rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners
Debate Rounds (3)
"Didiots-Limbaugh's Legion of Fans
Now, am I saying that dittoheads are ignoramuses? No. I don't need to. Listen to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania:
We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they felt. . . .Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.
What a surprise, huh? Limbaugh listeners thought they were the best informed, and yet were the least informed.
How is such a thing even measured? Well, like all the other people studied, talk radio listeners were asked questions of "objective fact" such as: "Which groups (the elderly, poor, middle class, etc. "are most likely to be uninsured?" The Limbaugh listeners were "highly likely" to give an incorrect answer such as "the elderly" who, of course, are all covered by Medicare.
But why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon "pseudo-certainty." I call it "being a [i][color=#ff0000]flooping[/color][/i] moron."
Rush Limbaugh is undoubtedly a hard-line conservative, who discusses current news with a decidedly Republican tint. Democrats and critics love not just to thrash him, but to attempt to try ties between his often controversial rhetoric and Republican candidates in a given election, on the assumption that those who correspond or listen to Rush must be idiots. In fact, it is a sad but somehow funny fact that 70% of the public attacks on Limbaugh are provided by just ten people. (1) However, the truth of the matter could not look more disparate.
Now briefly, before I present my case, I would like to clear up two things.
A. I am not in fact conservative or affiliated with the Republican Party. This is simply a matter of fact.
B. My opponent's one cited bit of "evidence" is too easily rebutted to afford it its own section. Conservatives have been found less informed about healthcare matters generally, and I am sure (though you do not cite your source) that the same is true for Limbaugh's viewership. Nevertheless, it is one small matter, and a broader scope of knowledgeability should be addressed.
Studies on the Topic:
One study by the ever-reliable Pew Research poll took a slightly bigger look at the knowledge, or lack thereof, of people who frequent various media sources. The study asked three simple questions: which party controlled the Senate, which the House, and who the Prime Minister of Britain was. In all three categories, Rush's audience blew out their opponents, especially those on the left and Independents. Interestingly enough, the only rivals to the Limbaughians' (I know, I know) superior smarts were the viewers of Fox's Sean Hannity and the dreaded Bill O'Reilly. Simply put, Rush Limbaugh's listeners had a better grasp of the current political landscape then any other type of media subscribers. (2)
Despite heavy searching, this study seems to be the only focused specifically on Rush Limbaugh's fans. So let's focus on conservatives in general. Pew conducted another great poll, studying the differences in the understanding of issues, intelligence, and open-mindedness between conservatives and all other political groups in the United States. The results are shocking, and I'll let The Daily Caller summarize it for you:
"The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party." (3)
Harsh. And that is indeed approximately what the Pew survey concluded, and what it implies. Thus, to say that Limbauh's followers are somehow less informed than anyone else is clearly errant. I recommend revising or withdrawing your statement. The facts simply do not support you.
With that said, good luck to my opponent in the following round.
So certainly the arguments may stand for themselves. Even my opponent knows how that will turn out.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really didn't respond to Con's argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.