CSM: Are you smarter than a Fox News viewer? How about a CNN viewer? Take our quiz to find out.

Link.

(The link didn't work quite right for me, when I first went there. It took me to a page that showed me the answer for the first question. It won't allow you to select an answer. Instead, you have to click the "previous" button, to get to the start of the quiz. Don't know if it will do the same thing for all of you.)

We've all seen the "umpty-ump percent of Fox News viewers believe so-and-so" posts. Well, CSM not only ran such a poll, but they published the polling questions on their web site, along with the answers, and reports on how many of various demographics did on the same question.

Thought people might like doing the test, themselves.

9 of 11, for me. (I won't say which ones I got wrong, right now, because I don't want to give away the test, yet. But I'll post them, later.)

10 of 11 for me. Missed one because I forgot the specific timeline for it.

Anyways, what's the baseline? Did I miss something that had results of other people or anything?

EDIT: Nevermind, it's right after you answer it. Missed that first time through.

7 out of 11. Could've done better, but still not horrible.

11 for 11.

I need to get out more.

10/11

Some of those Fox News view stats are amazing.

11 out of 11.

Were those supposed to be in doubt?

11/11.

I feel well informed!

I missed the one about the auto bailouts, because I associate those with Obama, and it turns out, they were only mostly Obama's.

9/11 I think they are wrong on one

well hell my answer didn't register

11/11

Fox News used to bother me. Now I realize how much of an enormous disservice their misinformation campaign has done to the GOP and the conservative movement.

As The Atlantic perfectly put after the election - the GOP have put themselves in a "self-imposed information disadvantage." By creating a false reality, all they are doing is hurting themselves.

Well, part of the link not working right, might be due to the link being two years old.

I definitely have to research the answer to one of those questions. I swear I remember reading the opposite of what their answer is. (I'm also the type to avoid Fox and with the exception of the morning show, avoid MSNBC).

9 of 11

10 out of 11. I missed the autobailouts too.

10/11. I shouldn't have missed the one I did, that was just stupid and obvious (Afghanistan). Probably no one else missed that one.

I get my news primarily from NPR and this place . But it can be tough to catch all of it when I'm usually mostly flipping to NPR during the commercial breaks for sports radio. I'll watch CNN during the day sometimes but I don't really care for the network's general policy of sensationalism and repetition. I used to get a subscription for The Week, well done magazine and I occasionally read it still but it's really just an abstract of the news.

Not surprised to see NPR listeners were better informed in general than most of the network consumers. But yeah, you know, it's just the liberal version of Fox News.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 09:12 PM ----------

I will say a lot of the percentages of people misinformed didn't seem that telling. When a question is essentially a 50-50 proposition and about 50% of people get it wrong, not sure what there is to glean from that.

I used to get a subscription for The Week, well done magazine and I occasionally read it still but it's really just an abstract of the news.

The Week sucks because it doesn't make any effort to vet the validity of what it reports. Every story is the same - "one side claims X, while the other side claims Y, and both sides are equal." All opinions are equal.

This is true even when one side is lying through their teeth or completely contradicting itself and a 30 seconds fact check would show it to be so.

Read the Economist. It's got its agendas, but it lays them out up front, and is honest and thorough.

Getting OT, but I have to say that The Economist has been earning a lot of credibility points, in my book. I don't remember the individual subjects or threads, but I remember at least twice thinking "gee, this seems like a really credible source".

10-11

Got nipped by the Chrysler GM bailout, both.

10/11. I shouldn't have missed the one I did, that was just stupid and obvious (Afghanistan). Probably no one else missed that one.

I get my news primarily from NPR and this place . But it can be tough to catch all of it when I'm usually mostly flipping to NPR during the commercial breaks for sports radio. I'll watch CNN during the day sometimes but I don't really care for the network's general policy of sensationalism and repetition. I used to get a subscription for The Week, well done magazine and I occasionally read it still but it's really just an abstract of the news.

Not surprised to see NPR listeners were better informed in general than most of the network consumers. But yeah, you know, it's just the liberal version of Fox News.

10/11 and I missed the Afganistan one too, LOL! And I knew it, one of the things I'm not happy about with the Obama Admin., and then I miss it there, LOL!

10/11 - Got me on the Obamacare one.

:pfft:9/11...#7 is nutty. Like you'd expect them not to...(no spoiler here).

11/11. I'm really not that well-informed, the questions just seemed obvious.

Here's a link that doesn't give you the first answer right off...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1221/Are-you-smarter-than-a-Fox-News-viewer-How-about-a-CNN-viewer-Take-our-quiz-to-find-out/Are-you-smarter-than-a-Fox-News-viewer-How-about-a-CNN-viewer-Take-our-quiz-to-find-out

For future reference, the URL itself often tells you what you did wrong in these situations. The end of the one in OP had "/(result)/1", deleting that did the trick.

10 of 11.

Message too short.

11 for 11. Pretty easy questions. That said, I don't watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC or TV in general. Honest to God, I can't remember if I've turned on a TV since the Skins game Monday. And I definitely can't remember the last time I watched something on TV that wasn't sports related. The Internet is beautiful thing to stay informed with. It's just a shame that so many (older) folks don't seem able to separate the legit information sources from the bull****.

The Week sucks because it doesn't make any effort to vet the validity of what it reports. Every story is the same - "one side claims X, while the other side claims Y, and both sides are equal." All opinions are equal.

This is true even when one side is lying through their teeth or completely contradicting itself and a 30 seconds fact check would show it to be so.

Read the Economist. It's got its agendas, but it lays them out up front, and is honest and thorough.

I know exactly what you're talking about. In juxtaposing side A with side B, it creates a dialectic that might not really be there. And it's a de facto statement that both sides have equal weight.

But I do like that it gives editorials from a variety of sources so I can get a summary of what the general pundit conversation is. I'm not going to places like the National Review on my own. I'm familiar enough with the sources now that I can usually tell when to roll my eyes.

I will check out The Economist though.

Got them all right, but it didn't register my 1st answer for whatever reason.

10/11 missed the bailout one, kind of surprised the republicans didn't really campaign on that fact at all they pretty much let obama take full credit for the auto bailout