Use the link if you can
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/08/unsmearing_the_smear.cfm
Posted by:
Free Exchange | Washington, DC
Categories:
AN INTERESTING behavioural look at the world of political mud-slinging contains some of the best paragraphs I've seen in a long time. It helpfully begins:
According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, Americans increasingly get their news from multiple sources. More than one-third use Internet-based sources such as Web sites, blogs, and even social networking sites. Only a minority rely entirely on traditional sources, including print, radio, television, and cable news. The survey did not include chain e-mail, which has fed rumors that Christian presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim. This proliferation of sources creates competitive pressure on journalists to bend their standards in order to get a story quickly.
It's always good to see blogging given a clear edge over crazy, ungrammatical emails typed in multi-coloured fonts. The piece continues:
Our brains tend to remember facts that accord with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it. In one Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were shown two pieces of evidence. One confirmed the claim that capital punishment deters crime, and the other contradicted it. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position, a phenomenon known as biased assimilation.
I don't believe that.
The human brain also does not save information permanently, as do computer drives and printed pages. Recent research suggests that every time the brain recalls a piece of information, it is "written" down again and often modified in the process. Along the way, the fact is gradually separated from its original context. For example, most people don't remember how they know that the capital of Massachusetts is Boston.
This is actually quite a serious point. Repetition in any context strengthens memory. Incredibly it also creates its own aura of credibility:
In another Stanford study, students were exposed repeatedly to the unsubstantiated claim that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Those who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than the National Enquirer), giving it a gloss of credibility. Thus the classic opening line "I think I read somewhere," or even reference to a specific source, is often used to support falsehoods. Similarly, psychologist Daniel Gilbert and his colleagues have shown that if people are distracted from thinking critically, they default to automatically accepting statements as true.
A week or so ago, Mark Thoma responded to a piece on "Libertarian Paternalism" by noting that he didn't like feeling like he was being manipulated. It's interesting to me that even if we assume that journalists are impartial actors, there is an asymmetry in the presentation of information, since the smearers are presumably well aware of these findings and using them to their advantage. We are being manipulated.
So here is the question: should journalists actively study behavioural economics in an effort to adjust their coverage such that the effect of the coverage will be something closer to factual truth? Either the media aims to be deliberately manipulative in an effort to produce better content, or the media will abet the manipulations of others, by predictably being not manipulative. Which is preferable?
- Comments
Report item as: (required) X
Comment: (optional)
| Doug Pascover wrote: That's an interesting dichotomy in your question. Presumably, the goal of journalism is to make facts seem like facts to the audience and questions ponderable. Incidentally, unless I miss my guess, you did an excellent job live-blogging nearly solo. I hope the D.C. humidity wasn't too withering. 8/26/2008 11:30 PM EDT | |||
| Recommend | Report Abuse | ||
| Questions wrote: The journalists could adjust their coverage so that the effect is close to the truth only if the "other side", i.e. various propagandists do not adjust their behaviour in response. Otherwise I think this will be a game with mixed strategies equilibrium and the unpredictability will be bad for the journalists but not for the propagandists. So presenting the facts as they are is probably the only option. Nothing can protect people from their own stupidity and gullibility. 8/27/2008 9:08 AM EDT | |||
| Recommend | Report Abuse | ||
| ginmartini wrote: Why does the blogger not believe in biased assimilation? 8/27/2008 10:27 AM EDT | |||
| Recommend | Report Abuse | ||
| toddkuipers wrote: "I don't believe that." 8/27/2008 10:56 AM EDT | |||
| Recommend | Report Abuse | ||
| ginmartini wrote: Anyway, I thought it was called cognitive dissonance, or maybe biased assimilation is one form of it. It's pretty commonsensical. 8/28/2008 10:04 AM EDT | |||
| Recommend | Report Abuse | ||
| toddkuipers wrote: ginmartini - You're right about the common sense, but the blog response would have been less humourous then. 8/28/2008 11:06 AM EDT | |||
| Recommend | Report Abuse | ||
| Bertrecords wrote: I agree with Questions. The First Amendment guarantees that rights of those who wish to present propaganda, and laws against it are likely to be counterproductive. 8/28/2008 8:21 PM EDT |
---
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
Please refer to http://www.db.com/en/content/eu_disclosures.htm for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment