I have to confess something. I’ve been watching for a few years now. Tucker Carlson today on Fox News.
No, I hasten to add, because I agree with almost everything that the right-wing moderator of the same name says. And not because I’m interested in American politics. But just because the show is entertaining. Despite the reprehensible lies Carlson tells – Covid vaccines don’t work and are dangerous, the West is responsible for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we can’t trust the election results, immigration will destroy the US – he does it in such a blatantly better style that I just can’t could not tune in.
Maybe I’m a punishment eater. In any case, those days are behind us. This week, Carlson left Fox News (details and reasons for his departure have not yet been reported). And since it’s the end of an era, it’s interesting to imagine the impact he and his fellow overly biased American broadcasters could have had on American political attitudes.
Until recently, I was relatively calm about the influence of Fox News. I figured no one would watch this stuff if they didn’t already have some pretty extreme views: the moderators are just preaching to an already partisan choir (plus a few hating viewers like me). And in any case, the number of people who actually tune in to listen to Carlson rant about lockdowns, wakefulness, and yes, UFOs may seem like a lot on paper, but it’s a small, hidden minority (reportedly in the first three months of Carlson’s show averaged 3.25). million viewers).
But a new study published last week calls all that into question. The use of new, detailed viewer data from partisan TV networks such as Fox (right), CNN and MSNBC (left), a study that is currently available in unpeered “preprint” form, raises some troubling concerns. And with the advent of new, very biased British TV channels like GB News and TalkTV, these questions have become relevant here in the UK for the first time.
The first part of the study looked at how many people actually watch TV shows that are biased. If the numbers are low or people don’t tune in enough, it’s not a problem. But the authors of the new study used data from smart TVs and a random sample of the U.S. population to show that about 15 percent of Americans watch more than eight hours of heavily tilted TV per month. They note that 15 percent of the population is larger than other groups considered major voting blocs.
I agree that 15 percent is a lot. However, I would argue with the second part: it’s eight hours per month a lot of partisan TV? This is an average of about 15 minutes a day. If you add in those who watch a full hour a day – that’s the equivalent of tuning in to the full Tucker Carlson show every night plus whatever replaces it on the weekends – that’s about 7 percent of the population. Of course they can be Also posting biased content online, which increases the time they spend being exposed to highly biased views, so perhaps all of these numbers are a “lower bound”.
You can also ask about the demographics of people who tune into partisan television. If it is mostly the elderly, the problem may lessen over time as younger, rising generations get their news from other sources. But while older people make up the largest TV audience on many different channels, partisan channels still attract a decent amount of younger people: For example, 13 percent of Fox News viewers and 12 percent of MSNBC viewers are 18-18-year-olds, 18-year-olds and 12-year-olds. percent of the Fox News audience. and 34
And what about the above-mentioned “Preach to the Chorus” effect? However, are hardcore players the only ones who prefer to watch guerilla TV? It’s not, the researchers say: while about a third of Fox News viewers describe themselves as “strong Republicans” and a third of CNN and MSNBC viewers consider themselves “strong Democrats,” the rest are less vocal.
This is pretty good evidence against the notion that the vast majority of viewers of these channels are already fully paid members of a political faction, and could prove that they are not “heavy” viewers, if not outright “swing voters”. be convinced of your abilities.
But I’m wondering if saying you’re a “weak” or “leaning” Republican or Democrat, like most of the rest of the study participants, does mean you’re persuasive – many people claim you’re a “moderate” or “centrist.” beliefs, but do not change their mind about anything, or say that they are moderate, but in fact they are not. Likewise, many of those who currently describe themselves as “strong” Democrats or Republicans may, in practice, change their minds if faced with a right-wing controversy.
Not only that, almost 10% of the viewers of each channel are made up of “strong” supporters of the other side, which suggests that there are many hate speeches or people who are open to arguments from the other side. whatever they say, reach out.
Which brings us to the last point: to what extent do people usually watch TV outside of their party? It’s a slightly different question than the viewership question, because it’s about the extent to which people who watch a lot watch some biased TV channel. Also view other people’s content?
The answer, according to new data, is: a little. For example, researchers found that only 5 percent of Republicans who watch Fox News for eight hours a month also watch CNN or MSNBC for at least four hours. Also, those who watch a lot of partisan news are unlikely to see simpler, nonpartisan news like this on CBS. 60 minutes.
Could the echo chamber clause somewhat undermine the persuasive clause of viewers of these guerrilla channels? If people tend to watch news from one side of the political circle and very rarely switch to channels with opposing views, this says little about their open-mindedness. In my opinion, these two conclusions – or at least their interpretations – are rather awkwardly compared.
Overall, the authors conclude that concerns about how partisan television can polarize public opinion “cannot be lightly ignored.” I agree that their data should make us reconsider our views and worry more about the impact of these channels, although I’m not entirely sure how bad they are.
To be fair, there is more evidence: the same researchers recently ran a pilot trial in which they paid 300 Fox News viewers $15 an hour to watch CNN for a month. Toward the end, they realized that those who watched the more liberal channel had changed their minds on at least some points and became more moderate on some indicators.
It was an impressive experiment, but, of course, rather artificial, since people are usually free to choose whether to tune into one channel or another. The type of people willing to watch a completely different TV channel for a month – even for money – may be different from the average Fox viewer. I would also like to see if it works the other way around as CNN viewers become more direct after watching Fox. Nevertheless, we should all rejoice at such painstaking and high-quality work on this case.
And the last, extremely important point to which you should pay attention. While it is good to know the impact that partisan media can have on people’s political views, the automatic answer should not be that we should censor TV channels or impose a “balance” on them. And not just because people like me love to watch in awe as Tucker Carlson screams candy M&M characters. no longer feminine enough.
Freedom of speech, including the expression of opinions that influence people’s political views, is too important a value to be interfered with by politicians. A much better response to the increasingly polarized media is this: answer. If new data, at least from the US, shows that party TV audiences are more persuasive than we previously thought, then those who disagree with party TV content should try to convince their audiences that they are wrong.
Having bipartisan channels that amplify rhetoric and play with the truth quickly and freely is definitely bad, but trampling on free speech would be even worse.
For me, now that Tucker is off the air, I’ll have to find something else to watch – maybe a little less brain-melting than Fox News. However, it’s hard to imagine that many other TV presenters could quench the same particular itch of over-indignance that made me, and presumably millions of other viewers, want to come back. And maybe that’s the problem, in a nutshell.
Source: I News
With a background in journalism and a passion for technology, I am an experienced writer and editor. As an author at 24 News Reporter, I specialize in writing about the latest news and developments within the tech industry. My work has been featured on various publications including Wired Magazine and Engadget.