Fox News: 120% Of The Public Thinks Scientists May Falsify GW Data

[MarianLH]

I don't start threads lightly, especially in Misc, but this is so over the top, even for a network that consistently mislabels scandal-plagued Republicans as Democrats.

According to Media Matters, they combined the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent, then added the 35% "very likely" back in again. They also dropped "not likely at all" and "unsure" entirely. The numbers for the former were mashed into "not very likely" and the latter were just left out.

Marian

 

[Roger Wilco]

The funniest thing about that is, that they did it shortly after declaring a "zero tolerance" policy on such errors after having been embarrassed repeatedly before for faking or mislabelling on-screen footage.

 

[CaptainStoner]

The target audience never noticed...

 

[MarianLH]

I googled around a bit, looking for any suggestion that this might be a hoax, but I didn't find anything. And Think Progress says that last month they had a pie chart showing that 193% of the public supports Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nomination.


Marian

 

[Amaris]

I googled around a bit, looking for any suggestion that this might be a hoax, but I didn't find anything. And Think Progress says that last month they had a pie chart showing that 193% of the public supports Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nomination.


Marian

If true, then it sounds like they're taking multiple polls and putting them together. It's not entirely dishonest, but it's nothing to be proud of.

J.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I googled around a bit, looking for any suggestion that this might be a hoax, but I didn't find anything. And Think Progress says that last month they had a pie chart showing that 193% of the public supports Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nomination.


Marian

If true, then it sounds like they're taking multiple polls and putting them together. It's not entirely dishonest, but it's nothing to be proud of.

J.

Combining polls so that they are totaled instead of averaged is entirely dishonest. I don't care who does it.

 

[Jadzia]

According to Media Matters, they combined the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent, then added the 35% "very likely" back in again. They also dropped "not likely at all" and "unsure" entirely. The numbers for the former were mashed into "not very likely" and the latter were just left out.

It's common in this kind of statistics to add groups together to create cumulative percentiles.

I remember the British government publishing a report a few years ago something like "we've saved 32%".

year one, we actually saved only 1%. In fact, this was the only saving.
year two, we save 1% plus the 1% from the previous year = 2%
year three, we save 1% plus the 2% from the previous year, and the 1% from the first year = 4%

year four, we save 1%, plus the 4% from the previous year, the 2% from year 2 and the 1% from year 1 = 8%

...

year six we've saved 32%

statistics is funny

 

[Robert Maxwell]

According to Media Matters, they combined the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent, then added the 35% "very likely" back in again. They also dropped "not likely at all" and "unsure" entirely. The numbers for the former were mashed into "not very likely" and the latter were just left out.

It's common in this kind of statistics to add groups together to create cumulative percentiles.

I remember the British government publishing a report a few years ago something like "we've saved 32%".

year one, we actually saved only 1%. In fact, this was the only saving.
year two, we save 1% plus the 1% from the previous year = 2%
year three, we save 1% plus the 2% from the previous year, and the 1% from the first year = 4%

year four, we save 1%, plus the 4% from the previous year, the 2% from year 2 and the 1% from year 1 = 8%

...

year six we've saved 32%

statistics is funny

That reminds me of the occasions when politicians talk about "funding cuts," when they really mean the projected growth of a department's budget is being reduced. They still get more money than they did the year before, just not as much more as they wanted. But they call it a "cut."

 

[John Picard]

That reminds me of the occasions when politicians talk about "funding cuts," when they really mean the projected growth of a department's budget is being reduced. They still get more money than they did the year before, just not as much more as they wanted. But they call it a "cut."

That one irks me to no end.

 

[TheBrew]

I googled around a bit, looking for any suggestion that this might be a hoax, but I didn't find anything. And Think Progress says that last month they had a pie chart showing that 193% of the public supports Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nomination.


Marian

If true, then it sounds like they're taking multiple polls and putting them together. It's not entirely dishonest, but it's nothing to be proud of.

J.

Combining polls so that they are totaled instead of averaged is entirely dishonest. I don't care who does it.

I don't think that it's dishonest. Just comes from people who never learned basic statistics.

 

[paudemge]

I'm not sure if this is misleading or not. Many poll results are combined like this the 'somewhat likely' includes 'very likely'. The 59% somewhat gives the quickest understanding that nearly %60 think it is at least somewhat likely. I would have made a graphic that showed the 59% at the top with the 35% very likely indented with a smaller font below. I think this would have been the best way to present the data and the point of that particular story (nearly %60 blablabla)

 

[Jadzia]

Combining polls so that they are totaled instead of averaged is entirely dishonest. I don't care who does it.

I don't think that it's dishonest. Just comes from people who never learned basic statistics.

I disagree. I think it comes from people versed enough in statistics to pull off stunts like this. The purpose of presentational statistics isn't to inform, it is to persuade.

If people wanted to make numbers up they could do that. But that would be outright lying.

Statistics allows genuine data to be transformed into something influential, through a manipulation that is both explainable and honest, but yielding a result that is intended to be misinterpreted.

Most people don't understand what the numbers really mean; people take them at face value.

 

[John Picard]

Combining polls so that they are totaled instead of averaged is entirely dishonest. I don't care who does it.

I don't think that it's dishonest. Just comes from people who never learned basic statistics.

I disagree. I think it comes from people versed enough in statistics to pull off stunts like this. The purpose of presentational statistics isn't to inform, it is to persuade.

If people wanted to make numbers up they could do that. But that would be outright lying.

Statistics allows genuine data to be transformed into something influential, through a manipulation that is both explainable and honest, but yielding a result that is intended to be misinterpreted.

Most people don't understand what the numbers really mean; people take them at face value.

In other words; there are lies, damned lies, and Statistics.

 

[AnyStar]

i dont really give a rats ass about fox news, but just to play devils advocate:

it doesnt matter what side of the fence (or aisle) you are on. when given a set of data, you do your damndest to make it fit your own personal theory...

 

[Gertch]

I don't start threads lightly, especially in Misc, but this is so over the top, even for a network that consistently mislabels scandal-plagued Republicans as Democrats.

Marian

I laughed because of the irony with the Warmers data when I saw this.

The actual data comes from #3 on this page I believe.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

i dont really give a rats ass about fox news, but just to play devils advocate:

it doesnt matter what side of the fence (or aisle) you are on. when given a set of data, you do your damndest to make it fit your own personal theory...

Trying to frame data is one thing. Deliberately fucking up the numbers so that they say something untrue is another matter entirely.

 

[Tom Riley]

It appears FOX's "Fair and Balanced" is showing...

 

[Gertch]

Deliberately fucking up the numbers so that they say something untrue is another matter entirely.

Deliberately yes. Like if they show people at an Obama rally with guns and saying they are racists, and carefully editing so you can't see the guy with the gun is black. A mistake is one thing. Lets see if they mention this error.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It appears FOX's "Fair and Balanced" is showing...

...at least it appears they can differentiate between Reverend Al and Reverend Jackson! Contessa however.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ZWqdDIyjE&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p445sReNxBo

 

[sidious618]

To be fair to FOX I doubt most of the people on their station can add.