Another reason why Fox News should be part of the Comedy Network.
.
.
63 + 70 + 60 = 193
Not bad. Their pie chart was only off by 93.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
..
 |
Fox News’ New Math
On November - 28 - 2009
Their Source of Opinions Dynamic isn’t so Dynamic. Wonder where the maker of this pie chart went to school
@Janine: The question is DID they go to school? Is this real or a joke? It can’t be real, right? OK, how are they going to defend this if it’s true!
Anomaly- Mario changed my name to, “Anonymous.”
@Anomaly100,
oh it’s real all right. Don’t know how they’ll defend it but they’ll but on several pie chart and math experts in order to convince their viewers all that really does add up to 100%
I’m wondering if this hearkens back to my theory about Pie-gate. Hmm…
That must be how ‘W-ya’ won!
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by D.R Strickland: RT @mariopiperni: Fox News’ new math. http://twurl.nl/nl6wme...
As has been pointed out by Olberman and others, this is part of a general trend. The graphics and news crawl are filled with mistakes with great regularity. It makes you wonder who they hire and how they are chosen, and whether the techniques are similar to the way the Bush Administration handled HR. W’s gang focused on the ideological “purity” (to use a buzzword) of the potential hires, ignoring attributes like experience and competence. The question for the rest of us is; WHY CAN’T WE KNOCK DOWN THEIR VIEWERSHIP? Maddening!
There is no such thing as an honest mistake with THIS crew when it comes to Fox. It’s all part of a conspiracy.
Does anyone have a live link to support this. The divisions of the chart look suspiciously symmetrical. Think it could be photo shopped??
As with anything presented here from Fox, TN, you immediately are suspicious. Your arguments begin with the premise that Fox is accurate and anything to the contrary you simply do not believe. This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance
janine, janine, janine…..My premises begin with, I have a mind of my own. Unlike some others, I’m not a sycophant, myrmidon or puppet to any ideology, person or party. Therefore, I look at something like this and upon cursory scrutiny, my eye sees the image of the pie chart as being split into symmetrical slices.
Now, even with the numbers being wrong, the splits of the pie would not be equal. Therefore, I questioned if it was an accurate representation or if it possibly could have been photo shopped. I see that no one has responded so far.
Now, I did do some research. Although can’t find the site again right now, I did find where a poll had been done that reflects those numbers. It was one of those “strongly approve, approve, disapprove” things which would account for totals exceeding 100%.
I also found an 11-23-09 article which cited an in house, Fox statement to it’s employees stating a zero tolerance for errors in the future. It cited the Hannity error, one of the errors on crowd films and a picture of Palin’s Book with “Going Rouge” on the cover rather than the correct title, “Going Rogue”. It did not mention this particular error although I realize that is not conclusive “proof” it is not an authentic representation. (I did not research this particular site for authenticity.)
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/fox-news-threatens-pink-slips-for-on-screen-errors.php
I would note this image is making the rounds on liberal blogs but noticeably, none of them sites an origin source to support it is an authentic replication of an image presented on t.v. Again, I don’t accept that as conclusive proof this image may be fake, but it certainly makes inquiring minds want to know.
Therefore my questions and suspicions. As smart, cute and bright as YOU may think it makes you sound, my questioning the authenticity of this image has nothing to do with “cognitive dissonance”.
For a lady that feigns bewilderment for why liberals and conservatives can’t exchange civil dialogue, you sure do your part for maintaining the “status quo” when it comes to debate.
@TN, and in two seconds I found the news segment. Fox may have said zero errors in the future, but as we know Fox lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbyhj8uTT8&feature=player_embedded
Thank you janine. And I’m sure you’ve noted it was not the “Fox Network” but Fox’s Chicago Affiliate that utilized the erroneous pie chart instead of using a bar chart. But tell me something, aside from the obvious error of using the wrong kind of chart, can you tell me how this in any manner reflects on the accuracy of the numbers?
You know, you’d be okay up to your comment to Chester stating they’d try to make the numbers add up to 100%.
janine, wouldn’t a more accurate statement be “Fox’s Chicago Affiliate used a pie chart in error?” Do you actually think THIS is proof they lie? Are you actually going to suggest the Chicago Affiliate knowingly used a pie chart with the intention of misleading people?
Do you really believe that?
By itself this screwy pie chart has no significance except to say that Fox is sloppy. That is no minor error. The significance comes when you combine the pie chart with the many errors Fox has committed in the last few weeks.
What it points to is a news network that goes beyond sloppy. It’s stupid and it doesn’t seem to care. It has accepted that their are enough brainless people that their ratings will remain high no matter how many times they jockey the news to make it conform to their message, how many times they purposely show the wrong film footage or how many times they display a pie chart graphic which totals 193. They just don’t care enough and their audience is too ignorant to understand that they’re tools.
I don’t think they intentionally tried to mislead anybody. I just think they are stupid.
Frances, it also could be that some of the people polled support more than one candidate.
@defolts: That kind of defeats the purpose of a pie chart – or a poll.
Frances, maybe but Palin? does anyone really think she has a shot, I personally hope the people that call themselves conservatives nominate her, it could be like Johnson VS Goldwater, only Goldwater was infinitely better than Palin is .
Has anyone been able to find the source poll that describes the polling criteria and explains the results? Opinion Dynamics is a marketing consulting firm that conducts polling for Fox News and other companies.
TN,
fox is fox. and pie charts are to be filled with numbers that add up to 100
@Frances
I do think they intentionally try to mislead folks
Okay, I found out. The numbers in the pie chart are favorability ratings among Republicans. In other words, they had no business being on a pie chart when they referred to multiple individuals. You would have a pie chart showing the results for Palin and another for Huckabee, etc. Actually, the question wasn’t even about whether those questioned would back the particular people in 2012. They were simply asked if their opinion of them was favorable or unfavorable.
“Polling was conducted by telephone November 17-18, 2009, in the evenings. The total sample is 900 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Results are of registered voters, unless otherwise noted. LV = likely voters
Democrats n=342, ±5; Republicans n=324, ±6; Independents n=178, ±7
7. – 11. I’m going to read you the names of several individuals. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you’ve never heard of someone, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE)
SCALE: 1. Favorable 2. Unfavorable 3. (Can’t say) 4. Never heard of
*** SUMMARY CHART ***
Favorable
Oprah Winfrey 61%
Sarah Palin 47%
Mike Huckabee 45%
Newt Gingrich 38%
Mitt Romney 38%”
In my opinion, complete stupidity was involved, along with some disingenuousness – but not conclusively on the part of the Fox News Network. I have to land this one squarely on the affiliate.
Here is a link to the Fox News pdf that contains this portion of the poll:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/111909_PalinPoll.pdf
Poll data:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/111909_PalinPoll.pdf
The numbers only represent favorable ratings for the individuals from Republicans polled.
@Mario: Beat ya! Neener neener neener.
Janine, that is what they do, they don’t make mistakes, the recent so-called mistakes were not mistakes, if no one said anything they never would have either, they intentionally mislead whether it is labeling a Republican caught in a scandal as a Democrat or Hannity accusing Hillary Clinton of being involved in a murder that is how they play the game, anyone that can hire a sleaze ball like Karl Rove has no integrity, anyone that can accuse the so-called Mainstream media of being biased against “CONservative women” and yet does not see people like Kay Bailey Hutchison not being attacked and Elizabeth Dole getting respect is lying, any outlet that can say the stock market is down back in March because of Obama and then it goes up and calls themselves fair and balanced is not being honest. they are a functioning arm of the GOP nothing more, and before someone goes on about MSNBC they need to look up who Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan is.
Frances: 1
Mario: 0
Well, what do you expect out of Chicago, the corrupt city that gave us Barack Hussein Obama??
(mario and Frances, don’t hurt yourselves patting yourselves on the back. I found it in my original post but failed to link to it. In subsequent efforts, I couldn’t find it again (given my personal time constraints.) Can I get an “Honorable Mention”?)
@TN: Honorable Mention for what? For showing that you think your opinion on why people have their opinion is more important than pointing to the source of factual information that would clarify the situation? I’ll give you First Prize, but in a different category. Since you’re so good at knowing what everyone else is thinking, I’ll let you figure out what category that is.
Frances, Lighten up. I was alluding to the fact that I found the information you and Mario did on my first comment. I did not post the link. On my subsequent comment, I was pressed for time and could not readily find the link again so although I mentioned it, I was unable to post it.
It was meant to be a humorous comment. The rest of your comment is pure ignorance. Not surprising coming from some anal retentive, whacked out liberal who sees bogeymen behind every tree.
All the while, you want to criticize me while making a mountain out of this mole hill of a mistake. And erroneously pinning it on the “Fox News Network” when it was the local affiliate who made the mistake. Not very credible on your part.
I guess when you are anally retentive to the point you perceive of yourself as some representation of perfection, it’s easy to disparage those who don’t quite rise to your self perceived level of aggrandizement.
You really boor me. You can be a petty, spiteful little person with quite the ugly demeanor.
Have a nice day.
@Mario: The Defense rests, Your Honor.
Ignore him, Frances. This guy is the epitome of ugly demeanor and crass ignorance.
Zenith, good advice. She did tweak me and I responded a bit in anger. I would ignore myself.
By the way, could you please point me to the last topical comment you posted?
TN on ignore.
@TN: Frances says November 29, 2009 at 7:35 pm: “In my opinion, complete stupidity was involved, along with some disingenuousness – but not conclusively on the part of the Fox News Network. I have to land this one squarely on the affiliate.”
TN says November 30, 2009 at 11:08 am: “And erroneously pinning it on the “Fox News Network” when it was the local affiliate who made the mistake. Not very credible on your part.”
I would say that MY credibility is not the issue here.
Frances, My apologies. I did not see that. I made a mistake. In the liberal world, I understand that kills any credibility one may have had or may ever hope to gain.
Thank you for pointing out my error. It substantiates my initial opinion of you which regrettably had nose dived over the course of numerous comments. You seemed to be more balanced, informed and considerate when you first started posting.
Perhaps this signals a return to that level of commentary.