Public Ignorance Polls August 23, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Media, Politics.
Tags: Balance, Fox News, Journalism, Media Bias, Obama, Opinion Polls, Political Climate, Politics, Public Polls, ThePoliticalClimate
add a comment
News consumers are subjected to a daily deluge of polling data. Unfortunately, like much of today’s media coverage, this information is not leaving us better informed.
A conventional issue-specific opinion poll offers a choice between two valid responses. For example, “Do you approve of the death penalty?” This is an appropriate poll. There is no right or wrong answer; there are substantive arguments to support both positions, and the poll attempts to gauge public support for a controversial policy that is directly relevant to our nation’s governance.
A regrettable distinction can be made between a prototypical public opinion poll such as that and the frivolous politically-charged polls we see more and more today. I’m referring to polls such as, “Is Obama a Muslim?”
This question has a wrong answer. The responses are not equally valid. Such polls do not measure public opinion, they measure public ignorance. Worse, they measure the successful pervasion of partisan misinformation.
These polls are everywhere, and the results are always shameful:
- only 39% of Americans believe in evolution;
- only 43% of Americans believe in anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change; and, last week,
- only 47% of Americans believe Obama is a Christian (24% think he’s a Muslim).
What angers me most about these polls is that the phrase “believe in” really means “understand that.” These aren’t questions of choice. There is only one right answer. It’s indisputable.
The respondents in these three polls didn’t express their opinions, they betrayed their ignorance. And that ignorance is not the innocent absence of education, it’s the sinister product of deliberate misinformation spread by well-funded special interests (for the polls above, evangelicals, big polluters and conservatives respectively…forgive the fuzzy boundaries between them).
Now, I am not saying that ignorance should be prosecuted like some Orwellian thoughtcrime. To me, all these polls really show is that the media are failing. True, propagandists and politicians breathe life into these stories, but journalists are the ones who perpetuate this nonsense.
In the new era of “fairness and balance,” the media think they have to report every claim a partisan commentator makes without remarking on its truthfulness – because that would be “unbalanced.” Think of birtherism, Obama’s supposed socialism, death panels…all these manufactured scandals started as baseless comments reported by the media without question merely because a partisan spoke them. Apparently transcribing a press release or interview is now where a journalist’s obligation ends: We accuse, you decide.
Yet opposition does not confer equivalency. Just because there are two sides to a story does not mean they’re necessarily equal. For a journalist to automatically report them as such is misleading.
When a Wisconsin senate candidate says climate science is wrong and gives a scientifically disproven alternative “explanation,” it’s not partisan to say he’s lying – it’s accurate. In fact, to merely parrot those proven lies isn’t balance, it’s active disinformation.
Real public opinion polls have obvious political value for politicians and advocates etc. But what do public ignorance polls contribute to society? Nothing. They just validate the misconceptions they seek to quantify by presenting them on equal footing with actual facts. This is another manifestation of the “bias of balance” in modern media coverage.
With one notable exception, today’s major media outlets are not trying to disseminate falsehoods, but they are succeeding nonetheless. As long as we allow balance to trump accuracy in journalism, this type of ignorance will not only persist but continue to spread.
Sunlight: The 2nd Best Disinfectant February 26, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Media, Politics.
Tags: Balance, Balanced Media, Barack Obama, Bias, Congress, FOIA, Healthcare, Healthcare Summit, Media, Media Bias, Obama, Policy Debate, President Obama, Sunlight, Transparency
add a comment
“Transparency” is tossed around Washington like the solution to all our problems. But what good is a window if nobody is looking through it? Citizens today are inundated by so much information that we must rely on others to sort and interpret the news that is actually relevant to us. And in our politicized country, most of us receive governmental news from outlets at least slightly skewed towards our preexisting views.
I’m a liberal. When a Republican says something outrageous, I know about it immediately thanks to Media Matters and the rest of the liberal blogosphere. But when a Democrat makes an equivalent mistake, I may not even find out. The big slips make national news, covered by the “balanced” mainstream media, but the more mundane mistruths fly under the radar. The little lies about a particular bill. The deliberately distorted talking points that obstruct well-intentioned legislation. The average person does not hear about the everyday dishonesty that has crippled our democracy today.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously opined, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” So we have multiple C-SPAN channels, the Freedom Of Information Act and more political reporting than would seem possible. There is so much information available in the name of transparency that no single person could ever hope to monitor politics casually; that’s a full-time job.
How many ordinary people actually watch C-SPAN? Virtually none*. The cameras are almost always on, but nobody watches directly. We all rely on dedicated observers to tell us if something of note happened in Congress. So because we get our political news pre-spun and, more importantly, pre-filtered, few people get the full picture.
As a result, I would argue that sunlight is not the best disinfectant. The blinding brightness of all this transparency has actually forced us to shield our eyes and turn away. Too much of a good thing has had the exact opposite effect as intended. It is true that sunlight stops the big schemes, like Watergate. Yet more often, sunlight just provides fodder for the politically-hyped fake scandals, like “Climate-gate.”
I’m not advocating for increased secrecy, I would merely like to point out that we have just witnessed the demonstration of a much more powerful force in the name of good governance: public viewership.
Despite its shortcomings, yesterday’s Healthcare Summit hosted by President Obama was something different. Yes, it initially appeared to be an interlocking presentation of talking points, but 3-4 hours in, something interesting began to happen. Unexpected areas of agreement appeared. Sensible minority proposals met with majority support. Progress was taking place.
In our toxic political climate, it is worth asking, “what was different?” Why can’t such dialogue and rational policy debate take place in Congress, the body created for that express purpose? Having the President there to babysit likely helped, but much more important was the fact that the country was watching.
Events that people watch in person are much less susceptible to spin because we form our own opinions on the spot. That is supposed to be the driving force of a free country: the will of the people, not the mantra of the shepherd with the largest, mindless flock.
I have no doubt that either side could strategically excerpt yesterday’s proceedings to make their opponents look foolish, and that almost certainly happened. But when the public tunes in directly, politicians are once again restrained by a sense of accountability – the same accountability that objective media coverage, which is often necessarily “unbalanced,” used to provide.
The Healthcare Summit was not a turning point in our country. The politics have not changed, even for healthcare, and the public is not about to become involved in everyday politics (nor, frankly, should they have to be). But this did remind us, for a few hours, that productive political dialogue can occur – if we, the people, demand it of our elected representatives.
*Digging a little deeper, it appears that C-SPAN does actually have significant viewership. That’s news to me, but I think my main point stands.