I have long advised friends of all political persuasions to fact-check (FactCheck.org) every important statement their candidate or the opponent offers as true—not just the opponent's questionable "facts," but their candidate's, too. Because they all mislead and lie, all of them, Romney and Obama included. But most folks don't fact-check—or if they do, it's just the opposing candidate's misstatements they check or read about. Why? Here's one big reason from this article:
‘We don't collect news to inform us [about issues or candidates]. We collect news to affirm us [and our views],' explains Republican pollster Frank Lutz...'It used to be that we disagreed on solutions...Now we don't even agree on the problem.' All this contributes to an environment in which, for some voters, unwelcome facts are simply filtered out and flushed away.'
---“Blue Truth, Red Truth,” by Michael Scherer, Time (10.15.2012)
---“Blue Truth, Red Truth,” by Michael Scherer, Time (10.15.2012)
The full article really is worth reading, including reviews of a lot of misleading and untrue things that Obama and Romney have said. Have I got you yet? No? How about this from the beginning of the article?
So it goes in the world’s most celebrated democracy: another campaign day, another battle over the very nature of reality. Both of the men now running for the presidency claim that their opponent has a weak grasp of the facts and a demonstrated willingness to mislead voters. Both profess an abiding personal commitment to honesty and fair play. And both run campaigns that have repeatedly and willfully played the American people for fools, though their respective violations vary in scope and severity.
[…] But the perpetrators usually remain a step ahead of the cops. ‘It’s like the campaigns are driving 100 miles an hour on a highway with a posted speed limit of 60, but the patrol cars all have flats,” says Mark McKinnon, a Republican ad man for the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. “There was a quaint era in politics when we were held accountable for the truth and paid consequences for errors of fact. No more.’
[…] But the perpetrators usually remain a step ahead of the cops. ‘It’s like the campaigns are driving 100 miles an hour on a highway with a posted speed limit of 60, but the patrol cars all have flats,” says Mark McKinnon, a Republican ad man for the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. “There was a quaint era in politics when we were held accountable for the truth and paid consequences for errors of fact. No more.’
Of course, the real issue is that there are no “cops.” No one appears to care much about it. If there are cops it is the on-line, print and broadcast media that offer more and more fact-checking as part of their reporting. But many media outlets have a clear political point of view or are uneven in the depth and breadth of fact-checking coverage. That’s why nonpartisan on-line services like Fact-Check.org or Snopes.com are so important. But are they? Why don’t they make a difference in people’s views? Well, my provocative first pull-quote, moves us in the right direction. But then there is a lack of any clear rules or penalties, right? And neither political candidates nor their supporters appear to want them.
No Consequences
So what explains the factual recklessness of the campaigns? The most obvious answer can be found in the penalties, or lack thereof, for wandering astray. Voters just show less and less interest in punishing those who deceive. The reasons may be found in the political fracturing of the nation. As some voters feel a deeper affinity for one side or another in political debates, they have developed a tendency to forgive the home team’s fibs. No matter their ideology, many voters increasingly inhabit information bubbles in which they are less likely to hear their worldview contradicted.
So what explains the factual recklessness of the campaigns? The most obvious answer can be found in the penalties, or lack thereof, for wandering astray. Voters just show less and less interest in punishing those who deceive. The reasons may be found in the political fracturing of the nation. As some voters feel a deeper affinity for one side or another in political debates, they have developed a tendency to forgive the home team’s fibs. No matter their ideology, many voters increasingly inhabit information bubbles in which they are less likely to hear their worldview contradicted.
Okay, if we think about all that, it has the ring of truth to it, doesn’t it? And we might even recognize a little bit of that in ourselves—just a little, maybe? And, maybe, campaign managers and strategists know this just as well as the pollsters like Mr. Luntz. Let’s keep going.
The Fact-Checking Movement
Campaign strategists, especially at the presidential level, know well just how easy it is to fool the public. No ad goes out without significant data from polls and focus groups to ensure its effectiveness. Glenn Kessler, who writes the Fact Checker column at the Washington Post, tells a story about the head of a super PAC who chewed him out after Kessler called him on a deceptive ad. ‘This was after he was screaming at me about something I had written, and he laughed and said, ‘I actually don’t give a hoot what you say, because these ads work.’
Campaign strategists, especially at the presidential level, know well just how easy it is to fool the public. No ad goes out without significant data from polls and focus groups to ensure its effectiveness. Glenn Kessler, who writes the Fact Checker column at the Washington Post, tells a story about the head of a super PAC who chewed him out after Kessler called him on a deceptive ad. ‘This was after he was screaming at me about something I had written, and he laughed and said, ‘I actually don’t give a hoot what you say, because these ads work.’
But the fact-checking movement has actually had little effect on the party faithful or the way campaigns are run, including misleading statements and lies wherever, whenever, they serve the cause. And then there is the already-famous statement by Mitt Romney’s pollster.
Indeed, the 2012 campaign has witnessed a historic increase in fact-checking efforts by the media, with dozens of reporters now focused full time on sniffing out falsehood. Clear examples of deception fill websites, appear on nightly newscasts and run on the front pages of newspapers. But the truth squads have had only marginal success in changing the behavior of the campaigns and almost no impact on the outside groups that peddle unvarnished falsehoods with even less accountability. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” explained Neil Newhouse, Romney’s pollster, echoing his industry’s conventional wisdom.
What, then, does this imply about the character of our strongest candidates for the highest office in the land—in some real sense, the leader of the free world? What does it make us suspect about the process of government they will lead? And since it is apparent that most all candidates for the congress—and state government, too—have adopted the same amoral approach to their “dialogue” with the electorate and the citizenry, how does
that make us feel about this 21st-century version of democracy, our government of, by and for the people? Let’s finish up with a few quotes from the end of the article.
The Question of Character
The great irony in this curious chapter in American politics is that both campaigns have made telling the truth a central message and a core qualification in each man’s case to be President. In the run-up to the first of three debates in October, both campaigns charged that deceptions by the other guy would be a window into his essential character. “He’s trying to fool people,” Romney told reporters on his plane. “Facts will matter,” said Obama aide David Axelrod in a memo in response.
[…] But when politicians speak of truth telling in such high-minded terms, they risk hypocrisy. In the final weeks of September, Obama seemed to acknowledge this risk by admitting in an interview with CBS News that his campaign sometimes goes “overboard” and that this is something that “happens in politics.” Romney has refused to waver. “We’ve been absolutely spot on,” he told CNN.
[…] But when the final book is written on this campaign, one-sided deception will still have played a central role. As it stands, the very notions of fact and truth are employed in American politics as much to distort as to reveal. And until the voting public demands something else, not just from the politicians they oppose but also from the ones they support, there is little reason to suspect that will change.
The great irony in this curious chapter in American politics is that both campaigns have made telling the truth a central message and a core qualification in each man’s case to be President. In the run-up to the first of three debates in October, both campaigns charged that deceptions by the other guy would be a window into his essential character. “He’s trying to fool people,” Romney told reporters on his plane. “Facts will matter,” said Obama aide David Axelrod in a memo in response.
[…] But when politicians speak of truth telling in such high-minded terms, they risk hypocrisy. In the final weeks of September, Obama seemed to acknowledge this risk by admitting in an interview with CBS News that his campaign sometimes goes “overboard” and that this is something that “happens in politics.” Romney has refused to waver. “We’ve been absolutely spot on,” he told CNN.
[…] But when the final book is written on this campaign, one-sided deception will still have played a central role. As it stands, the very notions of fact and truth are employed in American politics as much to distort as to reveal. And until the voting public demands something else, not just from the politicians they oppose but also from the ones they support, there is little reason to suspect that will change.
I repeat, how does that make us feel about this 21st-century version of American democracy? Is this anyone's right-minded vision of a proper democratic electoral process or, in turn, government of, by and for the people?
http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/blue-truth-red-truth/
http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/blue-truth-red-truth/
No comments:
Post a Comment