Harold Camping was wrong about the rapture happening this past weekend, but it’s unlikely he’ll ever admit to being wrong in the way most of us know he is. The same goes for hardcore birthers, the people who believed “death panels” were part of healthcare legislation, and those convinced that vaccines cause autism.
All are wrong, and demonstrably so. But to simply dismiss them as misguided, gullible, or ignorant is to expose our ignorance of ourselves.
Their refusal to bend to facts and reality is an innately human trait. Within all of us exists the capacity—the propensity—to reject facts that contradict closely held views and beliefs. Once a human being is convinced of something, it’s incredibly difficult to get him to change his mind.
This is a significant challenge for the press. If you believe, as most journalists do, that we play an essential role in providing quality information to society, then knocking down rumors and combating misinformation is part of our mission and daily work. Thus the rise of fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org, and the increased attempts by news organizations to fact-check statements and claims made by politicians and public figures.
This is important work that helps inform and educate. Or at least it has always seemed that way to me.
I’m suddenly feeling rather powerless and conflicted because, over the last few weeks, I’ve been familiarizing myself with a growing body of evidence that suggests the mainstream press is ineffective at combating misinformation and debunking falsehoods, and in many cases can reinforce and help spread misinformation.
Mother Jones recently published a fascinating article that provides a comprehensive survey of the science behind why people reject facts, why belief trumps evidence. It opens by quoting respected Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger: “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”
The story reported that:
… an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. … It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.
The latest and perhaps most relevant piece of research is “Debunking Sarah Palin: Mainstream News Coverage of ‘Death Panels’,” a paper being presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, taking place right now in Boston.
Louisiana State University researchers Regina G. Lawrence and Matthew L. Schafer gathered a sample of close to 800 newspaper articles and transcripts from network news broadcasts that dealt with Sarah Palin’s false 2009 claim about “death panels.” (CJR’s Joel Meares has an extensive interview with Lawrence here.)
“After looking at [our findings], I really just don’t think that mainstream media can correct misconceptions that people hold on to tightly,” Schafer told me. “… Even when people are presented with factual information that goes against what they believe, the normal supposition would be that it would weaken their grasp of their reality—but they actually hold on tighter.”
Their research saw them analyze reporting to see how newspapers and TV dealt with the fake concept of death panels. They found that:
… in 39% of news stories, the reporter labeled the claim ‘false’ or used some cognate description. In almost two-thirds of news stories, reporters abstained from using any evaluative term assessing the truthfulness of the ‘death panels’ claim. Meanwhile, the editorial pages tilted against the ‘death panels’ claim, with 58% of editorialists and letter writers calling the claim false and less than 2% defending it.
So less than half of the news reports flatly stated that death panels were a fake invention of Palin’s. The authors view this as a high number. In an article about their research findings, they write that the percentage of articles that call death panels false is “surprising considering many journalists’ own conceptions that they act as neutral arbiters.”
Random accusations can be almost impossible to disprove. The news media should acquaint the public with the concept of BURDEN OF PROOF.
#1 Posted by Dave Packard, CJR on Sat 28 May 2011 at 12:56 PM
A good example of *why* the media is so ineffective is your colleague Ryan Chittum's Piece on the Elizabeth Warren Smear. The conventions of mainstream journalism has become a straitjacket, rendering most journos incapable and unwilling to write a normal, straightforward description of a given event.
1) Most political journos are profoundly cynical about politics and policy and government. They actually don't care if they get facts wrong. They are indifferent to the truth of what they write. You can write to them with uncontestable data -- quotes, video, tables, graphs -- that they have gotten something wrong, and they are completely indifferent, defending what they wrote all the way up the line. Their editors and their ombudsmen back them up as well. They will only update or correct if someone prominent embarrassingly calls them out. There should be some kind of rotation process that cycles these hacks out into the real world occasionally, for a new perspective on their job.
2) Journos and their editors are terrified that some rightwinger is going to accuse them of "liberal bias." Yes, this is the Twenty-First Century, and mainstream journos still cringe and hide under their desk the minute some rightwing dipstick cries "Liberal!". You see what has happened to Bill Adair of Politifact, who started out as a fair arbiter but has been beaten down by the conservative machine, rendering his work worthless as a factchecker.
3) No journo wants to be "part of the story" and with the powerful rightwing echo chamber, a straightforward description of events is likely to put the reporter in an uncomfortable spotlight, the right setting their thugs to writing and calling and twittering and stalking the hapless reporter. It's easier for a deadline-challenged journo to use the bland, formulaic he-said/she-said. Quoting both sides is good enough.
4) It is an easier ride, and more beneficial professionally and socially, to go along with the conservative message machine. So most of the political journos in Washington are little more than stenographers, carrying water for the GOP. They advance in their career a lot faster this way.
5) A lot of beltway journos are personally invested in the conservative network -- they count conservative operatives as their peers and friends and bar buddies and they are attracted to their GOP Daddies. The young Jake "Fast Break" Sherman of Politico, for example, has been adopted by Daryl Issa, his GOP daddy, who Sherman feeds information that might be useful. Sherman goes so far as to suggest avenues of inquiry to Issa and his staff.
Not even peer criticism, I think, can overcome this bad state of affairs. What's the solution?
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 31 May 2011 at 09:23 AM
We need to add "Bush Lied!" to list of falsehoods promoted by the media, don't we?
As for "death panels", the key lies in the definition... If by "death panel" one means "execution squad", then there are indeed no such agencies created in ObamaCare... However, if one means instead "agencies that ration services to patients", then the matter is hardly closed.
The most egregious of these regulations - the "end of life" counseling mandate for Medicare patients - was only removed by the Obama administration last January.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&ref=us
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 31 May 2011 at 11:08 AM
Rev. Camping has used his rapture schtick to gather up his flock's worldy assets. He quite literally has a lot invested in his scheme, and so cannot be expected to, erm, repent. The "death panel" scam is similar. Guys like Padster will defend to the death any right-wing trope, 'cause that's where the money's at. Even if he isn't a paid troll, doing what he does here opens up many more career opportunities than, say, learning new things and reporting them would.
So a lot of folks still think Saddam Hussein was in on that 9-11 unpleasantness, and that Iraq had nukes, just like President Cheney repeatedly suggested via Mr. Bush. They think Fannie and Freddie crashed the economy and that half of all Americans pay NO TAXES. People who know better will not be able to convince their fellow citizens otherwise until truth grows some muscle and develops a modern media strategy. That takes money, and there's no percentage in it.
#4 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 31 May 2011 at 08:40 PM
To correct a padikiller mistatement: the "end of life" counseling mandate for Medicare patients was not a mandate at all; it simply provided reimbursement to doctors should they and their patients choose to have this discussion. Hardly egregious, by any definition of the term.
#5 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Wed 1 Jun 2011 at 01:18 PM
Correcting the Minister of Paditude's misstatements would be a full time job, if anyone had the time & could get paid for it. Makes one wonder what the Padster's full time job (correction: "small business") really is, doesn't it?
#6 Posted by edward ericsond jr., CJR on Wed 1 Jun 2011 at 05:32 PM
The "mandate" was in the proposed payment for "end of life counseling" - taxpayers on the hook for this crap - I did not mean to write that the counseling itself was mandatory. But the issue is moot, for the time being at least, since Obama flip-flopped yet again on the issue.
Not so with the "Independent Payment Advisory Board".. This actual ObamaCare "death panel" will give an unelected board of political appointees the power to determine what Medicare will and will not pay for... Thus, although the IPAB is prohibited in theory from rationing healthcare, in reality, it has the authority and practical mandate to do so.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 1 Jun 2011 at 07:39 PM
Edward said: "Correcting the Minister of Paditude's misstatements would be a full time job"
Agreed, but sometimes I just can't resist.
#8 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Thu 2 Jun 2011 at 09:26 AM