About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Confronted with clear falsehood, Fox News scraps its "zero tolerance" policy

December 08, 2009 9:18 pm ET by Jeremy Schulman

On November 23, Fishbowl DC published an internal Fox News memo detailing the network's new "zero tolerance" policy for errors. Today -- barely two weeks later -- Fox News attempted to explain why it wasn't going to take any action to correct the following December 4 segment in which three Fox hosts and the Fox News graphics department used a string of falsehoods to turn "59 percent" into "close to 100 percent."

Here's what happened.

This morning, Media Matters' Simon Maloy caught Fox & Friends displaying a graphic that falsely suggested that 94 percent of respondents told Rasmussen Reports that it is somewhat or very likely that "scientists falsif[ied] research to support their own theories on global warming."

As Simon explained:

What happened? Well, here's the Rasmussen poll Fox & Friends cited. They asked respondents: "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?" According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren't sure).

Fox News' graphics department added together the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent, and called that new group "somewhat likely." Then, for some reason, they threw in the 35 percent "very likely" as their own group, even though they already added that number to the "somewhat likely" percentage. Then they mashed together the "not very likely" and "not likely at all" groups, and threw the 15 percent who were unsure into the waste bin. Voila -- 120 percent.

As such, Fox News' presentation of the data made it seem as though 94 percent of Americans think it's at least "somewhat likely" that climate scientists falsify their research data.

So Media Matters sent an open letter to Fox News asking how the network would deal with the falsehood in light of its new policy of "zero tolerance for on-screen errors."

Well, Politico's Michael Calderone reports that Fox News has decided to respond to the falsehood by claiming it didn't happen:

But Lauren Petterson, executive producer of Fox & Friends, told POLITICO that she sees no error in the graphic. And for that reason, there will be no reprimand of staff under the "zero tolerance" policy.

"We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."

[...]

While Petterson maintains that Fox & Friend's didn't err in displaying the information from Rasmussen, she acknowledges that the presentation wasn't perfect. "The mistake I do see is we could have been a little clearer here," she said.

Fox's position is absurd. As Calderone notes, "its understandable why a viewer would look at the numbers stacked up like this on-screen and assume that '94 percent of American's think it's at least "somewhat likely" that climate scientists falsify their research data.' "

One "viewer" who apparently "assumed" that was ... Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy. Here's how he described the Rasmussen poll while Fox was showing that graphic:

DOOCY: Let's go ahead and take a look: Did scientists falsify research to support their own theories on global warming? This is a brand new Rasmussen poll. About 60 percent of you say, "Somewhat likely." Thirty-five percent say, "Very likely." So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely, although 26 percent say, "Not very likely."

So in purporting to explain the poll results, Doocy claimed that 60 percent of respondents answered, "Somewhat likely." This is false. Only 24 percent of respondents said that; the "about 60 percent" figure actually combines the "somewhat likely" and "very likely" respondents. Doocy then suggested that a separate group of respondents -- 35 percent -- said, "Very likely." Doocy then attempted to add those two figures together, saying, "So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely."

But the falsehoods didn't stop there. As soon as Doocy finished misrepresenting the poll, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Eric Bolling explained that since the poll had been conducted before the apparent theft and disclosure of climate scientists' private emails, the percentage of people who think scientists are falsifying data might now be "substantially higher" -- perhaps "close to 100 percent":

CARLSON: In the spirit of fairness, I believe that question was asked before these emails were revealed, so that poll number may actually be different now.

BOLLING: Substantially higher?

CARLSON: It might be, yes.

BOLLING: Close to 100 percent now.

This is completely false. The right-wing media began lying about the Climatic Research Unit emails on November 20. The Rasmussen poll was conducted December 1-2. It included a question about the CRU emails. So, no, the current figure is probably not "substantially higher," and it is certainly not "close to 100 percent."

As Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt put it, "On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, 'zero tolerance' means unless we get caught."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (December 08, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
      16  
      DOOCY: Let's go ahead and take a look: Did scientists falsify research to support their own theories on global warming? This is a brand new Rasmussen poll. About 60 percent of you say, "Somewhat likely." Thirty-five percent say, "Very likely." So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely, although 26 percent say, "Not very likely."

      Oh, the irony...Doocy using falsified poll numbers to argue that practically everyone believes that global warming scientists falsified research data.

      Doocy is a falsified version of a man.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Diosnomeama (December 09, 2009 11:37 am ET)
        2  
        The funny thing is, on the video, Doocy has that little pause right after "So you got 90" and you can tell he notices something isn't right with the poll, but he keeps blathering on anyway. Journalistic integrity just did another pirouette in it's grave.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by News Corpse (December 09, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
        1  
        Doocy and his Fox & Fiends colleagues can't count up to a hundred. Apparently they can't count up to zero either.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ConstanceRifleII (December 09, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
          1  
          I love this line too:

          "We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."

          Love it. So she's basically saying that all the people that they polled shouldn't even need to add up to 100 percent.

          I think these people need to go back to 5th grade, where I know I learned about percentages.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by hoosier (December 09, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
              3
            Sorry, but why do such mundane trivialities carry so much weight here when it has to do with Fox? You guys are trying way too hard.

            It's not like Fox ran this graphic over and over.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Daninhamden8165 (December 09, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
              1  
              Let me guess you love Glen Beck.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by PurpleState (December 09, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
              1  
              But they ran it.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by ShootTheMessenger (December 09, 2009 10:54 pm ET)
              2  
              It's not like Fox ran this graphic over and over.


              Well, alrighty then, it's totally ok
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (December 10, 2009 8:08 am ET)
              4  
              So your local news can put your face on TV and say you're a pedophile, as long as they only do it once? They told people that over 90% of the public believes something that they don't. It's misinformation, and it's wrong.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by SteveO (December 08, 2009 10:13 pm ET)
         
      I think they got there numbers off the article heres what it says:

      Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

      So I think the fault is on Rasmussen on this one more than Fox...this time
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jdunaway65 (December 10, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
           
        Well, any credible news organization would have proofread for typos, and hopefully an editor would have noticed that the math did not work. They were just so happy with those outstanding numbers that they threw it on there to push their agenda...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by erock33 (December 08, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
         
      AHhhhhhh....in other words they implemented a very often used democratic tactic. Fighting fire with fire.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by youcrackmeup (December 08, 2009 10:57 pm ET)
         
      If you would have done your research h as should have Fox you would see that those same numbers are on the Rasmussen Report page.
      @ http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bobzaguy (December 09, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
        2  
        Show me the 59% number as an actual answer here please.
        -------------
        In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
        35% Very likely
        24% Somewhat likely
        21% Not very likely
        5% Not at all likely
        15% Not sure
        --------------
        ?? You Don't see it either? hmmm, maybe because it isn't here.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by youcrackmeup (December 10, 2009 10:53 am ET)
             
          MMMM...
          Maybe if you read the story from the source in my last post, you would see where the problem started, but your not really looking to see where the issue started. The way I look at it it should have been reported a you have it above, BUT I also investigate to why it MAY have been reported the way it was, I know this is not something you would want to do, as you would have read the story from Rasmussen Report that had the same numbers of 59%, 35% 26%.
          Now it looks as is meant to be bulked together as follows, but the issue started AT Rasmussen:

          In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
          59% Likely (35% Very likely, 21% Not very likely=59%)
          26% Not Likely (21% Not very likely, 5% Not at all likely= 26%)
          15% Not Sure (15% Not sure=26%)
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (December 10, 2009 9:22 am ET)
           
        Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
        The problem is that "at least somewhat likely" is not the name of a category. It should be clear that it encompasses more than one group, because it says "at least". This is only made more obvious by the very next sentence in the report:"Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely." Note "Very Likely" is in capital letters, to point out that it's a separate category with a title. And then again, back to the grouping in the following sentence:"Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data." This distinction is made pretty clear to anyone who has any ability to pick up on contextual clues.

        And as Bob suggests in response to you, the actual poll is what supposed to be presented anyway. It also still doesn't answer my question as to how anyone can look at those numbers and not instinctively see the problem. Even glancing at them, 59% basically reads as 60% (as Doocy himself demonstrated), which is then followed by numbers starting with a 3 and 2, respectively. It's very difficult to believe that someone didn't have a mental alarm go off before that graphic was aired, and it's incredibly hard to buy the notion that a producer could hear Doocy say "90" and then "26" and not pick up on it. Even if Doocy was on autopilot (and I grant he's not the sharpest tool in the shed), someone in the control room had to hear that, and any organization with a shred of integrity would have instructed the talent to point out the problem and say the source of the confusion was being investigated.

        It's just hard to believe that this is an innocent mistake, whether Rasmussen used those numbers in its article or not.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (December 08, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
      3 2
      We all make Mistakes, it's part of being Alive.
      But Doocy & Kilmeade are like Two Killer Bees in a European Bee Hive.
      They have no Good Intentions, No Empathy & No Compassion for their Fellow Man.
      If they both stood infront of a Bathroom Mirror at the same time they would only see one Fan.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jesseb37 (December 09, 2009 12:40 am ET)
      10  
      Rasmussen Inc. was a paid consultant to the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush according to the Center for Public Integrity. Can you say bias?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (December 09, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
        2 1
        Did you see the ads that ran on Rasmussen during the election campaign? They were all for Republican and/or so-called conservative entities. Murdoch and Rasmussen are BFFs.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by CatsRBigLuv (December 09, 2009 1:39 am ET)
      2  
      I Just saw this on the Daily Show! HILARIOUS!!!

      This is Perhaps the only positive feature of Fox News, and that is that all by themselves, they too often make the case of their own stupidity, let alone bias.

      They share that in common with the Tea Baggers... as kooky-spooky as they are, if you just let them sputter on for just a little while, their looniness frames itself better than anyone else could ever describe.

      I mean, before they actually posted this poll up there, did they even try to find out what "percent" actually means? Why didnt the sad thing in the middle try to "google" the word "percent", like she does everything else? What a hoot!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (December 09, 2009 6:48 am ET)
      8  
      Zero tolerance = zero enforcement
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (December 09, 2009 6:55 am ET)
      5  
      Sponsors need to pull out of Fox News in its entirety.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jurgan (December 09, 2009 7:07 am ET)
      7  
      "We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."

      "Hey, we didn't say the sky was blue- it's not our fault if people assumed that."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eyeswideopen (December 09, 2009 7:54 am ET)
      3  
      "We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."

      Then don't use a percentage sign!

      Percent means "by a specified amount in or for every hundred..." Maybe Fox was hoping viewers skipped school the day percent and percentage was covered?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by walstib (December 09, 2009 8:40 am ET)
      12  
      You folks just don't get the new math I see.

      This zero tolerance and the graphic are in line with the new "base 120" counting system. In this math, 120 = what you call 100 in your elitest "base 10" system. So, when you say 0 in the newer and more fair system that equates to what you call 20.

      So as you can see, Zero tolerance in the fair and balanced math is the same as 20% tolerance to you commies.

      If only you'd pay attention...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (December 09, 2009 11:26 am ET)
        4  
        "You folks just don't get the new math I see."

        Yes, getting the right answer isn't necessary. It's the idea that's the important thing.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Vb8CWJ-Ho
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PurpleState (December 09, 2009 9:35 am ET)
      1  
      Come and knock on our door...
      (Come and knock on our door)
      We've been waiting for you...
      (We've been waiting for you)
      Where the kisses are hers and hers and his,
      Three's company too.

      Come and dance on our floor...
      (Come and dance on our floor)
      Take a step that is new...
      (Take a step that is new)
      We've a loveable space that needs your face,
      Three's company too.

      You'll see that life is a frolic and laughter is calling for you...
      Down at our rendez-vous,
      Three's company, too!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (December 09, 2009 10:05 am ET)
      4  
      Fox is just using one of those "tricks to hid the decline."

      Seriously folks - the CRU is running an independent investigation into the emails, while Fox just circles the wagons around an obvious falsehood.

      So who would you believe - the CRU or Fox?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (December 09, 2009 10:05 am ET)
           
        Correction:

        Fox is just using one of those "tricks to hide the decline."

        #$%#% typos!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Midnight Kevin (December 09, 2009 10:07 am ET)
      4  
      Lauren Petterson should be fired over this one to make her the first scalp of Fox's zero tolerance policy. She says the didn't put on the screen that it adds up to 100%, but considering she is the executive producer and her on air representation stated that 90% believed one thing while the remaining 26% say another. I don't know about her, but I learned percentages in school and when I add the two together, it is greater than 100.
      -----------------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (December 09, 2009 10:29 am ET)
        6 1
        Yes, I especially liked the on-air commentator who said something to the effect of '90+% believe one thing, and 26% believe another', and then DIDN'T proceed to say out loud - Hey, wait a minute - how can this be true?

        There are two possibilities only here. The commentator could be so ignorant that they don't realize that you can't have one group at 90% and an opposing group at 26%, or they could have recognized that the graph was misleading but were okay going along with the conspiracy to mislead their viewers.

        Neither is a pretty picture for FoxNews, and THIS IS WHY we need to publicize their dishonesty so that their toxic distortions stop poisoning our public debate. It's this kind of behavior that Obama objected to when he said that they aren't a legit news organization. We have to stop them from getting the credibility they don't deserve. They could choose to go out of business - if we won't let them lie without consequences, they can take their ball and go home. Or they can straighten out their act, and stop with the conservative misinformation. Or they can continue on, misleading their viewers, and we'll do our damnest to make them lose as much credibility as they deserve to lose. This isn't a hunt for phantom offenders, after all. MMFA documents their daily mistakes/intentional errors come rain or come shine.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (December 09, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        1  
        I don't know this person but; she is just doing what she is told. I really have a problem when people are terminated just to cover what is standard practice at a company.

        What we all need to understand is that at Fox, and on the right, they have adopted the standard that anything goes, if it supports their agenda. Obviously we need to keep pointing out these falsehoods and misrepresentations but; we shouldn't really expect to hear anything any different than: "well, we could have been a little clearer".

        It doesn't matter if someone hacked into a computer system, or someone misrepresented thenselves, and video taped people without consent. As long as it supports their agenda, it is OK.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Midnight Kevin (December 10, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
          1  
          What I see is that Fox issued a Zero Tolerance policy. Regardless of if she is doing what she is told, nobody is being held accountable for their policies, and misinformation is allowed to persist...

          There was no real reason for Fox to issue this policy if they had no intention of abiding by it.
          ---------------------------------------
          The Midnight Review
          Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (December 09, 2009 10:40 am ET)
      2  
      Fox isn't going to follow through on their promise of zero tolerance for purposely made errors? Gosh, color me surprised...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JLP (December 09, 2009 11:10 am ET)
         
      Why couldn't they figure out that these numbers don't add up to 100% or am I missing something?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Looking_4_Truth (December 09, 2009 11:22 am ET)
      1  
      Misrepresentation of facts is a hallmark of Faux Nuze. Their graphics department can Photoshop images, cut and paste, dodge and burn with the best of them. The Nuze anchors are notorious for taking quotes out of context, deliberately leaving out portions of quotes in attempts to validate whatever usually already debunked point they're trying to make.

      Zero tolerance? If it were enforced, Petterson and the cast of Faux and Friends would be out of jobs. But that's not going to happen. And whatever happened to the "associate producer" who was, taking her title literally, producing news an egging the supporters at that Beck and Fox sponsored rally a couple of months ago?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (December 09, 2009 11:23 am ET)
      1  
      No matter the issue, when Doocy gets involved, there's no place for it to go, except into goofy land.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bsherman (December 09, 2009 11:37 am ET)
      1  
      Even beyond FOX's falsification of the survey. Who cares what the survey says? Did anyone who took the survey actually understand the intricacies of climate science? I'm am by no means excusing the scientists completely, but this whole thing is way overblowm. When you have 10 tests and 1 test shows something different than the other tests you try to figure out what's wrong with the 1 test. That's what was going on here.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Media Mumblings (December 09, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
        8
      59 percent did think it somewhat likely or very likely that scientists distorted data to fit their preconceived theories. Michael 'hide the decline' Mann( and of discredited hockey stick fame) comes to mind. That poll will get the politicians attention no matter that Fox misreported the findings. No need for exxageratioin. The actual results of the poll were damaging enough for the AGW alarmist community.
      Cap and Tax is dead on arrival in congress. The Copenhagen Summit(where more CO2 was emitted by the participants than 60 countries combined..lol) is in disarray given Climategate emails and the revelation that wealthier countries were trying to get one over on the less developed countries in yet another leak at the beginning of the summitt. There is so much ill-gotten profit to be made off of this swindle that I am surprised that there hasn't been even more fraud exposed. The whole thing is unraveling and all you guys can do is point out errors in the reporting of polling. The polling was damaging enough without the misreporting. Can any of you address the actual poll results and tell me how this is a good thing for the alarmist community. You guys are going to have to do alot better than this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (December 09, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
        3  
        You and your crystal balls. The whole thing is unraveling says you. The polling done based on misleading information about e-mails that didn't show what you say they showed. There is no major disagreement among most of the scientist about the causes of global warming. That Faux had to distort the data of the pollsjust shows how far they and the deniers of global warming will go to push their point,and like you how misinformed they are.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (December 09, 2009 1:49 pm ET)
          3  
          Oh I forgot to ad that a new Faux poll found that 59% of their viewers believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese 35% say this very likely true 26% say not likely. If a poll says it, science must be wrong. Whenever I want to know what the weather will be like I take a poll inside my household. Hehehe!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (December 09, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
        3  
        Welfare --

        No new ideas, so you deniers just keep kicking on that hockey stick.

        Here's a puck upside the head. Will it knock sense into you? I'm not going to hold my breath for a response.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-divergence-problem.html

        You may want to re-think your position. You'll soon be put into the same category of nutjobs who claim UFOs are piloted by space beings.

        Here's a hint of how things are going for the deniers lately. The Washington Post, The Economist, and The Financial Times all have weighed in - in favor of AGW. Read 'em and weep.

        http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/12/sorry-skeptics.html
        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (December 09, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
           
        "The Copenhagen Summit(where more CO2 was emitted by the participants than 60 countries combined..lol)"

        Yesterday, someone claimed that it was more than 30 countries emitted, now it is 60 countries combined? What next? More than all countries combined?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (December 09, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
           
        politicians [politicians']
        no matter that Fox [despite the fact that Fox]
        exxageratioin [exaggeration]
        than 60 countries [than from 60 countries]
        summitt [summit]
        alot [a lot]

        After reading your post, W-W S, I've come to the definite conclusion that the best part of your writing is your spelling, punctuation, and style. Your ideas, on the other hand....
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jim20322284 (December 09, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
         
      Yogi Berra said that baseball is 90% half-mental. Fox News in 120% half lying
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Glen_Blech (December 09, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
         
      Not that Faux News would care, but Rasmussen is known for biased polls so the info isn't valid (in my professional opinion - 20 years in market research) in the first place for at least two reasons:

      a. The question itself is biased and leading - the first part is written as a negative to shift responses in a certain direction.

      _________________

      3* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
      _________________

      b. Survey methodology is suspect - you have to dig a bit to find that Rasmussen uses IVR (automated phone) surveying. This skews the results because people who use only cell phones instead of land lines (younger, probably more likely to think AGW is a problem) won't be surveyed. Also, because it is a robo-call most people will just hang up - unless they are the Faux News type of angry moron who want to spout off their ignorance.





      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 09, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
      1  
      OK... personally I usually HATE 'zero-tolerance polices.' But I have to damit that 'zero on-screen errors' for a "news" organization does seem like a reasonable, pricipled goal.

      And in abandoning it after a mere two weeks, Fox has shown, yet again, thier utter lack of both reason and principles.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Fox and the Right are unpricipled scum, to a man. Either you're lyin' or you're buyin'. Either way, I got no use for ANYONE on that side anymore.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rms (December 09, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
      1  
      "We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."

      Of course not, and why should you? Why would anyone looking over a poll ever think that it is supposed to add up to 100%. Silly, silly us.

      /sarcasm/
      Report Abuse
    • Author by techguyjames (December 09, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
         
      Where do I even begin? I can't believe the network that states its squeaky clean isn't.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by goshzilla (December 09, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
         
      It's not the fact that the numbers didn't add up to 100% that should be the issue. It's the fact that they took categorical variables and added them together to create a misleading fact that so many were against global warming. If the people who responded to the poll were given three choices, then the results will not be the same as if there were five choices.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 09, 2009 4:04 pm ET)
         
      I'm not sure if it makes it worse (to me it does) but it would appear that Faux "News" actually didn't even look at the actual poll and just lifted right from Rasmussen's website...

      Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.


      So even Rasmussen was spinning a bit...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bobzaguy (December 09, 2009 6:22 pm ET)
        1  
        This is the actual question/answer, Old_B, not what you wrote:
        -----------------
        In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?

        35% Very likely
        24% Somewhat likely
        21% Not very likely
        5% Not at all likely
        15% Not sure
        100%
        --------------------
        Where's the spin guy?
        THE LIE is all FOX!!
        --------------------
        They added 35 & 24 = 59% renamed as "SWL"
        Then they re-listed the 35% kept as "VL"
        Added together the 21 and 5 = 26% "NL/NVL"
        They didn't even use the "Not sure" 15%!
        Total is really now 135%
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 10, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
             
          WTF is your point? I linked to the page where the paragraph I posted came from. That is EXACTLY the way Fox reported it. My point was Fox didn't even look at the poll but rather the summary on the website.

          OK guy?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by edbermac (December 09, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
      1  
      Fox Math in action!

      2 + 2 = 548.2478

      Remember that, you left wing commie muslim socialists!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (December 09, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
        2
      The fact that MMFA is running another 'whine' about this graphic only testifies to the stupidity of the folks at MMFA.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (December 09, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
           
        This is an update to the earlier story. The first was the story about the screw up and this one is about how FOX is not doing anything about the screw-up. "whining" about this stuff is what MMFA is about.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (December 09, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
           
        How so? It is a perfect example of Fox's dishonesty.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by venturieffect (December 09, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
           
        It's more than a graphic; it's a tool used to stir people up, and it's entirely dishonest.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by PurpleState (December 09, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
        2  
        It's not only the graphic.

        It's the fact that Doocy ran with it and added the "somewhat likely" and "very likely" together to (almost) come up with 94%. He backtracked in time when he realized the numbers were wrong, but...he never corrected himself.

        Seems the only guy that realized the numbers were wrong was the temp host, but he also said nothing.

        So tell us they were honest about the presentation.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (December 10, 2009 8:59 am ET)
             
          That's what's really remarkable here. I personally don't see how it's possible for any adult who can dress themselves to talk about one group being "90 (percent)" and then mention the opposing 26% without realizing the mathematical impossibility contained therein. It strongly suggests that these people honestly don't know if it was an accident or an intentional bit of fudging for the sake of making an impression. It must be like "$#!+, did they tell me they were going to do that? Did I miss an email? Maybe it was a goof and I'm supposed to correct it. $#!+!"
          Report Abuse
    • Author by unhipcat (December 09, 2009 6:40 pm ET)
      1  
      According to my math,
      - 65% believe is not likely. (21% not likely, 5% not likely at all and 15% who didn't say it was likely. Then I just added the 24% "not very likely," because it includes "not").
      - Only 11% percent think it's likely at all (35% "very likely" - 24% "somewhat likely").
      That adds up to 76%, leaving 24% unaccounted for (I'm going with the traditional 100% survey).
      So I'm guessing it's the 24% "somewhat likely" that missing. So I'll just add that to the 65% "not likely" because that 24% did not say very likely, which is akin to saying "not very likely,"
      which means the actual figure is 89% say it's not very likely. Then 11% makes the total 100%.
      I would put it in tabular form, but some of the numbers wouldn't come out right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by highlyunlikely (December 09, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
         
      at this point, it would be fair to say that FOX has adopted a 120% policy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Robby (December 09, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
         
      But....the CRU creeps lied! The only "deniers" now are the 26% in the poll. HA, HA, Ha. So, "warming" is a hoax! How come it took so long for this to get reported, I wonder? I guess media (doesn't) matter!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Texas Aggie (December 10, 2009 1:05 am ET)
        1  
        "Warming" is a hoax. The Arctic ice cap hasn't melted almost completely, the Antarctic ice cap hasn't dumped the equivalent of the Eastern seaboard worth of ice sheet into the ocean, the snow cap on Kilmanjaro is completely intact, Greenland isn't losing its glaciers faster than predicted, the last ten years aren't the hottest decade on record, the first fall frost isn't almost three weeks late and the last spring frost isn't almost three weeks early, English birdwatchers aren't seeing Mediterranean species for the first time, and so on and so on. It's all a plot, I tell you. A dastardly plot.

        And to think that the only way that the deniers could "prove" that the climatologists were up to something was by deliberately distorting the meaning of their emails. Notice how none of the deniers ever publishes any of the emails for fear that then people will see that their objections are all scrapings off a Panhandle feedlot.


        Report Abuse
    • Author by mcnairbo6573 (December 09, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
         
      Did Fox falsify a poll yet again? 99% Yes, absolutely / 53% Oh hell yes! / 92% Undoubtedly. / 43% Not sure.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spinny (December 10, 2009 4:00 am ET)
         
      I wish Fox would have similar "zero tolerance" toward gay marriage or health care reform, since in the murdoch dictionary 'zero tolerance' and 'indifference to' are apparently synonymous. If they actually fired every Liberty University intern they blame for these errors they wouldn't have enough employees for a decent softball game at the company picnic. If you don't see the intentional nature of these "errors", you're probably in the FOX and friends target demographic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Brabantio (December 10, 2009 8:48 am ET)
      1  
      But Lauren Petterson, executive producer of Fox & Friends, told POLITICO that she sees no error in the graphic.
      If the graphic had said "likely" instead of "somewhat likely", I could see some barely plausible scenario where it was just not well presented. "Very likely" would be a subset of "likely", even though it should be specified. But the fact of the matter is that is an error because this is not how you present information anyway. If you're going to do that, put the 35% in parentheses so that it's clear that it's not out there on its own, that it's part of a larger percentage. Otherwise its natural to read them as separate items (a la Doocy), which is confusing, and which in itself certainly constitutes an "error".

      What would have happened if the numbers were a little different here? Let's say:
      very likely:24%
      somewhat likely:27%
      not very likely:15%
      not very likely at all:5%
      no opinion/unsure:29%

      Then it gets presented as:
      somewhat likely:51%
      very likely:24%
      not very likely:20%

      The viewer wouldn't even have an indication that the numbers were wrong, because they're mathematically possible. Does the same principle apply, where that would just be a matter of "we could have been a little clearer"? Or does the defense of "we didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent" only apply because the viewer is supposed to a)note the error and b)assume that the cause of the discrepancy is adding the same number twice, as opposed to assuming that any one of the numbers is supposed to be less by twenty.

      I'm just trying to imagine if a supposedly "liberal" media outlet had presented a poll in this manner, and then saying that it wasn't an error. Brent Bozell would have a baby on the spot. Even if he was in an incredibly charitable mood, it would surely be noted as an "error". More likely, he would ask how the hell it's possible to create that graphic without noticing that the numbers add up to over 100%, and not say "hey, maybe we should fix this", and he would also rake the on-air talent over the coals for running with the numbers instead of noting the problem. And he would have a point.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by scuffedshoes (December 10, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
         
      I find it telling that Doocy says, "So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely."
      The pause after he says "90" suggests that either he isn't able to do simple arithmetic in his head or that he saw that if he mentioned that actual sum of those two categories it would become immediately obvious that the number of folks in the remaining category would put the total over 100%.
      So, arithmetical ignoramus or reactionary apologist?
      Hard call to make.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.