This is topic American gullibility in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023891

Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
I've been looking at the highly interesting WEB site of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland and want to bring it to Hatrack's attention.

From what I saw, these are very professional pollsters with a real interest in establishing good statistics about American perceptions. The only thing I don't understand is why their findings aren't covered more by the media.

From their most recent study (April 22, 2004):

quote:
... majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).
Another study (Oct. 2, 2003) correlates misperceptions of American people with their main news source. They asked about three misperceptions:

quote:
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48%
incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found,
22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world
public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

The "overall 60%" that had at least one of these three misperceptions showed a huge variation when correlated with the main news source:

FOX___________: 80%
CBS___________: 71%
ABC___________: 61%
NBC___________: 55%
CNN___________: 55%
Print_Sources___: 47%
NPR/PBS_______: 23%

So when you're relying on Fox, you are about 4 times more likely to have a misperception than an NPR listener!

Fascinating, no?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
So when you're relying on Fox, you are about 4 times more likely to have those misperception than an NPR listener!

Dagonee
 
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
Correct.

What Dag is saying is that we cannot conclude from this study whether, regarding other information, FOX viewers might be even worse off. [Smile]

[ April 28, 2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Sal ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
True. Or that NPR doesn't provide misperceptions of another sort.
 
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
Well, let's not restrict our discussion to the things we can't conclude from studies like this. Let's also talk about the things we can conclude.

It's my personal experience that many Americans are admiringly altruist and downright noble in their beliefs and local activities. What I see here is something that borders on abuse of these fine qualities for political gain of a few.
 
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 
I heard on NPR that the United States actually lost the battle of Helm's Deep. Is this true?
 
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
Yes, Icky. Tells you on which side they were fighting, doesn't it? [Smile]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, I take from it that:

1.) People who mainly get their news from TV are gullible.

2.) Even the 23% number on NPR is scarily high.

3.) Anyone who approaches any news account without a healthy dose of sceptisism is asking to be deceived.

4.) People likely select their news source based on which one will most likely reinforce their existing opinion.

None of this is a surprise to me. As someone who's been involved with several front-page stories, both centrally and peripherally, I know the media usually mischaracterizes important news stories.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
Hey, Dag, we're in perfect agreement for once!

Except I'm still surprised at the large numbers, and I wonder how they compare to the accuracy with which people in (other ?) developed countries are being informed.
 
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 
As someone who has also been involved with several front page stories, I find that the television news virtually always gives an incomplete, and typically sensationalistic, account. Newspapers and their websites typically do a much more thorough job.
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
Can I ask what front page stories you two? I am intrigued.
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Some good points on this were brought up before.

Of course, I was right then, and am still right now.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Asimov's at asimovs.com had a link about their run-in with a local tv station that has a good take on how a television journalist can totally falsify a story.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Alexa,

The peripheral ones involve the Base Closure process for the Navy and information on cancer clinical trials. I wasn't directly involved, but I had a lot of particular knowledge that even newspaper stories got flat out wrong. It wasn't even in-depth knowledge.

The one I was personally involved in was a Supreme Court case over UVA's refusal to fund a religious magazine. I was one of three founders (not the one mentioned in the case, unfortunately [Smile] ) of the magazine. We ended up winning 3 years after I graduated.

The case has been cited in a variety of subsequent cases, including ones about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, Nike false-advertising about sweatshops, the Communications Decency act, and school vouchers.

Dagonee

[ April 28, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 
That is fascinating Dagonee..thank you. I love reading court cases---and congratulations.
 
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
docmagic, I didn't realize this was discussed earlier. Of course it was Storm who brought it up! [Grumble] Yet, the recent study is brand-new, and there are other interesting things on the PIPA site to check out.

What boggles my mind though, Dag and Icky, is how easily you guys accept this. Personally, I just can't stand being lied to, especially not in what looks like a very systematic way, bordering on brainwashing.

For example, what does it mean for "democracy"? It is my deep conviction that real democracy is based on the ability to make educated, informed choices. How much is a choice that is based on systematically skewed information actually MY own choice? Isn't my choice more or less pre-determined for me? Is that true democracy?
 
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Please believe that I didn't mean my post as one of those obnoxious "Do a search before you post!" snide subs.

I just thought some good posts were made on that thread, and thought the link would add to the discussion without reposting everying here.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
What boggles my mind though, Dag and Icky, is how easily you guys accept this. Personally, I just can't stand being lied to, especially not in what looks like a very systematic way, bordering on brainwashing.
Actually, to sustain a charge of lying, someone would have to point to some report on Fox that said Iraq supported al-Queada or that WMDs had been found. I don't watch it, but I've never seen such a report in all the complaining about fox news. I still think there's more a pre-selection effect than anything else.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Lets not forget selective hearing; that is a problem that happens even when you are face to face. Why should it be any different in the media?
 
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 
At my old school, a private school for children of the rich and famous, we were all over the news when O.J. Simpson's kids were enrolled in our school, due to local opposition to his move into the area. We were also all over the news when a handicapped girl sued us for alleged ADA violations, and when one of our after hours security people kidnapped a girl from a mall, brought her back to our campus, and raped her in the boys' locker room.

Cor and I were profiled in a front page feature article in the Fort Lauderdale paper on the impact of the internet on adoption. After this ran, several television stations, who apparently get their news from reading the newspaper, contacted us and did stories on us as well.

My current school was all over the news when we opened (this is a new school), due to an anticipation of culture clash between the wealthy students of my town and the poorer students being bused in from a poorer area. Then we were in the news again when a student who threatened to bomb the principal's car back in October was arrested in February with explosives. (It was actually unrelated; the kid regularly played with explosives, and in fact was using them to fish. However, because of the threat he made months before, the media was all over our school. Many parents incorrectly believe that he was arrested attempting to carry out his threat, or that he expressed another threat against the school, or that he brought explosives to school.)
 
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
 
I think Megachirop's post illustrates pretty well a problem with commercial news sources. In a begining journalism class I took, the definition of "news" was pounded into our brains- it has to be true, timely and out of the ordinary. (I may have posted this before) The example was something like: If a man visits the spectacular Grand Canyon, that's not news. If he visits the spectacular Grand Canyon and falls in, that's news.

We were taught to catch the reader's eye, to compete for their attention-- not just against other news sources, but against the novel on the table and the show on the screen. Not by lying or anything, but it seems pretty obvious that there's a conflict of interest in commercial journalism. Tell the truth, and make sure you also attract attention. It's a tough order.

(edited: all this time I've been reading that name as "Megamicrochips." Oops)

[ April 29, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Lara ]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2