A facepalm-inducing poll

Far too often than I'd like to admit (or believe), I run into poll results that prompt me to facepalm myself so hard, I wind up leaving a mark on my forehead which gets asked about for the rest of the week. I read one such result just today. In a newly released poll by St. Leo University, it was found that more people believe Fox News to be a reliable source on climate change than President Obama. That's right; while 17% believe Fox is a reliable source on the topic, just 11% believe the president is. Here are the full results with regard to that question:

"Which of the following do you trust as reliable sources of information about global climate change? Check all that apply."

1) Non-government scientists and educators: 45%

2) Environmental groups: 33%

3) Mainstream media such as U.S. newspapers, broadcasters, and online media such as CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Associated Press, New York Times: 22%

3) Scientists and Cosmos TV series host Neil deGrasse Tyson: 22%

5) Fox News: 17%

6) U.S. government: 13%

7) President Obama: 11%

7) Family, friends, or co-workers: 11%

9) Social media: 9%

10) Radio commentators Sean Hannity and/or Rush Limbaugh: 6%

11) Business or industry groups: 5%

11) Utility companies: 5%

13) Entertainers or celebrities: 3%

Don't know/not sure: 14%

Yes, Neil deGrasse Tyson is trusted by just 5% more than Fox News. Fox News is trusted more by 6% over President Obama, who is just trusted by 5% more than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on the issue of climate change.

Well, I hate to break it to the Fox News faithful, but just last year, a study was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists which showed that Fox News was accurate only 28% of the time when it came to their coverage of climate science, whereas they were inaccurate 72% of the time.

Along with those numbers, the following was also reported in the study:

"The hosts often instigated misleading debates about established climate science. In general, Fox hosts and guests were more likely than those of other networks to disparage the study of climate science and criticize scientists."

Sadly, the 2014 study actually showed an improvement for the cable news network in their climate-science reporting's accuracy. In 2012, it was found Fox was only accurate 7% of the time when reporting on climate science.

So, based on the fact more people trust Fox News as a reliable source on climate change than President Obama even though they've averaged to only be accurate with such coverage approximately 17.5% of the time the past three years, I now won't be surprised to see these findings in future polls:

- 32% of Americans use calculators to figure out math problems while 33% use the numbers on the back of fortune cookies

- 18% feel that Rush Limbaugh is biased while 22% feel the dictionary is biased

- 45% trust scientists with scientific findings while 52% trust Jesus

- 12% watch CBS for their news every night while 14% read their horoscopes for their news every night

- 20% believe fact-checkers to be fair and balanced while 25% believe Fox News to be fair and balanced

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/americans-fox-news-climate-change_n_6993360.html

http://polls.saintleo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SLU-Q-1-TABLE-Global-Climate-Change-National-Survey-Results_FINAL.pdf

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/04/08/off-the-mark-fox-news-coverage-of-climate-science-rarely-accurate

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here - https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written: "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog