I think Cenk got the analysis of this study completely wrong. What the study means is that pundits are not offering real analysis but offering spin for a specific agenda. They are wrong because they are being paid by the big boys to move the masses.
A contributing factor to this phenomenon could be because they have a vested interest in making crazy/sensational claims that get the audience riveted and keep em from changing the channel...
This is not really new info, just applied to the latest batch of loudmouths. There are studies going back to the 60's that catalog this feature of people who have prescribed idealogies starting with the conclusion and then make the facts fit afterwards
Through cognitive dissonance & confirmation bias they create their own fictional world that, ironically, seems more & more real to them the more they are wrong. Hence leading to anger when someone confronts them with the real world
I say down with pundits. All of them. Beck, Olbermann, O'Reilly...all of them, regardless of which side of the fence they sit on. Let news go back to being about actual news and about pure, objective facts, instead of revolving around political opinion.
no one on the right seems to be checking facts anymore they just blindly spouting off whatever as long as it pushes ahead their agenda wheither or not any facts are true or not
@dragonflychainsaw left does the same thing it does not matter which side they are one they spout off what gets ratings not what is accurate. Great broadcasters like Crokite did not take a side they gave you the news objectively enough for you to make a decision. They treated you with respect like you were a functioning human being who could reason.
Pundit - Originally a learned person, expert, authority on something. Second, more modern meaning is a critic, commentator or someone who makes comments and judgements, especially in an authoritive manner
@Pestinpest Haha oh man going by that second definition you give we are all YouTube pundits, criticizing, commenting on and judging everything in our path, often in an authoritative manner!
I recently heard a good quote, something like- its a pity in that the fools and fanatics are so sure of their answers, and the intelligent have so much doubt.
I wouldn't blame the certainty of the pundits as their major cause of inaccuracy, instead I would place the blame on their desire to grab ratings. If you tell the public, "X, Y, and Z happened, but it's probably coincidence," they don't feel like they gained anything from watching. However, if you tell them "X, Y, and Z happened, which indicates disaster OMEGA is coming," they can't help but keep watching.
Apparently though, after all those wrong claims, we still keep watching.
ill tell you why pundits are wrong, because they all have an agenda. kind of like when bill kristol predicts that mccain-palin will win because he is a conservative pundit who wants them to win, wants to influence the election but hes a smart guy and knows when all is lost...plus, he said that she would run with him two months before it was announced, so he would look retarded if he thought they were going to lose after all of talk about how great they were...
Michael Crichton wrote an essay back in 2002 titled "Why Speculate", which is basically saying the exact same thing. Pundits are not news reporters, they merely give their opinions on the news and speculate.
Context, Live Reporting, Fact Checking, in-depth analysis... that shit's expensive. Why bother, when you can buy your headlines from the AP or Reuters and then just pay some likable taking head on the TV/Radio to deliver their spurious bullshit bias towards the network's target demographic
And it's not just the MSM pundits, it's in newspapers, radio, magazines, and blogs. Speaking of which, people who get their news online tend to be just as misinformed, if not moreso, than those who watch the major networks.
Crichton mentioned an amnesia effect, wherein we can read a report in the paper about an event or technology we are familiar with - point out all the errors and bullshit - call the writer of the column an idiot, then read the next column and accept it as truth.
Essentially, the idea is that the entire paper is filled more or less the same level of poor fact-checking and lack of insight, but you forget that going into the next article and don't consider that it is factually errant.
I recall watching Lou Dobbs one night debate Evolution vs. Creationism... and nobody, not him, his expert, and definitely not the creationist had any clue how Evolution actually worked or the evidence for it. It was just one long string of strawmen and misconceptions.
So, after seeing that train wreck of misrepresented science... more like Science Fiction... why should I think his next piece on lead paint in toys is going to be any more reliable?
And someone, somewhere was probably watching the same program thinking... Man... that "Teach both Sides" piece was right the fuck on, but he doesn't know crap about the logistics of checking foreign imports for lead contamination.
The reporters on CNN FOX and such are wrong all the time because they are reading from a script, their job is to misinform the greater public and keep us looking the other direction while the real action goes on behind the curtain.
TV news is just a huge propaganda machine for the Administration and it has become plainly obvious since the year 2000
They does worse then the average person because we use common sense. More often then not they stick to their narrow political views and talking points.
Thanks to Sean Crappity, the sub-100 IQs are a mob, with a voice, at riot, unrestrained. Thanks to Chris Matthews, the world is Jimmy Carter's and his spawn's crime-scene, in 2009. Thanks to stupidity, Zionist Jews refuse to know the chosen people are from ETHIOPIA. Obama, the next President will be named JOE, not Scarborough, he will have Zbiggy's nose, and this will go down before the end ot the term. You will lose your AIPAC monkeys, or eat waves of fire and mud. NEXT! 360.yahoo/bobgnote
Well at least some of them are entertaining. Those like Spammity are really just droning fucknozzles. Well even they are entertaining when they get owned.
How can the junk science of psychology claim to conduct an exhaustive study of anything. That's not a study, its a survey of fortune tellers. As well to look at similiar forecasts from so-called psychics.
There really is no way to predict the future. TV Pundits are basically entertainers, nobody takes what they say seriously or calls them on how correct they are.
who relies on pundits...they live in their delusional la la land...hence why mainstream corporate media are for infotainment not journalism to inform the public.
The Pundits are there to really sell tv and cable ads. Look at some of these people on the tube, they are not close to journalists. Hell, alot of them look like porn stars if you ask me. TV is there to sell ads not news. There is very little news or responsible comentary anywhere.
if you want to go to the beach and i want to go to the horse track, i'm NOT gonna talk about all the half naked teenage pussy and umbrella drinks, i'm gonna point out skin cancer and rip-tides as well as the tremendous opportunity for financial gain over at the track.
Something just occured to me. I'd like to see the results of the study with all of Bill Kristol's predictions thrown out. That would have to make them all look a little better.
I gotta say though, Cenk, I've seen you make far more correct predictions than wrong. In fact, I can't remember you making a flat out prediction that didn't come to pass.
Maybe that's because I'm not reminded of the prediction because its subject never happened, but still, you know?
I love Cenk, but he has made several very wrong predictions. He isn't teflon. He's just one of the more honest and objective(most of the time) pundits out there.
See "Expert Political Judgment: How good is it?" It's a book, pub'd by Princeton Univ Press. Tetlock is a prolific genius, been around for a long time.
Hey Cenk, did you ever think that people like Hannity know EXACTLY what's going on but they just tell the people what they want to hear, and in some cases things they don't want to hear just to keep us all in the dark to the wicked things that the government and some of these huge corporations are doing? MSM is propoganda you idiots! Do you really think these political pundits and t.v anchors don't know what's going on? to use your own phrase Cenk, Of COOOUUURRRSSEEEEE they know what's going on!
Sharon Begley had a nice write-up about this in Newsweek recently. I've always figured this was true, but I'm happy someone took the time to research it and prove it.
fox is just complete bullshit.........these guys have no debating skills and the people who watch them are so ardent right-wingers, that it wouldnt matter if you pointed the facts out to them anyway.
you can put a fucking graph in any form in front of a hardcore conservative and they would argue about what color it is.
TV Pundits are kind of an odd thing because in the business world if you were sure of yourself all of the time and end up being wrong most of the time, people would lose trust in you.
I'm not sure what the difference is between people in the business world and pundits, but my only guess is that pundits make so many predictions that people can't keep track of it all and so they aren't held accountable as much.
How would they even be able to judge Fox News, since most of what they talk about is made up shit anyway, such as the Acorn "story" that was perfectly and objectively a non-story in the real world, or William Ayers, or was Obama born in America. Those are all non-stories, so ANYTHING a pundit says about them is pretty much wrong. It just seems like a waste of time looking into "is Fox News wrong". Duh.
If men are from Mars and women Venus, then the MSM is from Jupiter and Fox News Uranus.
Oh that's a bunch of hooey. Rush Limbaugh is 100% accurate every time he opens his mouth, even if it's to swallow a whole cheescake or 20 Oxycontins, so shut up you Dung Dorks!
Didn't Rush predict Hillary would be the Democratic nominee & that McCain would win the General Election & that Bush would never agree to a time-table in Iraq & that Bush's tax cut on Capital Gains would spur the stock market up more, etc. etc, etc...
Why does anyone even listen to that nutty Rush guy.
I bet they are wrong most of the time because they want to pick the answer which is most shocking anytime they have a decent explanation for more than one answer.
well, I've noticed that pundits like assuming that the worst possible scenario would happen all the time. I remember all the times when they'd say Obama was done for, and he would bounce back. Regular folks pretty much try to be more fair (the sane non-neocon freak types anyway).
I was a little disappointed after watching this video, because the the posted item has a picture of Sean Hannity, giving his usual "I'm the smartest and most handsomest jerk on televison" look. I was kind of expceting/hoping it would mean that the results pointed concluded that Sean Hannity was more wrong than any other television punidt, which doesn;t require much in the way of imagination. He's certainly good at bullying people, but Sean Hannity is by NO means and intelligent man.
I could have told you this......I have been investing in the stock market since 1979 when I was in high school....I would read Forbes and Fortune, and have old copies from way back.....I checked copies I had from a yr and 2 yrs ago, and every one of them were wrong about the economy, and the same commentors are on TV today giving opinion....the Dems use them and the Reps, and I look at these guys and laugh, because I know what they said just a short while ago was wrong.....no credibility.....
Very simple method for me is to invest in stable things for the long term.....every time that someone talks about the market going down or up it was about the guys trying to make a quick buck, that is why it's going down now....true investors just stick with it...if my $50 stock goes down to $25 I don't think I lost $25, I just am patient and eventually it goes back up, and later might be $75....this talk about loosing value is all short term, and is about greed to make the most money quickly..
i figure that would be a simple way. just stick with it and wait till the stock goes up again.. but what if the stock goes down for too long.. should i sell it and buy a better stock or should i stick with it still and hope one day it shoots up again?
You have to pick stocks that are with companies that you see products being used all the time.......like when I had money in silver before digital cameras...because silver nitrate is important with roll film...when digital overtook film...I got out....if most people are wearing Nike buy Nike....when there are hard times buy with companies that produce soup, it is the cheapest food and sales always go up during bad times...Oil companies always are good investments for obvious reasons....
I started by buying silver in 1979...it was at around $5 a ounce....I was into photography, and realized, because I developed my own film, the affect of silver prices on the price of film.....in 1980 the price went up to $50.....I bought about $200 worth....which was 40 shares @ $5.....after the price increase it's worth was at $2000 +....in just a year....I got out when it went down to $40 but I made a lot from it.....I bought IBM @ under $30 that year also, and now it is at around $90
Used to have to use a trader, but now anyone can do it online with a number of services, and each trade is usually about $3- $9 bucks - E-Trade - AmeriTrade - SogoTrade....I use Ameritrade, but SogoTrade is cheaper @ $3 per trade....you don't have to have a minimum in some of them like in the past you had to start with $1000, so anyone can use them but you have to check and see.......I would join or start a group of friends who invest, nothing big just a 3 or 4 and each can own a 1/4 or 1/3.....
I agree so much with what you say Cenk, and the fact is, it does not happen only with TV Pundits, but pretty much everywhere: if you say something true with humility, no one will trust you, but if you say something wrong with confidance, or even better: with arrogance, then everybody will buy it. And THAT my friend is the world we live in :-(
Because most pundits are of either side of the extreme -- republican/liberal. And most of them are not really engaging in genuine politics, more than performing shtick, or playing a role, entertaining their audience. Limbaugh is a perfect example.
They should do more studies like that one and give them a lot of exposure, it might actually convince people to form their OWN opinions. If anything, maybe people would realize that television is not the most reliable source for -reality-.
Isnt he a full time msnbc douchebag pundit now? The name of this vid shouldnt be "how wrong are tv pundits"? it should be im a douchy sell out
tsharpmac420 8 months ago
This is so right.
iHeartElectricalEng 11 months ago
"Worse than the monkies", hahaha
chairde 11 months ago
fow news is the worst
1119jr 11 months ago
I think Cenk got the analysis of this study completely wrong. What the study means is that pundits are not offering real analysis but offering spin for a specific agenda. They are wrong because they are being paid by the big boys to move the masses.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago 2
A contributing factor to this phenomenon could be because they have a vested interest in making crazy/sensational claims that get the audience riveted and keep em from changing the channel...
D119heavy 1 year ago
This is not really new info, just applied to the latest batch of loudmouths. There are studies going back to the 60's that catalog this feature of people who have prescribed idealogies starting with the conclusion and then make the facts fit afterwards
Through cognitive dissonance & confirmation bias they create their own fictional world that, ironically, seems more & more real to them the more they are wrong. Hence leading to anger when someone confronts them with the real world
Hopeful71 2 years ago
I say down with pundits. All of them. Beck, Olbermann, O'Reilly...all of them, regardless of which side of the fence they sit on. Let news go back to being about actual news and about pure, objective facts, instead of revolving around political opinion.
kevlonk 2 years ago 4
we DO believe you, Cenk because you tell it like it is! Keep it up
shake118118 2 years ago 7
no one on the right seems to be checking facts anymore they just blindly spouting off whatever as long as it pushes ahead their agenda wheither or not any facts are true or not
dragonflychainsaw 2 years ago 4
@dragonflychainsaw left does the same thing it does not matter which side they are one they spout off what gets ratings not what is accurate. Great broadcasters like Crokite did not take a side they gave you the news objectively enough for you to make a decision. They treated you with respect like you were a functioning human being who could reason.
mxrss 1 year ago
what's a pudnit
sorry im young lol
ADEDet 2 years ago 5
Pundit - Originally a learned person, expert, authority on something. Second, more modern meaning is a critic, commentator or someone who makes comments and judgements, especially in an authoritive manner
We were all young once :) enjoy the new word
Pestinpest 2 years ago 7
lolz
i will i will .......
ADEDet 2 years ago 2
Yaaay
rockdiga 2 years ago
@Pestinpest Haha oh man going by that second definition you give we are all YouTube pundits, criticizing, commenting on and judging everything in our path, often in an authoritative manner!
D119heavy 1 year ago
I recently heard a good quote, something like- its a pity in that the fools and fanatics are so sure of their answers, and the intelligent have so much doubt.
stemcgolf 2 years ago 2
I wouldn't blame the certainty of the pundits as their major cause of inaccuracy, instead I would place the blame on their desire to grab ratings. If you tell the public, "X, Y, and Z happened, but it's probably coincidence," they don't feel like they gained anything from watching. However, if you tell them "X, Y, and Z happened, which indicates disaster OMEGA is coming," they can't help but keep watching.
Apparently though, after all those wrong claims, we still keep watching.
elrabin0 2 years ago
ill tell you why pundits are wrong, because they all have an agenda. kind of like when bill kristol predicts that mccain-palin will win because he is a conservative pundit who wants them to win, wants to influence the election but hes a smart guy and knows when all is lost...plus, he said that she would run with him two months before it was announced, so he would look retarded if he thought they were going to lose after all of talk about how great they were...
cpt2115 2 years ago
Michael Crichton wrote an essay back in 2002 titled "Why Speculate", which is basically saying the exact same thing. Pundits are not news reporters, they merely give their opinions on the news and speculate.
Context, Live Reporting, Fact Checking, in-depth analysis... that shit's expensive. Why bother, when you can buy your headlines from the AP or Reuters and then just pay some likable taking head on the TV/Radio to deliver their spurious bullshit bias towards the network's target demographic
Sinuev1 2 years ago 2
And it's not just the MSM pundits, it's in newspapers, radio, magazines, and blogs. Speaking of which, people who get their news online tend to be just as misinformed, if not moreso, than those who watch the major networks.
Crichton mentioned an amnesia effect, wherein we can read a report in the paper about an event or technology we are familiar with - point out all the errors and bullshit - call the writer of the column an idiot, then read the next column and accept it as truth.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
Essentially, the idea is that the entire paper is filled more or less the same level of poor fact-checking and lack of insight, but you forget that going into the next article and don't consider that it is factually errant.
I recall watching Lou Dobbs one night debate Evolution vs. Creationism... and nobody, not him, his expert, and definitely not the creationist had any clue how Evolution actually worked or the evidence for it. It was just one long string of strawmen and misconceptions.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
So, after seeing that train wreck of misrepresented science... more like Science Fiction... why should I think his next piece on lead paint in toys is going to be any more reliable?
And someone, somewhere was probably watching the same program thinking... Man... that "Teach both Sides" piece was right the fuck on, but he doesn't know crap about the logistics of checking foreign imports for lead contamination.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
I smashed an old TV set because I got pissed at Hannity the dork!
padude64 2 years ago
Sean Hannity is the biggest moron on Television!
padude64 2 years ago
The reporters on CNN FOX and such are wrong all the time because they are reading from a script, their job is to misinform the greater public and keep us looking the other direction while the real action goes on behind the curtain.
TV news is just a huge propaganda machine for the Administration and it has become plainly obvious since the year 2000
F4O4U4R4S 2 years ago
They does worse then the average person because we use common sense. More often then not they stick to their narrow political views and talking points.
Xenite227 2 years ago 3
The researcher was surprised but his monkey wasn't.
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
they should do a poll on left wing and right wing pundits seperatly. that would be interesting.
deabrat 2 years ago
Fox pundits are the biggest joke of them all
BCRice111 2 years ago 4
Cenk was wrong about Obama and Michael Steele.
kody1529 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks to Sean Crappity, the sub-100 IQs are a mob, with a voice, at riot, unrestrained. Thanks to Chris Matthews, the world is Jimmy Carter's and his spawn's crime-scene, in 2009. Thanks to stupidity, Zionist Jews refuse to know the chosen people are from ETHIOPIA. Obama, the next President will be named JOE, not Scarborough, he will have Zbiggy's nose, and this will go down before the end ot the term. You will lose your AIPAC monkeys, or eat waves of fire and mud. NEXT! 360.yahoo/bobgnote
bobgnote1 2 years ago
" The only thing I know is that I know nothing "
Socrates
ViciousRanger 2 years ago 5
At least Cenk was humble enough to take this topic on his show and not pretend otherwise.
Let's see the other conservative *pundits" have enough nerve to take up anything close to this on their show.
allgoo19 2 years ago 2
LOL this study was an assigned readings for us, just so our prof could laugh at our aspirations of being experts
L0uiseM 2 years ago
haha. good to know.
joisfantastic 2 years ago
That's unfair! BillO, Rush, Coulter, Wallace, Hannity, Victoria Jackson...
They're wrong all the time. It really fucks up the average.
ndvuncle 2 years ago 29
@ndvuncle hahaha very astute observation.
blankportraits 1 year ago
@ndvuncle not really, they use real facts to promote false conclusions
Jakealopester 1 year ago
No! they are wrong because they have an agenda. They KNOW they are wrong! They have an agenda!
ndyt 2 years ago 6
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
- Bertrand Russell
daoen 2 years ago 7
I love this show!
Antwansuperstar88 3 years ago
Well at least some of them are entertaining. Those like Spammity are really just droning fucknozzles. Well even they are entertaining when they get owned.
shadowcnidarian 3 years ago 2
I stopped taking them seriously YEARS ago.
NSU224 3 years ago 7
his voice sounds just like jimmy kimmel's, it's uncanny.
xxcrysad3000xx 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey! Ya wanna see something funny?
I mean REALLY A PANIC!!! LOL, FALL DOWN funny?
In youtube, search for:
sara palin jokes - best one
it's a screeeemmmm! LOL still!
monky999 3 years ago
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Salato 3 years ago 25
Salato, the fact that wise people do question themselves, their motives, and critic themselves is part of what makes them so wise.
Savior20061 3 years ago 4
How can the junk science of psychology claim to conduct an exhaustive study of anything. That's not a study, its a survey of fortune tellers. As well to look at similiar forecasts from so-called psychics.
franksnow79 3 years ago
I wonder if the survey compared liberal vs conservative pundits, and which ones are more accurate. That would be a really interesting follow up study
Namari12 3 years ago 3
There really is no way to predict the future. TV Pundits are basically entertainers, nobody takes what they say seriously or calls them on how correct they are.
portalplayer 3 years ago 3
well that's not true..there are LOTS of dumb people who believe a LOT of what they say.
Ryan2142 3 years ago
love the honesty cenk ;)
InfiniteGXT 3 years ago
How does Cenk disassociate himself from pundits? Kind of like calling the kettle black there.
flyingtorpedo 3 years ago
he is telling you to not trust him either:)
Gripen1974 3 years ago
who relies on pundits...they live in their delusional la la land...hence why mainstream corporate media are for infotainment not journalism to inform the public.
hippieCy08 3 years ago
welcome to the beginning of the end
SmileOnADog 3 years ago
The Pundits are there to really sell tv and cable ads. Look at some of these people on the tube, they are not close to journalists. Hell, alot of them look like porn stars if you ask me. TV is there to sell ads not news. There is very little news or responsible comentary anywhere.
notlracstabb 3 years ago
if you want to go to the beach and i want to go to the horse track, i'm NOT gonna talk about all the half naked teenage pussy and umbrella drinks, i'm gonna point out skin cancer and rip-tides as well as the tremendous opportunity for financial gain over at the track.
...it's like that.
dickravis 3 years ago
Something just occured to me. I'd like to see the results of the study with all of Bill Kristol's predictions thrown out. That would have to make them all look a little better.
billthebutcher2 3 years ago
If they do worse than a random chance it means they say bullshit on purpose
they cant possibly do worse than average unless some of them simply lie
no one pointed it out
isnt it obvious?
GermaineIlya 3 years ago
I gotta say though, Cenk, I've seen you make far more correct predictions than wrong. In fact, I can't remember you making a flat out prediction that didn't come to pass.
Maybe that's because I'm not reminded of the prediction because its subject never happened, but still, you know?
ImprobableDrive 3 years ago
I love Cenk, but he has made several very wrong predictions. He isn't teflon. He's just one of the more honest and objective(most of the time) pundits out there.
Rosannasfriend 3 years ago
See "Expert Political Judgment: How good is it?" It's a book, pub'd by Princeton Univ Press. Tetlock is a prolific genius, been around for a long time.
nicholas9999 3 years ago
Hey Cenk, did you ever think that people like Hannity know EXACTLY what's going on but they just tell the people what they want to hear, and in some cases things they don't want to hear just to keep us all in the dark to the wicked things that the government and some of these huge corporations are doing? MSM is propoganda you idiots! Do you really think these political pundits and t.v anchors don't know what's going on? to use your own phrase Cenk, Of COOOUUURRRSSEEEEE they know what's going on!
UGOTDAJACK 3 years ago 2
Like when it comes to religion?
jboldt73 3 years ago
Exactly what I was going to say. Good call!
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Sharon Begley had a nice write-up about this in Newsweek recently. I've always figured this was true, but I'm happy someone took the time to research it and prove it.
dookdawg214 3 years ago
CENK!!!!
You don't have to know shit to be on TV!!! Is there not a vested interest in their opinions?
poosnip 3 years ago
Partisanship and Accountability?
There is an agenda to try to force a side of an issue.
It's an interpretation of the facts and not the facts themselves.
Paetaor 3 years ago
Who fared better, Olbermann or O'Reilly, Matthews or Hannity?
stewart0312 3 years ago
u said MONKEY fuckin RACIST!!!
RichoRosai 3 years ago
fox is just complete bullshit.........these guys have no debating skills and the people who watch them are so ardent right-wingers, that it wouldnt matter if you pointed the facts out to them anyway.
you can put a fucking graph in any form in front of a hardcore conservative and they would argue about what color it is.
crowdaddy13 3 years ago 4
Cenk is the ONE.
interfan63 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fox News is the only news that is balance. Thank God for Bill O'Rielly & Hannity. I wouldn't want them on my case though.
gerlumajed62 3 years ago
TV Pundits are kind of an odd thing because in the business world if you were sure of yourself all of the time and end up being wrong most of the time, people would lose trust in you.
I'm not sure what the difference is between people in the business world and pundits, but my only guess is that pundits make so many predictions that people can't keep track of it all and so they aren't held accountable as much.
moulingalette 3 years ago
the job of the television pundits is not to predict the future, it's to coax you into their way of thought.
most of the time it's through fear tactics.
and most of the time (as advertised) they're wrong.
dickravis 3 years ago
when he said they are terrible at predicting things he was talking about the ppl that did the study, not the pundits themselves
cloudstrife0142002 3 years ago
you need to take your meds.
(wrong.)
dickravis 3 years ago
Fox News is probably to blame with all their extremist view.
NYHeineken 3 years ago 3
great social study Batman!
DrakeMagnum 3 years ago
How would they even be able to judge Fox News, since most of what they talk about is made up shit anyway, such as the Acorn "story" that was perfectly and objectively a non-story in the real world, or William Ayers, or was Obama born in America. Those are all non-stories, so ANYTHING a pundit says about them is pretty much wrong. It just seems like a waste of time looking into "is Fox News wrong". Duh.
If men are from Mars and women Venus, then the MSM is from Jupiter and Fox News Uranus.
MichaelMogg 3 years ago
I trust that you are wrong about President Obama. He will screw us as all the others have.
bigdtv123 3 years ago
wow bet he won't
Ceddyohtwo 3 years ago
Oh that's a bunch of hooey. Rush Limbaugh is 100% accurate every time he opens his mouth, even if it's to swallow a whole cheescake or 20 Oxycontins, so shut up you Dung Dorks!
p12psicop 3 years ago
i bet a hundred bucks its the Fox news folks...
jkesquered 3 years ago 3
Fox News probably brought down the curve a bit...
3ssay 3 years ago 10
it's pronounced 'pundents' in alaska.
you betcha.
baddmanaz 3 years ago 4
Nooo Cenk. I always trust you <3
ArtemisMS 3 years ago
I love the last line!
madhi19 3 years ago
I would love to see more serious pundits on TV.
But that would mean the great evil;lover ratings.
qanazir 3 years ago
In that case everyone should listen to me because I am basically uncertain and ambivalent about everything.
theotormon 3 years ago 2
That's a neat study to do. XD The outcome was pretty satisfying too.
Cenk does have a habit of being pretty accurate though.
Dradeeus 3 years ago
Well at least Cenk keeps it real :-D
Count how many times you see this study cited on TV over the next week. If you can count to 0, you're probably just fine.
Adeon55 3 years ago
cuz hes not paid to lie xD
ViciousGX 3 years ago
OK Cenk. Heard you talk about how great Obama is....Let's ignore what he has done so far and wipe the slate clean......We will keep watching.
HEYBUDD 3 years ago
Good stuff.
EricMetalGuitarist 3 years ago
Didn't Rush predict Hillary would be the Democratic nominee & that McCain would win the General Election & that Bush would never agree to a time-table in Iraq & that Bush's tax cut on Capital Gains would spur the stock market up more, etc. etc, etc...
Why does anyone even listen to that nutty Rush guy.
DillonX 3 years ago
I bet they are wrong most of the time because they want to pick the answer which is most shocking anytime they have a decent explanation for more than one answer.
zoysite 3 years ago
Cenk is probably the most correct Pundit I've heard from.
AlmightBlackDragon 3 years ago 5
well, I've noticed that pundits like assuming that the worst possible scenario would happen all the time. I remember all the times when they'd say Obama was done for, and he would bounce back. Regular folks pretty much try to be more fair (the sane non-neocon freak types anyway).
Rosannasfriend 3 years ago
You're alright :)
lookslikepat 3 years ago
I was a little disappointed after watching this video, because the the posted item has a picture of Sean Hannity, giving his usual "I'm the smartest and most handsomest jerk on televison" look. I was kind of expceting/hoping it would mean that the results pointed concluded that Sean Hannity was more wrong than any other television punidt, which doesn;t require much in the way of imagination. He's certainly good at bullying people, but Sean Hannity is by NO means and intelligent man.
JRserver 3 years ago
Anyone know a link where I can find this study?
digiring 3 years ago
where can i find this study. i have a friend that should see it...
Xenthoid 3 years ago
I could have told you this......I have been investing in the stock market since 1979 when I was in high school....I would read Forbes and Fortune, and have old copies from way back.....I checked copies I had from a yr and 2 yrs ago, and every one of them were wrong about the economy, and the same commentors are on TV today giving opinion....the Dems use them and the Reps, and I look at these guys and laugh, because I know what they said just a short while ago was wrong.....no credibility.....
prideventures 3 years ago
wow you been investing the stock market that long??? how you got into it and what would you consider the smart way into doing it?
souldragon24 3 years ago
Very simple method for me is to invest in stable things for the long term.....every time that someone talks about the market going down or up it was about the guys trying to make a quick buck, that is why it's going down now....true investors just stick with it...if my $50 stock goes down to $25 I don't think I lost $25, I just am patient and eventually it goes back up, and later might be $75....this talk about loosing value is all short term, and is about greed to make the most money quickly..
prideventures 3 years ago
i figure that would be a simple way. just stick with it and wait till the stock goes up again.. but what if the stock goes down for too long.. should i sell it and buy a better stock or should i stick with it still and hope one day it shoots up again?
souldragon24 3 years ago
You have to pick stocks that are with companies that you see products being used all the time.......like when I had money in silver before digital cameras...because silver nitrate is important with roll film...when digital overtook film...I got out....if most people are wearing Nike buy Nike....when there are hard times buy with companies that produce soup, it is the cheapest food and sales always go up during bad times...Oil companies always are good investments for obvious reasons....
prideventures 3 years ago
good idea.. how you got into the stock market in the first place? and did you have to pay alot for your first stock?
souldragon24 3 years ago
I started by buying silver in 1979...it was at around $5 a ounce....I was into photography, and realized, because I developed my own film, the affect of silver prices on the price of film.....in 1980 the price went up to $50.....I bought about $200 worth....which was 40 shares @ $5.....after the price increase it's worth was at $2000 +....in just a year....I got out when it went down to $40 but I made a lot from it.....I bought IBM @ under $30 that year also, and now it is at around $90
prideventures 3 years ago
cool.. how do you by stock?? do you got to a place or go on internet?
souldragon24 3 years ago
Used to have to use a trader, but now anyone can do it online with a number of services, and each trade is usually about $3- $9 bucks - E-Trade - AmeriTrade - SogoTrade....I use Ameritrade, but SogoTrade is cheaper @ $3 per trade....you don't have to have a minimum in some of them like in the past you had to start with $1000, so anyone can use them but you have to check and see.......I would join or start a group of friends who invest, nothing big just a 3 or 4 and each can own a 1/4 or 1/3.....
prideventures 3 years ago
ok thanks alot..
souldragon24 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
everybody hates the conservatives because they speak the truth.....
mindlessmike555 3 years ago
You seem pretty certain of that....
billthebutcher2 3 years ago 4
as a matter of fact i am
mindlessmike555 3 years ago
I know you are. I just appreciate irony.
billthebutcher2 3 years ago 3
You're not the only one, bill... I'll just add "irony deficient" next to "satire impaired" on my list of common conservative ailments.
Capng123 3 years ago 3
It's the authoritarian mindset. Lack of a sense of irony, shame etc. There are reasons they don't get satire. :)
billthebutcher2 3 years ago 5
The reason they don't understand satire is because they are still trying to figure out slapstick ;)
seamoremonster 3 years ago 6
well its more of speaking bluntly with no regard for pc...than per say truth speaking...
Xenthoid 3 years ago
I agree so much with what you say Cenk, and the fact is, it does not happen only with TV Pundits, but pretty much everywhere: if you say something true with humility, no one will trust you, but if you say something wrong with confidance, or even better: with arrogance, then everybody will buy it. And THAT my friend is the world we live in :-(
grosquipue 3 years ago 2
Cenk, you need to expand on this. In the aggregate they may be wrong, but certainly some, like Peter Schiff, are far more accurate than, say Hannity.
SumnerClaridge 3 years ago
I check pundits for entertainment, TYT as well
lopsaitis 3 years ago
Actually they (pundits) are telling you the 'party' line.
Such as:
'the economy is fine"
"we will be greeted with flowers"
"oil will pay for the war"
"you're not safe unless we take away your freedoms"
"isreal is our ally"
"aipac does not control congress"
etc. etc.
All lies, but apparently if 'you' are told a lie enough times you believe it.
pfsdetroit 3 years ago 4
Exactly...
Thats how you get your face on the TV.
stuartjamesgemmell 3 years ago
TDKS - They Don't Know Shit.
swankrecords 3 years ago
They're wrong most of the time because they're all whackjobs. One more reason why not to watch TV "pundits".
toxidawg 3 years ago
Hannity should just fucking die.
MankindCartoons 3 years ago 2
nah, we need some comedy
upabittoolate 3 years ago
lol i dislike him too however, if he dies than someone worse may take his place. be careful of what you wish for
Xenthoid 3 years ago
No...he's saying use your brian when you listen to pundits.
kwatson813 3 years ago 3
I challenge everyone to read "Unified theory of the crank" on the denialism blog.
FlashFizz 3 years ago
Pundits are paid to be entertaining
likes2p 3 years ago
Because most pundits are of either side of the extreme -- republican/liberal. And most of them are not really engaging in genuine politics, more than performing shtick, or playing a role, entertaining their audience. Limbaugh is a perfect example.
seanboy80 3 years ago 2
worse than the monkeys lol
Oban2006 3 years ago 2
U'd like to cross reference the scores of the MSNBC pundit details with the Fox ones.
Liberal/Progressive vrs. Conservatism.
makaisenki 3 years ago
Bill O'Reilly tops the list I bet.
"Fuck you! We're doing it live!" - classic Bill O'Reilly.
HammandClov 3 years ago 6
Does anyone know the name, date, journal, or any other identifying information of this study?
fielsjd 3 years ago
That's been my observation over a great many number of years.
Court741 3 years ago 2
There are a few news pundits that tell it like it is and get their facts straight.
The rest are just agenda spewing propaganda pricks.
Eric8542009 3 years ago
Interesting.
BUT not all that suprising.
Anyone who is SURE they know has effectively closed their mind. For what is there to learn when you already know? Obviously nothing. You already know.
This is what zen master/students are talking about when they say "you must empty your cup before you can drink my tea".
The real problem comes when mistaken perceptions are compounded by more and more surety and faulty reasoning.
Eventually this snowballs and you end up with a Rush Limbaugh.
HulkSmashPunyHumans 3 years ago 5
Comment removed
HulkSmashPunyHumans 3 years ago
They should do more studies like that one and give them a lot of exposure, it might actually convince people to form their OWN opinions. If anything, maybe people would realize that television is not the most reliable source for -reality-.
Kloxboy 3 years ago
Cenk, your predictions are usually right, though.
MarkOates 3 years ago
The resolution of TYT clips seems to be a little off - not as sharp as previous vids
5145robkolker 3 years ago
DAMN!!!
chubbyruckus 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
first?
chubbyruckus 3 years ago
Ahh science, is there anything you can't do? You better look out, CANCER, you're going down the second we nail Rush Limbaugh.
snipzor 3 years ago
zomg first!!11
sebastian577 3 years ago 3