Just yesterday, I read an article by MSNBC's Steve Benen, titled, "The public has no idea the deficit is shrinking."
In a December 2014 Bloomberg Politics Poll, it found that 73% of the public believes the deficit to be getting bigger; 21% believe it to be getting smaller; and 6% are uncertain about the matter. While the deficit increased substantially from 2008 to 2009, largely due to the Great Recession, it decreased slightly in 2010, stayed roughly the same in 2011, and has been steadily decreasing in 2012, 2013, and 2014, to the point where the deficit is near its 2008 level before the Great Recession truly made its impact felt.
In the same poll, people were also asked, "On immigration, do you think the Obama administration has sent more or fewer undocumented immigrants back to their home countries compared to ten years ago?" While only 29% said more, 53% said fewer, and 18% said they weren't sure. Once again, the opposite is true.
Sadly, I find such results to be fairly commonplace anymore. It seems that the public at large is rather ill-informed on facts regarding political issues and tend to believe the opinions or rumors which they've heard the most or which they simply want to believe. So, who's fault is it that the public is so ignorant on such matters? When it comes to: the deficit, immigration, the Affordable Care Act, global warming, job creation, gun violence, etc., is it the Democrats' fault for not being more outspoken?; the Republicans' fault for spreading falsehoods?; the media's fault for not holding politicians more accountable for their misstatements?; the public for not being more active in finding out the truth?; or a combination?
In my opinion, all four of these groups are at least partly responsible for the public's ignorance on many issues. Here's how I'd rank the groups and their level of responsibility in the matter in descending order:
4) Democrats: While I've said for a long time the Obama administration needs to take the media war more seriously because headlines and talking points play definite roles in public opinion, I also think it's quite sad Democratic representatives, in addition to legislating and proposing bills to move this country forward, must also constantly fact-check Republican representatives and conservatively-slanted media outlets in order to win over the public's approval on an issue. Given where we are in this day and age, should Democrats be more determined to win the media war by consistently telling the public the truth on certain issues? Yes. However, is it sad that they have to do so in order to correct lies being spewed by the other side? Yes again. (10% responsibility)
3) The Public: It's probably difficult for a large majority of people to consistently fact-check politicians and media outlets. Between school, work, relationships, kids, leisure time, etc., probably last on 96% of people's priority lists is "researching and fact-checking politicians and media outlets." I realize that. Even in saying that, though, I find it quite sad the ridiculous nonsense I'll hear people cite and believe. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Studies exist for a reason. Fact-checkers exist for a reason. Debunked conspiracies aren't conspiracies in and of themselves. Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is. If a chain email sounds too ridiculous to be true, that means it probably is, and it will only take 2 minutes to check its validity (or lack there of) on Snopes.com. So no, the public shouldn't feel it's their responsibility to fact-check everything a politician or media outlet says, but they should still be smarter about things. Ignorance isn't bliss, especially when one passes that ignorance along to 250 additional people via email. (20% responsibility)
2) Republicans: "Obama is a Muslim," "Obama was born in Kenya," "Obamacare has death panels," "Obamacare is the beginning of the end of America and our democracy," "Planned Parenthood only does abortions," "Obamacare has resulted in fewer people getting coverage," "Acceptance of gays has resulted in hurricanes and tornadoes," "Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group," "Trickle-down economics works," "Obama doesn't believe in deporting illegal aliens," "Global warming is a hoax," "The deficit has been booming every year under President Obama," etc. The source of the lies needs to be held partially responsible as well. Without the lies being uttered, the public wouldn't have heard said lies, and would therefore be less likely to believe them. While Democrats can be partially blamed for not more forcefully combating such nonsense and the public can be partially blamed for not seeing the nonsense for what it is, neither group would need to counter or fact-check the false statements if they weren't present in the first place. (30% responsibility)
1) The Media: The group I blame most for the public's ignorance is the media. Didn't it used to be the media's job to hold politicians accountable for their false statements and misdeeds? While Republican politicians may lie about the Affordable Care Act, the deficit, Planned Parenthood, illegal immigration, etc., the media often times doesn't call them out on such misstatements, which gives the public the perception that they're true. During nationally televised debates, the moderators know which questions they're going to ask the candidates. Why not do some actual research regarding the questions and potential responses so they can call these politicians out on their BS and ask follow-up questions regarding the matter? The same goes for hosts of news programs. They know what questions they'll be asking their guests. Why not do a little more research on the topics mentioned in the questions so a politician can't get away with lying to the public? Sadly, since most media outlets won't do their job of better informing the public, the non-media has had to try and do their job for them, and putting it nicely, that often times has mixed results. (40% responsibility)
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-public-has-no-idea-the-deficit-shrinking
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2014-12-06/1_13_14.pdf
In a December 2014 Bloomberg Politics Poll, it found that 73% of the public believes the deficit to be getting bigger; 21% believe it to be getting smaller; and 6% are uncertain about the matter. While the deficit increased substantially from 2008 to 2009, largely due to the Great Recession, it decreased slightly in 2010, stayed roughly the same in 2011, and has been steadily decreasing in 2012, 2013, and 2014, to the point where the deficit is near its 2008 level before the Great Recession truly made its impact felt.
In the same poll, people were also asked, "On immigration, do you think the Obama administration has sent more or fewer undocumented immigrants back to their home countries compared to ten years ago?" While only 29% said more, 53% said fewer, and 18% said they weren't sure. Once again, the opposite is true.
Sadly, I find such results to be fairly commonplace anymore. It seems that the public at large is rather ill-informed on facts regarding political issues and tend to believe the opinions or rumors which they've heard the most or which they simply want to believe. So, who's fault is it that the public is so ignorant on such matters? When it comes to: the deficit, immigration, the Affordable Care Act, global warming, job creation, gun violence, etc., is it the Democrats' fault for not being more outspoken?; the Republicans' fault for spreading falsehoods?; the media's fault for not holding politicians more accountable for their misstatements?; the public for not being more active in finding out the truth?; or a combination?
In my opinion, all four of these groups are at least partly responsible for the public's ignorance on many issues. Here's how I'd rank the groups and their level of responsibility in the matter in descending order:
4) Democrats: While I've said for a long time the Obama administration needs to take the media war more seriously because headlines and talking points play definite roles in public opinion, I also think it's quite sad Democratic representatives, in addition to legislating and proposing bills to move this country forward, must also constantly fact-check Republican representatives and conservatively-slanted media outlets in order to win over the public's approval on an issue. Given where we are in this day and age, should Democrats be more determined to win the media war by consistently telling the public the truth on certain issues? Yes. However, is it sad that they have to do so in order to correct lies being spewed by the other side? Yes again. (10% responsibility)
3) The Public: It's probably difficult for a large majority of people to consistently fact-check politicians and media outlets. Between school, work, relationships, kids, leisure time, etc., probably last on 96% of people's priority lists is "researching and fact-checking politicians and media outlets." I realize that. Even in saying that, though, I find it quite sad the ridiculous nonsense I'll hear people cite and believe. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Studies exist for a reason. Fact-checkers exist for a reason. Debunked conspiracies aren't conspiracies in and of themselves. Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is. If a chain email sounds too ridiculous to be true, that means it probably is, and it will only take 2 minutes to check its validity (or lack there of) on Snopes.com. So no, the public shouldn't feel it's their responsibility to fact-check everything a politician or media outlet says, but they should still be smarter about things. Ignorance isn't bliss, especially when one passes that ignorance along to 250 additional people via email. (20% responsibility)
2) Republicans: "Obama is a Muslim," "Obama was born in Kenya," "Obamacare has death panels," "Obamacare is the beginning of the end of America and our democracy," "Planned Parenthood only does abortions," "Obamacare has resulted in fewer people getting coverage," "Acceptance of gays has resulted in hurricanes and tornadoes," "Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group," "Trickle-down economics works," "Obama doesn't believe in deporting illegal aliens," "Global warming is a hoax," "The deficit has been booming every year under President Obama," etc. The source of the lies needs to be held partially responsible as well. Without the lies being uttered, the public wouldn't have heard said lies, and would therefore be less likely to believe them. While Democrats can be partially blamed for not more forcefully combating such nonsense and the public can be partially blamed for not seeing the nonsense for what it is, neither group would need to counter or fact-check the false statements if they weren't present in the first place. (30% responsibility)
1) The Media: The group I blame most for the public's ignorance is the media. Didn't it used to be the media's job to hold politicians accountable for their false statements and misdeeds? While Republican politicians may lie about the Affordable Care Act, the deficit, Planned Parenthood, illegal immigration, etc., the media often times doesn't call them out on such misstatements, which gives the public the perception that they're true. During nationally televised debates, the moderators know which questions they're going to ask the candidates. Why not do some actual research regarding the questions and potential responses so they can call these politicians out on their BS and ask follow-up questions regarding the matter? The same goes for hosts of news programs. They know what questions they'll be asking their guests. Why not do a little more research on the topics mentioned in the questions so a politician can't get away with lying to the public? Sadly, since most media outlets won't do their job of better informing the public, the non-media has had to try and do their job for them, and putting it nicely, that often times has mixed results. (40% responsibility)
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-public-has-no-idea-the-deficit-shrinking
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2014-12-06/1_13_14.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment