Fox News Promotes Two Absurd Polls That Prove the Network is Just Right-Wing Propaganda

fox-news-liesIn today’s political world we’ve gone poll crazy. It seems like just about every day I see some media entity pushing some poll that they’ve put together and I’m constantly shocked by just how many are terribly conducted. Whether the sample size is too small, the questions or methods are horribly flawed or the source is completely biased, many results really shouldn’t be taken seriously.

In the case of polls done by Fox News, they often fall into all three categories.

Who remembers a poll they did a few months ago where they asked people what they thought about how things were going in the world today, with the only two answers being “to hell in a handbasket” or “everything will be alright”? As someone who’s a bit of a poll nerd, seeing those answers nearly made my head explode. Then to realize that poll was done by a supposedly legitimate news channel makes it even that much worse.

Then again, I really don’t view Fox News as a “news” network to begin with.

Well, Fox News recently promoted two new polls on Twitter that caught my eye. One covered the favorability of Hillary Clinton, while the other asked respondents who they felt was the least ethical out of Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

Naturally, Clinton’s unfavorable rating (49 percent) was higher than her favorable (45 percent) and she led the least ethical list with a whopping score of 44 percent:

I’m sure everyone reading this is absolutely shocked that Fox News would do two polls showing some rather unfavorable marks for Hillary Clinton. After the overwhelmingly positive coverage she gets on the network, I know I was “stunned” at these results.

But to expose just how horrifically flawed their polling process is, just look at how the five individuals ranked based upon whether or not the respondents viewed them as ethical. First, the fact that they included one Democrat means that she instantly became the lone target for conservatives participating in the poll to go after. Not only that, but do you notice how the two candidates seen as the “most conservative” were the two that were viewed as the most ethical of the entire group? Yeah, because I’m sure if I did a random sampling of 100 people with 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 20 independents, Cruz would be seen as twice as trustworthy as Clinton.

You know, the guy who Politifact has rated as one of the most dishonest politicians in the country.

The results literally went in order of:

  • The Democrat.
  • The least conservative.
  • The second least conservative.
  • The two who are seen as the most conservative.

And who could have possibly predicted that, right? A Fox News poll where the Democrat received the worst marks while the most conservative of the bunch received the best. Yeah, nothing at all sounds staged, rigged or faulty about that poll – not at all. 

The truth is, these Fox News polls are nothing more than right-wing propaganda meant to push the same sort of anti-liberal nonsense the entire network is built upon. For anyone to look at these polls done by America’s conservative entertainment network as even remotely credible is an absolute joke.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Flat Banana

    The only thing I learned from this is that liberals are more worried about what Fox saying than anything else.

    • PRIME79

      Lol! And you admit this?

    • Randy Nichols

      They are used to getting sanitized version of the news from MSM, and they become apoplectic when FOX reports anything that goes against their talking points and narrative they get from MSM….

      • shmooney

        Randy MSM is owned by six corporations. They will tell us what Hillary wore but that’ll be it. Fox gives total morons a voice. How else can you explain people watching it after all the evidence of it’s lies? If you say what lies, you will be proving my point.

      • Randy Nichols

        LOL… you ask a question then present conclusion to a possible answer, so that proves you are not open to serious discussion. I will answer this way, with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC they will not even report stories of things that do not support the current narrative. If the story is too big not to mention, they use techniques to present in favorable light to the narrative. MSNBC is complete joke and really does not even pretend to be serious new organization, but they are a major source for presenting daily rhetoric and talking points for the leftist idiots that can not debate a topic, but only repeat rhetoric.

        Now lets talk about lies, we have Dan Rather lying about Bush, we have Brian Williams lying about being shot at, and there has been other cases of the networks doing reports and creating the outcomes they wanted. They only lie I am aware of with Fox is mis-reporting of a shooting in Baltimore.. and actually that would have been favorable story to leftist narrative… other than that I am not aware of lies but I will not argue that they haven’t in some cases since I watch about 10 minutes of Fox news in the mornings before work. I don’t watch any of the talking heads.

        Now lets talk about morons… People watch FOX and some may be morons since morons do walk among us, but their ratings show that with people that are interested in the news want to avoid the liberal slant… sure everyone knows FOX is to the right, but they don’t even begin to balance things out. People on the left you have two categories, the ones that create the rhetoric and talking points, and those that repeat it….. Liberals/Progressives are not universal thinkers, they have been indoctrinated to a belief, yet they are not able to articulate the reasons for what they believe, that is why they repeat talking points and the narrative of the day which usually is a put down of the right and not actually nothing redemptive of their belief system… Forward Progressive is prime example of that… non of their articles actually present a positive story about progressive ideas rather only does stories that attack the right.

        So Schmooney, I posit that that Progressives rely on ignorance, and have worked to create a system to perpetuate that ignorance with our education system indoctrinating rather than educating.. since progressives live by the rhetoric and creating narratives they try to eliminate independent and critical thought..

      • frivolous01
      • Randy Nichols


      • shmooney

        You don’t know if Fox lies? I suggest you watch Outfoxed on Youtube. Or watch the Daily Show. It has been proven that people who watch fox know less about what’s going on than people who watch NO news. It’s also been shown fox lies 60% of the time (which I think is a little low) every single day! Facts are your friend. You won’t find any on fox. It is sad that the best journalism we have is on the comedy channel.

      • Randy Nichols

        The Daily Show LOL.. you guys crack me up… you setup a comedy central show hosted by a COMEDIAN as some sort of political authority… this country is really head toward an Idiocracy just like the stupid movie. Jon Stewart has as much credibility as Alex Jones….. Seriously I am laughing so hard I can barely type… It is so much fun coming and rattling the cage of the idiots that appear on Forward Progressive which is the leftist version of Info Wars.. without the creativity. OMG, I can’t believe you guys take yourselves that seriously.

      • shmooney

        I noticed you ignored the other things I said. Not hard to figure out why. Fox lies aren’t interesting to you? Oh right, facts are not your friend but fear sure is. Unlike Jones, Stewart uses facts to back up his statements. You can’t do that with fox or the GOP. Or you for that matter.

      • Randy Nichols

        I am not even going to debate the validity of Jon Stewart… I don’t care what you think about FOX, and I am not going to defend them. They are no worse than any other MSM they are on the right and you can make up what you want.. I could care less… I rarely watch them, or any other broadcast media. I also sure don’t get my news from a two bit comedy channel. The progressive message only resonates with ignorant people so it is quite fitting that the current icon of political thought on the left is a comedian.Comedy central viewers are not likely to be universal thinkers who seek knowledge and understanding of the issues. Comedy Central knows their audience, and they know it is a fertile ground for idiots, so of course they use it to fill empty minds with progressive propaganda.

      • Dan

        Where do you get your news?

      • Randy Nichols

        I start with headlines from major news papers, and any stories that pique my interest I find various sources to get their prospective. I will go to left leaning sources like Huffington Post, and to more conservative like Breitbart, to get their view. I also check the far out fringe sites like Forward Progressive and Info wars. I check a few other leftist sites to get the narrative and talking points for the day… which you then see themed on all the MSM news broadcast… they will all use the same buzz words and catch phrases..I have a degree in economics, so I hear a lot of BS from all sides that they all assume most people do not know the difference.

      • Rivegauche610

        Randy, take your tinfoil hats, your white sheet and hood and emigrate to the foreign country of Texas so you can be surrounded by people who “think” just like you. And I use the word “think” loosely.

      • Randy Nichols

        You are obviously an idiot….I doubt you ever had an original thought in your life… you certainly are incapable of articulating any kind of rational thought or idea. There is not one shred of originality in your hot air.

      • Patrick

        I sure as hell do not believe anything Faux says, I have articles and clips from where they say one thing and another says different, All the host are annoying, loud mouth, interrupting, morons. I watch several media outlets but faux is out of the running, When you can really see the lies so easily it’s pretty discusting.

  • bestfriend

    Hey, guys, don’t watch Fox News any more. Turns out it’s just propaganda.

    • Randy Nichols

      Yeah and ABC is impartial LOL… you guys crack me up. Sure FOX is to the right, and that doesn’t even come close to balancing out against the rest of the MSM. Hillary is so dirty she has been hiding knowing that the MSM will circle the wagons for her. She is dirty, you know it, I know it, and soon everyone will know it… can’t keep it hidden forever.

      • bestfriend

        You’re right. And, actually I was mocking the outrage some express as if they’ve just realized certain networks are biased. And, yes, it’s not going at all well for Hillary (I kind of feel bad, but it’s sort of funny to watch them all scrambling)

      • Randy Nichols

        I know Forward Progressive is fringe left, so I come here to see the creative spin, but truth of the matter is Hillary will get the nomination unless she is in jail… and even then I would give her better than 50/50 that she would still get the nomination.

      • bestfriend

        No turning back!

      • shmooney

        Randy you know that GW and Cheney can’t leave the country? They’ll be arrested for the murdering bastards they are, if they do leave. Actually I think the GOP has a better record for having criminals in their ranks. You know people actually charged and convicted of a crime. Not to mention all those ‘family value’ Republicans that couldn’t keep it in their pants.
        I don’t believe anyone on here but you has said we get all our info here. I have about 15 different news sites that I look at daily. None are msm. I see 6 corporations giving us the news they see fit to print.
        It’s interesting how you and yours use innuendo against people and think the other has to respond to it. Show that Clinton misused those funds. Proof is something needed that the GOP never has.
        Just recently in Anchorage, we elected a Democrat mayor. His opposition was a tea partier. She accused him approving of incest and pedophilia. She did this 2 weeks before the runoff election. It backfired big on her. She lost by almost 20%. Turned out she had skeletons in her closet. She was backed by a preacher that’s real popular up here for the right wing. Live in fear, Randy. It’s all you have.

      • Randy Nichols

        Your first sentence was so way out on the ledge fringe tinfoil hat kind of ridiculous I did not bother to read any farther. I am sure the balance of your diatribe was also evidence that you are the prime demographic that progressive rhetoric and platitudes are directed towards.

      • Rivegauche610

        I’d say old Randy has more than an intimate acquaintance with the tinfoil hat. Randy, you’re a frigging republiKKKlan idiot.

      • Randy Nichols

        Hey dipwhit, KKK is associated with democrats you moron. Democrat policies continue to enslave blacks to government dependence…while 35% of abortions are of black babies, when blacks only make up 12% of population… add to that the atmosphere that breeds black on black murder in large cities and it looks like democrats are continuing the KKK legacy.

      • Karl Haakonsen

        Spoken like a loyal Fox “News” viewer. The “liberal media” is a myth created by the right. Some other networks have liberal opinion leaders, but only Fox presents the so called news as pure unadulterated propaganda.

      • Randy Nichols

        Do you only get your news from Forward Progressive that never does an article of the redemptive value of the Progressive point of view, rather only present articles that ridicule someone on the right. Then you go forth and repeat this rhetoric and think yourself a brilliant intellectual? I rarely watch FOX, and I have always gotten news from various sources and have seen the Leftis bias in MSM since before FOX was around.. Yes I am that old… are you not even aware that Stephy has admitted donating to the Clintons 75K, and he has been big part of creating the progressive narrative.. he is not impartial in the least… then we have Dan Rather making up story on Bush.. those are blatant examples, other examples is the news they just don’t report that does not promote the narrative.

        No I don’t say FOX is unbiased… I only say they in a small way balance out the other media… FOX high cable ratings do little to balance the progressive spin from MSM.

      • Kerry Norton

        Randy, it’s the difference between news and lies. You are probably too stupid to differentiate.

      • Randy Nichols

        I am not so stupid that I get my information from Forward Progressive… since you don’t have enough sense to think of anything on your own you have to get your daily talking points and narrative to know what to say. Ever notice none of the articles are ever about what is good about being Progressive.. it is always ridicule or put down of someone on the right, and all the brain dead morons go forth and repeat the same rhetoric and platitudes… you are too stupid to think of yourself.

      • Patrick

        Your pretty stupid,,deal with it.

      • Randy Nichols

        I am shocked at you amazingly articulate and insightful statement. That is what about third grade level cognitive function… and here I am thinking you had not received any education to go with your indoctrination.

      • Kerry Norton

        LOL Dems spewing rhetoric and platitudes? Republican much? You have a whole fucking FAUX NEWS channel that does nothing but LIE and spew rhetoric and talking points that every fucking brain-dead republican thinks came from the mouth of Reagan himself. Fuck y’all idiots.

      • shmooney

        Randy lies don’t balance truth. It is misinformation and not to be taken as gospel. Did you also know Murdock and News Max also gave to the Clintons? As you seem to be unaware, truth has a liberal bias.

      • Randy Nichols

        I know progressive’s use false narrative, manufactured crisis, the MSM gives legitimacy to this through reporting as fact outrageous claims made by progressive government officials. Most recent is the Amtrak derailment, by giving voice to lawmakers making claims it was a result of funding cuts by Republicans when that was obviously a false narrative and had nothing to do with the cause. Then to follow up by adding more legitimacy to the premise by asking Republican congressman questions relating to such when knowing the questions create illusion that there is something to it. Now any reasonable person would know that was a fallacious assumption, however the target audience is the low information individuals that are easily manipulated.

        With a complicit media, the progressives put into play the Hegelian Dialectic of manufacturing a crisis, diverting blame for the crisis and then presenting a solution to create the condition they desire… this was aptly stated by Rahm Emanuel when he made the statement ” never let a crisis go to waste”. The tactics are not new, and educated people recognize them and are not fooled, however for a generation, indoctrination has passed for education in this country.

      • Rivegauche610

        Randy, “progressive’s” is possessive, as in “the progressive’s disdain for republiKKKlans”. “Progressives” is plural, as in “Progressives are just smarter than republiKKKlans.”

      • tcurry

        Yea FOX. You are the best non-partisan news station. WE LOVE YOU. THIS IS A SHOUT OUT!

      • Dan

        Are you questioning the entire ABC network because of one guy? Did you not know that Stephanopoulos was Communications Director for Bill Clinton? Was that a big revelation for you? Those of us who live in the real world have always known this.

        I’m sure your big problem, besides being a typically ill-informed Fox viewer, is his donation to the Clinton Foundation, to which I say, “so what”!!!

        The Clinton Foundation is a great group of people doing good things in the world. So, do I assume you don’t like people doing good things for others, or is your hatred for the Clintons such that you just can’t accept that they could do good work?

        Would you prefer that all ex-Presidents just stay home and paint childish pictures of cats?

      • Randy Nichols

        LOL.. Yes I know who Stephanopoulos was, and I knew he was not impartial from the beginning. It was the pretense that ABC having him did not make them biased that the recent news has shattered. I never understood why Republicans would even agree to let him interview them in first place on a national stage knowing he was a Democrat party operative.

        I know you are sitting there all smug and giggly thinking you presented me with news about Stephy I didn’t know. The revelation about the donation to Clinton says less about him than it does ABC… We know he is not impartial, yet ABC tried to play him off as he was… and had him slated to moderate Republican debates…. I say bad on Republicans if they had let him.. but they were not allowed to brand him as being a Clinton operative without ridicule, so this proved it and now his is out of the debates.

        The Clinton foundation has made the Clintons Wealthy, and that is the purpose of the foundation.. it is a way for nations, and individuals to get around the campaign contribution limits and the foundation launders the money to be used by Hillary in her campaign. You have no idea what the foundation does, or how much of that money has actually gone to intended causes. You are too ignorant to get past the narrative and talking points presented to you by the party.

      • Dan

        I don’t remember ABC ever presenting him as anything other than he is. Are you claiming they tried to hide, or phony up his resume? Do you think Fox’s on air entertainers should be allowed moderate debates? If so, Why shouldn’t George?

        Also, can you support any of the claims you make about the Clinton Foundation?

      • Randy Nichols

        ABC had him in a high profile position, and of course they knew that everyone knew about his previous associations with the Clinton’s. Fine, ABC is not impartial, they have not been and they won’t be going forward, the never admitted it before, and now I think they are saying so what.. which is fine if they now admit it. I am fine now for everyone to declare what the world already knows and that is there is no impartial news networks. As far as debates, Republicans should have someone from FOX moderate before primaries.. once time for presidential, do one debate with FOX and one with someone from any of the others.

        Let Hillary release her emails if she does not want to be charged with using her position as SOS to peddle influence for cash. Otherwise there will be daily charges she will have to endure.

      • Dan

        So you have nothing to support your claims against the Clinton Foundation.

      • Randy Nichols

        The charges are out there… Hillary can present her emails. I could present charges point by point buy not going to change your mind, so I am not wasting time typing them. She is what she is, and I am encouraged that she is the best you have to put forward. So lots of luck with that.

      • Dan

        There are no charges. There are rumors, innuendo, out-right lies, but nobody has been able to put forth anything that might lead to any charges. I’m not necessarily putting Hillary forward, but who do the Republicans have to offer, anyone that doesn’t solicit laughter from any sensible thinking person? It’s a good thing the election is still so far off, the right-wing can go back and start over.

      • Randy Nichols

        Fact Hillary broke State Department Rules by having private email server….which indicates she has something to hide. What she has to hide is that she sold influence to foreign governments for money, she also traded influence to get Bill high paying speaking gigs.

      • Dan

        Which rule or law did she break, and do have any proof she sold influence, or traded influence for any reason?

      • Randy Nichols

        There was a rule in place that said state department officials had to use government servers. As a government employee her emails belong to the people and are not her private property. It is fact that foreign governments and individuals contributed large sums of money to her foundation, and with her position of SOS it is naive to believe that nothing was expected for that money. The fact that she will not produce the emails that belong to the people of the United States she is tacitly admitting to the accusations.

      • Dan

        Emails concerning government business belong to the public and she has turned over more than 30,000 of them, the rest were personal and are none of our business. From what I’ve read, there was a recommendation that all emails should be handled on a government server, but the law didn’t go into effect until 2014.

        Not you or anyone else can point to any actions she took as SOS as a result of donations to the Foundation. The fact that you hate her doesn’t make her guilty of anything. People have been trying to tie the Clintons to every crooked thing they can imagine for about 50 years, to no avail. Other than the blowjob, their enemies have nothing. You need to get over it.

      • Randy Nichols

        From Wall Street Journal

        Why did Mrs. Clinton have her staff go through the trouble of printing out, boxing and shipping 50,000 or 55,000 pages instead of just sending a copy of the electronic record? One can only speculate, but there is an obvious advantage: Printed files are less informative and far harder to search than the electronic originals.

        Likewise, printouts are not subject to electronic discovery in the event of investigation or lawsuit. The Times reports that department lawyers responding to a request from the House Select Committee on Benghazi took two months to find “roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.” And printouts do not include electronic “metadata,” which can provide crucial forensic evidence.

      • Dan

        Yes, one can only speculate. That’s all anyone has ever done concerning the Clintons.

        And if when you refer to “The Times”, you mean the New York Times, they have proven themselves unworthy of lining the bottom of a bird cage, so I’ll just pass on that.

      • Randy Nichols

        Of course you will not accept anything from anyone that portrays Hillary as less than perfect. I suppose she could behead a puppy on live television and you would deny it happened or would try to spin it as some how better mankind. You have been duped… .I am sure you feel you are a good liberal, and your intentions are good, but those you follow are not classical Liberals in the John Locke tradition. You follow Progressives, who disallow any disagreement, they attempt to stop any speech that does not agree with their motives. Much of their agenda is contradictory and will eventual cause a lot of conflict.
        For example, being so accommodating to Islam because of its opposition to Judaism and Christianity, yet Islam is opposed to homosexuality, women’s rights, and democracy, and separation of church and state…
        Progressives claim to be against big business yet they accept their money and big business drives the amnesty movement because glut of workers keeps wages down
        Progressives accuse other of racism, yet it is their policies that continue to enslave blacks to dependence and low expectations.
        Progressive tout women’s rights to abortion, yet blacks make up 35% of all abortions preformed when they are only 12% of the population

        Do you ever wonder why you very rarely hear Progressive’s tout what is great about being progressive, or what greatness they have done.. this site is prim example that they rarely if ever have positive article about progressive accomplishment or values… but are always a article that attacks the opposition with ridicule… and you and everyone else on this site only repeat that rhetoric and do nothing to espouse the virtues of progressives.

      • Dan

        There are no perfect people, there certainly aren’t any perfect politicians! The fact that Hillary has been as successful in politics as she has been, tells me she is far from being a perfect person.

        I do consider myself a liberal-minded Progressive, but Liberalism is a political ideology, and I think Progressivism is more of a problem-solving ideology. So, you should understand that not all Liberals are Progressive, and not all Progressives are Liberal. That being said, I don’t know of any real Progressives who are, or would ever try, to stifle your speech. The progressives I know don’t favor one religion over another, they will recognize everyone’s right to whatever religion they choose, just keep it to yourself and out of government. That is where any real influence of John Locke ends for me.

        Progressives are not against big business, we are against policies that give business unfair advantages over the rest of society, especially when based on false claims. Since the middle 70’s there has been this Conservative mantra of reducing taxes and regulations on “the job creators” to spur economic growth. One needs only open their eyes to see that has proven to be nonsense.

        I disagree that a social safety net causes the dependence you claim, and being that there is no real amnesty movement, I can’t agree that that has anything to do with stagnated wages. Supply-side economics and the all out war on unions has done that.

        Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five “crucial premises” of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and
        scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic
        importance and worth of life on earth.(Wikipedia) Note that there
        is no religion mentioned….

        I think we’re as proud as we can be of past Progressives, Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, Adams, a couple of Roosevelts, Eisenhower and Kennedy. We tried again with Jimmy Carter, but he not only had to fight the Conservatives, his progressive and more pragmatic approach even ran afoul of the Liberal ideologues in his own party. He has certainly demonstrated what good Progressisivism means since leaving office!

        I don’t think there are any real Progressives running for President this time, we have bus-load of Republicans, a Democrat, and Bernie. Bernie is a Social Democrat, something people on your side of the fence probably wouldn’t support, even if you understood what that means.

        So there you go, you might want to take the time to learn more about what you’re arguing against, I could offer links.

      • Randy Nichols

        Research the progressive movement going back to Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson both who were pioneers of Progressives. The movement has been in both parties, and Liberals tending to historically being more open about progressive aims. Liberals in the classic sense are more Libertarian, and can be fiscally conservative while being more liberal in social issues. Progressives claim to be liberal to capture the Liberal support however they are only as liberal as needed to get votes. In reality progressives believe in very restrictive rules governing speech, and actions and has created the atmosphere of no deviation allowed. For instance, my wife is pro choice but is against abortion after first trimester unless rape, incest or health of mother is in jeopardy… her view is not accepted by Progressives and they will get as angry and hateful to her same as they do me being staunchly pro life.

        The safety net has not proven to be a safety net… Conservatives are not for removing a true safety net, but we also want to create an environment that promotes atmosphere that those on assistance can get off. I was liberal fiscally until college and thought I was a democrat, until I got my degree in economics, and realized that the public was being lied to about basic stuff.. and that most people just did not get basic economics in high school.

        Welfare programs do not allow any kind of easing out of it… once you hit a certain income level you are cut off, I believe there should be graduated steps to get off to not create a sudden burden to those that do want to get out. The system we have has created a generation of people that were born and have spent their whole life on welfare and their children are growing up on welfare and that will be all they know. It would be very scary to give up that kind of security to and try to make it on your own.

        Currently 50% of Americans pay no income taxes, and those that don’t are getting some form of direct subsidy… be it welfare, food stamps, or those that work with families who receive earned income credit that pays them back a refund more than was withheld from their paychecks. That is not sustainable… and actually ensures that wealthiest are only ones in position to increase their wealth. That explains over the last 6 years why only the top 1% have seen an increase in median income.

        Progressives Cloward and Piven had established a plan to move the nation to a progressive Statist system by over burdening social programs and we are seeing that idea being put in place currently. Many liberals with noble intentions are being taken advantage of. Believe me, a Liberal will not like the system Progressives would have us in.

      • Dan
  • Cemetery Girl

    Is it really even needed to point out that these are really polls of an entertainment nature (much like voting on American Idol)? A basic understanding of statistics makes that clear. This piece just points out the obvious; it isn’t going to enlighten anyone that wants to believe those polls because they’re already willfully ignoring the flaws. The only real purpose of those polls is to bring in audience participation. Fox probably doesn’t give a fig about their polls beyond it being a way to keep viewers on their channel.

    • Jim Bean

      According to Fox, their polls are not conducted among Fox viewers, they’re conducted at random. That, perhaps, explains why MMFA is complaining that they don’t like the questions being asked.

      “Methodology Notes:

      The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 900 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. When necessary, minor weights are applied to age, race and gender variables to bring the sample into conformity with the most reliable demographic profiles. Fox News polls are not weighted by political party.”