasing political polarization of the United States; why the country is moving away from political moderation and becoming more and more divided between liberals and conservatives. Its first report on the phenomenon, which examines where people are hearing news and opinion in both regular and social media, shows that this is happening for very different reasons among people moving to the right than for people moving to the left.

Or that’s the charitable way to put it. The less charitable way is to say Pew discovered that conservatives are consuming a right-wing media full of lies and misinformation, whereas liberals are more interested in media that puts facts before ideology. It’s very much not a “both sides do it” situation. Conservatives are becoming more conservative because of propaganda, whereas liberals are becoming more liberal while staying very much checked into reality.

That this polarization is going on isn’t a myth. Previous Pew research shows the percentage of Americans who are “mostly” or “consistently” conservative has grown from 18% in 2004 to 27% in 2014. During that same period, the percentage of Americans who are “mostly” or “consistently” liberal stayed a little more consistent, growing from 33% to 34% in 10 years. (These statistics don’t measure what you call yourself, but what you rate as on a scale of beliefs about various issues.) While liberals became more liberal, conservatives both became more numerous and more rigidly conservative over time. What gives?

Enter right-wing media, which has a nifty trick of convincing audiences it’s the other guys who are the liars, all while actually being much less trustworthy in reality. From conservative screaming about the “media elite” to Fox News’s old slogan “Fair and Balanced,” conservative media is rife with the message that everyone is out to get you, conservative viewer, and only in the warm blanket of right-wing propaganda will you be safe.

The message, the Pew research suggests, has really taken hold. Pew researchers gave respondents a list of 36 popular media sources and asked how much they trusted each one. Some were liberal, like The Daily Show or ThinkProgress. Some were conservative, like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Most of them are fairly straightforward news organizations with no overt political agenda, like NPR, various network news, CNN, and the New York Times.

The findings were astounding. Out of the 36 news sources, consistent liberals trusted 28, a mix of liberal and mainstream news sources. Mostly, liberal respondents generally agreed, holding out a little more skepticism for overtly ideological sources like Daily Kos or ThinkProgress, but not actually distrusting them, either. The only news sources liberals didn’t trust, generally, are overtly right-wing ones, such as Fox News, the Blaze, Breitbart, or Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Conservatives, on the other hand, saw betrayers and liars around every corner. Consistent conservatives distrusted a whopping 24 out of 36 outlets and mostly conservative respondents distrusted 15 and were skeptical of quite a few more. The hostility wasn’t just to well-known liberal sources like MSNBC. Strong conservatives hated all the network news, CNN, NPR, and the major national outlets, except the Wall Street Journal. Respondents who are mostly conservative fared better, but were still hostile to the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as skeptical of mainstream organizations like CBS and NBC News.

The fact that conservatives are this paranoid should be alarming enough, but it becomes even more frightening when you consider who conservatives do trust in the media. Consistent conservatives only trusted 8 media sources--compared to the 28 liberals trusted--and of the eight, only one has anything approaching respectable reporting or reliable information. And that one, the Wall Street Journal, has good straight reporting but has an op-ed page that is a train wreck of right-wing distortions and misinformation. Most conservative people were a little more open-minded, trusting USA Today and ABC News, but still were supportive of openly distorting sources like Fox News or the Drudge Report.

The trust conservatives put in conservative media is utterly misplaced. For instance, both consistent and mostly conservative people love Glenn Beck, though he’s a well-known purveyor of outrageous conspiracy theories that percolate up to him from fringe characters. Breitbart and Sean Hannity also rated high, despite their shared history of championing right-wing fringe characters like Cliven Bundy.

But what is really frightening is the reach of Fox News. Fox News rated as the only real news source for consistent conservatives, with 47% of them citing it as their main source of news. Nothing even came close to touching it, as the second most common answer, “local radio” was cited by only 11% of consistent conservatives. Eighty-eight percent of consistent conservatives trusted Fox News. Mostly conservative and even “mixed” people also liked Fox News.

The problem with this is watching Fox News actually makes you less informed than if you don't watch any news at all. In a 2012 study, Fox News viewers rated the absolute lowest in ability to correctly answer questions on a quiz about recent news events. People who didn’t take in any news programs at all did better on the quizzes. NPR listeners rated the best. Consistent liberals in the Pew research were big fans of NPR, by the way. It was the second most common outlet cited as a favorite by consistent liberals, topped only by CNN.

Fox News is one of the main factors, possibly the main factor, driving political polarization in this country. Huge chunks of this country listen mostly or solely to a relentless stream of misinformation coming from Fox News, coupled with warnings, implied or even baldly stated, to avoid listening to other, more factually accurate news sources. Unsurprisingly, then, more people are becoming conservatives and people who were already conservative are becoming more hardline about it. If you have any Fox viewers in your family, you probably already suspected this, but now Pew has given us the cold, hard facts to confirm your suspicions.

http://www.alternet.org/media/why-conservatives-opt-propaganda-over-reality?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

this study is a political Rosetta Stone, sooz. thanks for posting.

You don't think its just a teensy weensy simplistic? Maybe just a dash of over-simplification? Even a pinch of self-congratulatory propaganda?

Rather modest for USians. Give 'em a break.

listen, i have been being told that i am part of the low information voter liberal moonbat Obama loving left for six years. if you really want me to NOT rejoice in the findings of this study, which basically confirm everything i have observed during this painful period, you need another beer.

and for the record, AlterNet, which us unabashedly liberal should feel vindicated, as well. they were right.

does this ARTICLE have spin? sure. but the study results are just as damning. read it:

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/po ... a-habits./

it is hard to think of a way to spin this that makes it look good for conservatives.

probably why portions of the study were quoted VERBATIM.

modesty seems to be in short supply all over North America, from what i can tell.

I have to agree.

Yep! idiots have characterized you in stupid ways macro. They do it to me as well. Its annoying.

So a group of slightly smarter idiots do the same thing with a bit of pseudo-scientific evidence gathering thrown in and that's ok?

I mean, if they'd just come out with "Democrats are smarter and nicer than Republicans" it would have been a bit more honest.

I mean, if they'd just come out with "Democrats are smarter and nicer than Republicans" it would have been a bit more honest.

Does that include the woman who, when Obama was first elected, thought it meant she wasn't going to have to pay her mortgage anymore.

Hey, when you are in the massive over-generalization business, why not?

i am more interested in the study than in AlterNet gloating about it, but i generally agree with both.

does that answer your question?

by the way, if Republicans get their feelings hurt about this, i would suggest they make better media choices. seriously- how much sympathy am i supposed to have. i question the news i get ALL OF THE TIME. they should do the same. if you are seriously expecting me to say "aw, just let them live in their little bubbles", i say fuck that. this is a democracy, and they are citizens just like me. it is is not only my duty to be informed, it is theirs. if they are FAILING to perform that duty, i am calling them out on it. and if it were the other way around, i would expect them to do the same.

this study does not say that Democrats are smarter. it says that liberals are less closeted in their opinions. that only makes them better if you believe that having a broader perspective is better. if you are the sort of person that thinks you know the Truth, you might reasonably think that you are better than everyone else for it- better and smarter. so this is not about being better and smarter. it is about being better informed, which might mean that you are more conflicted and confused (i think a strong case could be built for that), and possibly grouchier. ;]

I'm all for "better informed" and "less closeted" - which are pretty much synonyms for "smarter" anyway.
I just don't think its smart to pay much attention to a study which divides the political world up into two camps and tries to say anything of much significance based on that division. In fact, isn't that kind of divisiveness one of the things being objected to?

Watching Fox news exclusively is detrimental to your intellect. We know that. Why bury it in a heap of vague genralisations?

what generalizations?

The categorization of "liberal" and "conservative" for a start.

And then just about everything it says about those two categories.

there are five categories in the survey. did you read it?

let's be clear: i think we are all liberal/conservative. most conservatives i know have SOME liberal beliefs. and most liberals i know have SOME conservative beliefs.

so, there are not JUST two categories. that is AlterNet's way of spinning it, but it is not Pew's.

What is a "conservative" or a "liberal" belief?

and do any of those "beliefs" really matter when most folks disregard them anyway in the course of their lives?

I was commenting on the OP Macro.

And yes, technically 5 categories are mentioned. But its a one-dimensional scale with liberal on one end and conservative on the other. All those 5 divisions are just mixes of the two basic categories. I guess you could divide it into 6 "categories", or 27, or 52, or 3. The basic division is still the same: liberal/conservative.

The study simply reflects the US party system in other words. And even then its in a simplistic way.

And, as Oskar points out, the key issue is how the division is made in the first place. It would be interesting to see the questions.

One of the things the Pew research does mention, but doesn't really analyse, is another kind of division - between the politically engaged and the apathetic. I think that's at least as important.

If one looks at the Conservative Party of Canada "beliefs" and compares them to the Liberal Party of Canada "beliefs" one would find a similarity... yet they aren't the same at all in practice.

there is a very nice appendix in the study which describes characteristics that are normally ascribed to these two very different worldviews.

the study is actually quite detailed. however, i will reserve further comment for when i am done reading it.

I've started using the terms "progressive" and "stagnant/regressive".

i like to do stuff like that too. but i end up referring back to terms that are generally understood.

if you are arguing that liberal and conservative are misused, i agree. but they also have meaning.

What premises actually underlie the disagreements between those self-identify as "conservatives" and those who consider themselves "liberal"? Do we disagree about whether people are naturally good or evil? About whether people are capable of changing their basic nature? Whether we're animals first and humans second, or the other way around? Whether different cultures can exist side by side without war,is conflict and conquest inevitable? Are people actually capable of self governance? Whether some populations are inherently superior to others?

I think each side ascribes to the other basic beliefs that it doesn't actually hold. Because what they're really arguing over is power, they don't see any advantage even in discussing it, more advantageous to assume the worst and use that as the starting point.

the appendix of the study has all sorts of fascinating stuff on this subject.