Page 27 – Democracy Fund

Blog

Guest Post: New API Research shows Growth of Fact Checking and Partisan Challenges

Jane Elizabeth

April 22, 2015

This is cross-posted from the American Press Institute. View a full version with charts here and read more about the Democracy Fund’s support of fact checking here.

The amount of fact-checking journalism produced in the United States is increasing dramatically, and while there are limits to its persuasiveness, it is a measurably effective tool for correcting political misinformation among voters, according to new scholarly research conducted for the American Press Institute and released today.

The number of fact-check stories in the U.S. news media increased by more than 300 percent from 2008 to 2012, one of the studies found. That accelerates the growth in fact-checking journalism found in the prior national election cycle.

Fact-checking journalism also succeeds in increasing voter knowledge, according to controlled experiments with audiences.

“Fact-checking journalism is growing rapidly but is still relatively rare and heavily concentrated among outlets with dedicated fact checkers,” said the University of Exeter’s Jason Reifler, one of the scholars engaged in the research.

The three studies released today, conducted by scholars at six universities, build on existing research and constitute the most comprehensive effort to date examining the work of journalists to police political rhetoric.

Among some of the other findings:

More than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable view of political fact-checking.
Fact-checking is equally persuasive whether or not it uses a “rating scale” to summarize its findings.
Fact-checks of inaccurate statements are more persuasive when the consumer and the politician belong to the same political party.
Democrats, in general, have a more favorable view of and are somewhat more persuaded by fact-checking journalism than Republicans.

The results released today are part of a series commissioned through API’s Fact-Checking Project, an initiative to examine and improve fact-checking in journalism. The program is funded by the Democracy Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Rita Allen Foundation.

The Growth of Fact-Checking

By several measures fact-checking is growing. In the study of the frequency of fact-checking — either original fact-checks or stories about such work — the number of fact-checking stories increased by more than 50 percent from 2004 to 2008 and by more than 300 percent from 2008 to 2012. The growth occurred mostly at 11 newspapers that partnered with PolitiFact, one of the country’s most prominent fact-checking organizations, but the number of such stories also more than doubled between 2008 and 2012 at media outlets unaffiliated with PolitiFact.

The findings on the growth in fact-checking are reinforced by the Reporters’ Lab at Duke University, which found that the number of fully active fact-checking organizations in North America increased from 15 in April 2014 to 22 in January 2015.

The API study, authored by Lucas Graves at the University of Wisconsin, Brendan Nyhan at Dartmouth College and Reifler, also explored what conditions encourage more fact-checking journalism to occur. The researchers found that reporters who are reminded of fact-checking’s journalistic value produce significantly more fact-checking stories than those who are not reminded. Yet, the study found, reminding reporters that readers like fact-checking did not have a statistically significant effect.

Fact-checking and consumer knowledge

A second study, also by Nyhan and Reifler, found that more than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable view of political fact-checking journalism.

But there are some partisan differences in public perceptions of the practice: Republicans don’t view fact-checking journalism as favorably as Democrats do, especially among people with high levels of political knowledge.

Americans also appear to learn from fact-checks written by journalists, the study found. Knowledge of relevant facts increased by 11 percentage points among people who were randomly exposed to a series of fact-checks during the 2014 election, compared to a control group. In general, the study found, fact-checks are more effective among people who already have higher levels of political knowledge.

The study is the first randomized controlled trial estimating the effects of exposure to fact checking over time.

‘Pants on Fire’ Optional

Another of the studies examined the effectiveness of “rating scales” in fact-checking journalism. This research, conducted by Michelle A. Amazeen of Rider University, with Graves, Emily Thorson of George Washington University, and Ashley Muddiman of the University of Wyoming, found that a fact check is an effective tool for correcting political misinformation, whether or not it employs a “rating scale.” When given a choice, however, readers selected a fact check with a rating scale.

Such ratings are used by fact-checking organizations such the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, which uses a Pinocchio scale, and PolitiFact, whose Truth-O-Meter includes the well-known “Pants on Fire” rating.

Fact-checks of inaccurate statements are less persuasive when the reader and politician belongs to opposite political parties, the researchers found. These readers tend to think the opposing party politician’s statement was false, even before they read the correction. For this reason, political fact-checking may be of particular benefit during primary contests, according to the authors, although fact-checking currently is more likely to occur during general election cycles than in primaries.

The study also found that a non-political correction — in this case, regarding a statement made by a breakfast cereal company official — was more effective when a rating scale was added to the text.

The Future of Fact-Checking

Overall the studies suggest that fact-checking is achieving its core aim: countering the spread of political misinformation. And the public largely appreciates this work.

“The results suggest that corrections of misinformation do help people to more accurately understand the world around them,” Amazeen said.

Reifler added, “In short, people like fact-checking and it appears to help them become better informed.”

Read the full studies here:

The Growth of Fact Checking

Estimating Fact-Checking’s Effects

The Effectiveness of Rating Scales

In the coming weeks, API will publish more findings from its fact-checking research, including the prevalence of misinformation on Twitter and a report by journalist Mark Stencel examining the impact of fact-checking on the behavior of those in the political arena.

Back to Ideas

Blog

New Research Reveals Stark Local News Gaps in New Jersey

Tom Glaisyer

August 6, 2015

At the Democracy Fund, we seek to foster a more informed and active electorate by providing voters with the information, opportunities for engagement, and skills they need to make informed choices. A particular focus of this work has been to build up journalism at the local and state house level, and we have supported the Institute for Nonprofit News nationally and more recently the News Voices Project in New Jersey with an objective strengthening news provision at the local level. The latter with the specific objective of collaborations between newsrooms and communities.

We also realize we don’t yet have a full picture of the state of journalism at the city level and that motivated us to support the new research published today by Rutgers University regarding the level of news provision in three New Jersey Communities. From the release:

In “Assessing the Health of Local Journalism Ecosystems: A Comparative Analysis of Three New Jersey Communities,” researchers examined the journalistic infrastructure, output, and performance in the New Jersey communities of Newark, New Brunswick, and Morristown.

The research, supported by the Democracy Fund, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, and Knight Foundation, indicates substantial differences in the volume and quality of reporting. Low income communities saw less coverage than higher income neighboring cities.

In Newark, with a population of 277,000 and a per capita income of $13,009, there are only 0.55 sources of news for every 10,000 people. Whereas, in New Brunswick, with a population of 55,000 and a per capita income of $16,395, there are 2.18 news sources for every 10,000 people. But the differences are most stark in comparison to Morristown, which has a population of 18,000 and a per capita income of $37,573 but 6.11 news sources for every 10,000 people.

These pronounced differences in the availability of sources of journalism were then reflected in how much journalism was produced within these three communities:

Morristown residents received 23 times more news stories and 20 times more social media posts from their local journalism sources per 10,000 capita than Newark residents, and 2.5 times more news stories and 3.4 times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than New Brunswick residents.

New Brunswick residents received 9.3 times more news stories and six times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than Newark residents.

Similar differences across the three communities often persisted when the researchers focused on aspects of the quality of local journalism, such as the extent to which the stories were original (rather than repostings or links to other sources); the extent to which the stories were about the local community; and the extent to which the stories addressed critical information needs, such as education, health, and civic and political life.

Professor Phillip Napoli, the lead author, said, “If journalism and access to information are pillars of self government then these findings suggest those tools of democracy are not being distributed evenly, and that should be cause for concern.”

A study of three communities is not conclusive, and over time we hope that this report will be supplemented by an analysis of a larger number of communities and complemented by others that use complementary research methodologies. That said, we believe the results published today will aid us as we consider how we approach our work and help inform the work of others. As we think further about this we welcome comments below from journalists and others who are at the coalface at this transitional moment.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Elections Program Research: Winter 2019 Roundup

Sarah Cole

March 18, 2019

Democracy Fund’s Elections Program research is off to a strong start in 2019, with the release of the first brief out of the 2018 Democracy Fund-Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials (LEOs)—which will be released in full this summer. The brief focuses on voter education and accessibility and was previewed at the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Conference and the Democracy Fund-Bipartisan Policy Center event on “The Voting Experience: 2018 and the Future.” Outlined below are key insights from the brief, in addition to key insights from the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA) Annual Conference and a grantee spotlight on the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Stay tuned in the coming months as we gear up and plan for the 2020 Presidential Election!

New Research at the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA):

In January, the Southern Political Science Association (SPSA) met for its annual conference in Austin, Texas. Outlined below are the highlights shared by Democracy Fund partners, including:

University of San Diego’s Evan Crawford, Reed College’s Paul Gronke, and Portland State University’s Paul Manson: It’s difficult to interpret survey results from local election officials because of variations in jurisdiction size and work responsibilities.
University of Texas at Austin’s Nadine Suzanne Gibson: While there were no detrimental effects to voter experience or confidence when using private vendor service packages, there were also no data supporting the claim that election services vendors improve the administration of elections.
Auburn University’s Bridgett A. King: State-level election statutes and administration requirements for poll workers have variable effects on whether African American or Hispanic/Latino American voters are more or less likely to see a poll worker that matches their race or ethnicity.
Mississippi State University’s Thessalia Merivaki: There was inconsistent implementation of youth pre-registration in Miami-Dade and Hillsborough Counties in Florida despite uniform rules within the state, meaning that where a pre-registrant lived influenced the odds of whether their applications would be invalidated.
Fairfield University’s Gayle Alberda: In-person early voting had a negative effect on voter turnout in municipal elections across Ohio.

Preview of 2018 LEO Survey Results at NASS and BPC:

In early February, Democracy Fund’s Elections Program participated in two events. First, we sponsored a breakfast at the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Conference that brought secretaries of state and members of the advocacy community together. Second, we partnered with the Bipartisan Policy Center on “The Voting Experience: 2018 and the Future.” At each event, we presented a sneak peek of results from the 2018 Democracy Fund-Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials (LEOs). Some of our preliminary findings include:

LEOs surveyed believe that it is easier today for voters to register and vote, and it is easier for LEOs to administer registration and voting processes;
Ninety percent of LEOs enjoy educating voters, but only 35 percent say that they have the time and resources to do so, along with their responsibilities to administer the election; and
LEOs felt prepared for the 2018 election, and were confident that their states would secure systems from outside interference and successfully count votes as intended.

Note: The full report can be viewed on www.electionline.org under Research and Reports.

Research Grantee Spotlight: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE):

Tuft University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that involvement in the post-Parkland gun violence prevention movement contributed to an increase in youth voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections. Young people under 21 years old who reported being actively involved in the movement were 15 percent more likely to have been contacted by a campaign both before October and in the last six weeks before the election, and young people who reported that they were actively involved in the movement or agreed with it were 21 percentage points more likely to self-report that they voted in the election.

Back to Ideas

Report

Nationscape Insights Dashboard Launches in Partnership with USA Today

Democracy Fund

June 10, 2020

Now researchers, reporters, and armchair pundits have immediate access to America’s diverse views on 40 top policy issues.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Welcome to the Democracy Fund

Joe Goldman

December 17, 2012

Thanks for visiting the new web site of the Democracy Fund. We’re excited to have this space to share the work of our new initiative.

The Democracy Fund was created just over a year ago to support innovators and leaders as they strive to foster a stronger, healthier political system. In its first year, the Democracy Fund committed more than $5 million in grants to more than a dozen organizations. Some, like the Bipartisan Policy Center and the National Institute for Civil Discourse, are working to encourage more bipartisan problem solving so that our government can rise to the challenges that face us. Others, like the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the Healthy Democracy Fund, are arming the public with better information and skills, so that voters can make more informed decisions.

We have also supported research and experimentation to increase the effectiveness of political reform efforts. The New America Foundation, for example, is working with researchers from Dartmouth and the University of Texas to conduct lab and field experiments that will teach us about how media organizations can do a better job exposing readers to alternative points of view and holding leaders accountable for what they say. The Campaign Finance Institute is convening leading scholars in order to identify the most important research questions that must be addressed in order to inform how policy makers approach the issue of money in politics.

democracyfund.org will highlight the work of the social and political entrepreneurs behind these initiatives – telling the story of the progress they make, their accomplishments, and ways that you can get involved to support their work. In the coming weeks and months, we’ll use this blog and the feature sections of this website to report on what is being learned from our grants and to encourage new ways to think about our democracy and where it is headed. On the site, you can also learn more about our priorities, our team, and the criteria we use for making investments. Like any newly launched site this is very much a version 1.0 and we look forward to extending it as we grow and develop.

I hope that you’ll join us on this important journey as we seek to be a resource for the community of reformers committed to strengthening our democracy.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Why I created the Democracy Fund

Pierre Omidyar

January 15, 2013

If anyone was surprised this summer when Gallup announced that only one in ten Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, it was only because they expected the number to be lower. While many honorable, talented men and women represent us in Washington, it is hard to find anyone who feels proud about how our political system is working today.

With good reason, Americans fear that our voices are not being heard in the halls of Congress above the din of big donors and lobbyists. We watch with dismay as our governing institutions have ground to a halt, unable to agree to a budget for the federal government or to pass legislation necessary to meet our greatest challenges. And who can blame Americans for being turned off by a political discourse that is so dominated by the demonization of opponents and deceptive political rhetoric?

When I founded eBay many critics did not believe that “strangers” would buy and sell from other “strangers” over the web. I believed then (as I do now) that the critics were wrong – that people are basically good and would generally operate with trust and goodwill if given the chance. Seventeen years later, eBay still thrives as a community forged by trust and open, transparent communication.

I have seen firsthand technology’s incredible ability to break down barriers and empower individuals to improve the world around them. Technological innovations offer us a powerful tool to overcome many vexing problems. But technology is often not enough. I have also witnessed the vital role that a healthy political system can play in harnessing the energy of the public and building the political will necessary to achieve our greatest goals as a society. While technological innovation and private enterprise are essential ingredients to unleashing the ability of individuals to create change, I believe they must be complemented by good governance and ethical leadership to be truly effective.

Over the last decade, a significant portion of my philanthropy has focused on leveraging technology in ways that can increase the transparency and effectiveness of our government. Omidyar Network grantees like the Sunlight Foundation and Code for America have transformed how we think about the openness of government and the ability of citizens to both hold government accountable and contribute to its ability to solve problems. More recently, I have experimented with new models for how the media can more effectively inform and involve the public through the creation of Honolulu Civil Beat in my home state of Hawaii.

The Democracy Fund will build upon this ongoing work as a new and distinct initiative. The fund will support social entrepreneurs and others working to directly address the conditions that threaten the ability of our government to represent the public’s highest interests, to retain the public’s trust, and to meet the many great challenges that we face. While technology and innovation will remain important to its approach, the initiative will also apply other strategies, like advocacy and policy reform, as well as facilitating communication and collaboration across differences to solve problems.

Specifically, the Democracy Fund is driven by three core beliefs:

First, we believe that our democracy must put the public first in the governance process. We will support efforts to strengthen the public’s voice so that leaders respond to their constituents over large donors and special interests.

Second, we believe that a healthy political system requires a better informed and more active electorate. We will support efforts to equip Americans with tools that allow their voices to be heard and gain easier and better access to the information they need to become engaged and hold our legislators accountable.

Finally, we believe that our government must have the capacity to solve problems constructively if it is to retain the trust of the public. We will support those working to increase dialogue across partisan divides and increase the ability of our system to function through procedural and electoral reforms.

The Democracy Fund will prioritize bipartisan approaches that reflect these principles because we believe sustainable solutions to our problems are only possible with the support of people from all sides.

I am under no illusion that there was a “golden age” in which our politics were pure and unfolded as they have been described in classroom textbooks. Indeed, American democracy is – and always has been – imperfect. We have vigorously (and sometimes violently) disagreed with each other. We have seen egregious corruption and incivility in our campaigns and our governance. And all too frequently, prejudice and fear mongering have produced leaders and policies of which we are now ashamed.

But despite our many limitations, the American republic has often worked quite well. Over time, we have become increasingly more representative, tolerant, and inclusive. Our leaders have risen above their differences to overcome historic challenges. And millions of Americans have rolled up their sleeves to contribute to a robust and dynamic civic experiment that has been the envy of the world.

As a first generation American who came to this country when I was still young, I continue to be inspired by the founding vision of the American republic and believe that through innovation, dialogue, and bipartisan reform we can take steps that will help us realize that vision.

Together, I believe that we can bring our country closer to Abraham Lincoln’s ideal of a government that is truly of, by, and for the people. It is my hope that the Democracy Fund can make significant contributions to reaching this goal.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Our Approach to Polarization and Gridlock

Joe Goldman

February 1, 2013

I thought it would be useful to dedicate a few early posts on our new blog to explaining a bit more about our priorities and the organizations in which we have invested. With this post, I’ll start by talking about our grantees working to encourage greater bipartisan problem solving. Future posts will discuss informed participation and creating a more responsive political system. There is no shortage of data supporting the observation that our system has become more polarized and less productive in recent years. While it used to be the case that there were dozens of Congressmen who ideologically fell between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat, that number has essentially fallen to zero. Certainly, it is no coincidence that our most recent Congress produced the fewest laws in modern history.

While polarization is not necessarily a bad thing (it clarifies choices and motivates participation), the checks and balances of the American political system require our two parties to work together in order for our system to function. Standard and Poors’ explanation for why it downgraded our nation’s credit rating provides a good example for what happens when the ability of Members of Congress to reach principled agreements breaks down. The polarized state of our political system is the result of major political trends that have emerged over several decades, like the regional realignment of southern conservatives to the Republican party and the increased competitiveness for control of Congress since 1994 that has resulted in a permanent campaign environment. At the Democracy Fund, we our under no illusion that there is an easy fix to the situation, but we believe that the current status quo is untenable. To that end, we have been inspired by the work of many organizations trying to make the system work better. Five organizations in particular have received initial grants from the Democracy Fund in order to work on this issue.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Program has marshaled its considerable research and convening capacity to analyze procedural and electoral reforms that have the potential to make a modest difference and reshape political incentives. For example, BPC is currently evaluating reforms that have been enacted by states to improve their redistricting processes and primary elections. They have also produced recommendations about how Congressional rules should change to make the institution work better.
The National Institute for Civil Discourse is a new institution created after Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and 18 others were shot in Tucson in 2011. While no one believes that simply being polite will solve our problems (or that such a goal is even desirable), the basic ability to have conversations about important challenges is a prerequisite to governing in a system like ours. When each side sees the other as the enemy or control by the other side as illegitimate, then the ability to solve problems becomes impossible. NICD and its high profile national board have launched several initiatives to work with members of Congress, state legislatures, media leaders, and others to foster greater trust, civility, and collaboration in our political system.
The Democracy Fund has also supported the Faith & Politics Institute in convening an ideologically diverse group of high profile faith leaders in order to explore the role that they may play in improving the state of our political discourse. Faith leaders hold a unique moral authority in our society and represent millions of Americans. We have been impressed by the genuine and sincere concern that these leaders have brought to the conversation and their personal commitments to contribute to making things better. The group is currently developing a plan for how faith leaders can make an impact over the long-term.
All too often, Americans live in echo chambers in which their assumptions about the world are reaffirmed by the media that they consume. The New America Foundation is working with Professor Talia Stroud at the University of Texas to conduct a series of experiments that seek to understand how media can better expose their readers to other points of view. New America is also supporting research to understand how media can more effectively correct misperceptions and deceptions in ways that overcome cognitive barriers.
Finally, Bloggingheads.tv has launched a unique program, called The Good Fight, which exposes the readers of ideological media sites to civil discussions between pairs of leading thinkers from both sides of the aisle. We’re eager to learn from this program about the degree to which exposure to thoughtful, civil dialogue can impact viewers when they know and trust at least one of the people participating in the dialogue. For example, this dialogue between Brad Smith and Heather Gerken on campaign finance reform shows that advocates from the Left and Right can find some areas of common ground on a highly polarized topic.

The Democracy Fund is still very much in learning mode on this issue and look forward to exploring different strategies for addressing it. While we do not believe there is any silver bullet for reducing hyper-partisanship, we are committed to finding ways that we can make a positive contribution to shifting the political incentives that are driving today’s political behavior. We hope you’ll join us in this important endeavors.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Guest Post: The Engaging News Project

Talia Stroud

February 11, 2013

It is relatively easy to paint a depressing portrait of citizens’ news media use. Fed up with politics and tempted by the lure of more entertaining media, some tune out of politics and public affairs altogether. Others, driven by partisan proclivities, look to news sources that present agreeable views of the world. And facing more intense competition, news organizations struggle to advance both their journalistic and business missions. With these challenges, however, come opportunities. Are there more compelling ways to present news that might attract unengaged citizens? Are there ways to bridge partisan divides when presenting the news? Even more, can the news help people to approach other views with the same charity that they display when approaching views with which they agree? And can all this be done while advancing the bottom line? Answering these questions is the aim of my current research, the Engaging News Project. The goal of the Engaging News Project is to provide practical, research-based techniques for engaging online audiences in commercially-viable and democratically-beneficial ways. To this end, the project tests web-based strategies for informing audiences, promoting civil discourse, and helping citizens to understand diverse views. Systematic testing provides valuable information about what works, as well as what doesn’t. And by advancing both journalistic and business goals, the techniques are designed with contemporary newsrooms in mind. The Engaging News Project exists thanks to a grant from the Democracy Fund through our partners at the New America Foundation. The approach is not a complete overhaul of the news. Many contemporary practices have great merit. Today’s online newsrooms already engage in practices that assist citizens with finding relevant news content, such as providing hyperlinks to accompany news articles. Furthermore, there are numerous opportunities for citizens to interact on news sites, such as by participating in online polls or sharing news content via social media. Site visitors also are offered a forum to visit with others in comment sections. By building on these existing practices, the Engaging News Project represents a practical, research-based way to re-envision how news is presented. Here are four ways in which our project is working to advance these goals.

Links. Hyperlinks are standard fare on news websites. By connecting people to more information, hyperlinks can help news site visitors to find more information and to learn more about important issues facing their communities. And from a business perspective, hyperlinks can improve site stickiness. What affects whether a person clicks on a link? Certainly the topic matters, as does the placement of a link on a page. But the prompts and headers that introduce people to hyperlinks also can have an effect. Labeling a set of links as “Most Popular,” for instance, can encourage people to click on the links to see what others are viewing. In our project, we analyze the effects of different prompts appearing before a set of hyperlinks. Drawing from popular theories about news seeking, we are testing whether a host of different prompts such as “Thanks for keeping up with the news. Be proud of protecting your democracy” affect citizens’ appetite for hard news content and news about different viewpoints.

Buttons. “Like.” Not only is it an indelible component of casual sentence structure, the term also governs how we respond to everything from news articles to comments from our closest friends on Facebook. The term structures responses to online content. A heartwarming story about a local hero? “Like!” But “Like” doesn’t always seem appropriate. An article on a tragic event? It’s hard to hit “Like” in response. A fair-minded, but counter-attitudinal, post in a comment section? It’s challenging to press “Like.” What if news stations used other buttons? What if, instead of “Like,” one could click “Respect”? We are analyzing how different buttons affect citizens’ responses to comments from an online comment section. We want to know whether some buttons – and the concepts they convey – allow commenters to express their appreciation for counter-attitudinal postings more than others.

Polls and Quizzes. Check out the local news websites in your area. Chances are that at least one of them will have a poll on their site. Chances also are good that the poll will not enrich your understanding of the world. It may ask you about entertainment (who wore the best dress at the Golden Globes?). Even if the poll is about an important issue (e.g. do you favor or oppose increased gun control?), the results offer no more insight than surveying a few friends about their thoughts on the issue. Online polls are interesting, and possibly entertaining, but rarely are they helpful for learning about your community. We test whether polls can be presented as quizzes that both engage and inform citizens. How many people do you think believe that gun control should be strengthened in the country? What percentage of the federal budget is dedicated to social security? These questions have answers. The first is based on public opinion data gathered using rigorous methodologies and the second comes from the Congressional Budget Office. We analyze whether different poll formats containing substantive news content can promote poll participation and learning.

Online Discourse. I asked my undergraduate students in “Communication and Public Opinion” what they expected to find in the comment sections below news articles. Their answers? Some were optimistic: diverse views, responses to the news content, and deeper thinking about the topic. But others had quite pessimistic reactions: argument, incivility, discussion dominated by a few voices. Who is right? Our project analyzes the content of online comment sections. Are there some topics that inspire more engagement? What about more civility? As part of the Engaging News Project, we ask whether we can improve the quality of comment sections. If citizens are given a question to answer in the comment section, are they more likely to get involved? And if a reporter engages in the comment section, does this change the substance of the conversation? The analysis will allow us to provide insights about how citizens engage in news comment sections.

These four research projects are designed to advance our understanding of how to create news environments that support substantive engagement with political information and with other citizens. They aim to help news outlets excel at both their journalistic goals and their business endeavors. As we finalize the results in the coming months, we look forward to sharing our findings. We hope that they will provide valuable information to newsrooms and that they will spark more research and innovation in how news can be presented in new, and engaging, formats.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Our Approach to supporting an Informed Electorate

Tom Glaisyer

March 22, 2013

Previously in this space, Joe introduced our grantees working on making the political system more responsive and fostering bipartisan problem solving. In this post I’d like to talk about some of the initial grants we have made towards creating a more informed electorate, a number of which also support our other objectives. Government “by the people” depends on voters having the information and skills needed to govern. Media must combat misinformation, expose voters to different points of view, and inform the public debate. New technology must provide the public with better access to information and better filters for making sense of the news. Our education system must equip citizens with the skills required to decipher the messages they hear from political leaders and through the media. In order to begin to develop our approach in this area, the Democracy Fund has supported research along with a small number of other projects to create a more informed electorate. The research we have supported through the New America Foundation has focused on how the media can correct misinformation and hold political leaders accountable for what they say. Additionally, the New America Foundation research has experimented with how media can expose people to alternative points of view and increase the civility of public engagement online. Parallel to this research, we have supported the following projects:

Blogginghead.tv’s Good Fight project, cultivates respectful dialogue across ideological divides by inviting prominent journalists and intellectuals to take part in civil dialogues and places the videos of these dialogues on the websites of partisan media outlets. The objective of the Good Fight is to break people out of ‘echo chambers’ and to model civil discourse. We have just passed the mid-way point in this grant and are learning a lot about the different ways audiences respond to such dialogues.
CJR’s United States Project (formerly the Swing States Project) helps local reporters do a better job covering politics and policy. During the 2012 campaign, CJR placed media critics in key states across the country to encourage local media to improve their coverage of the campaigns. Now that the election is over, they have added national correspondents to the team. This work has been well received by the community of political journalists and editors across the country and the external assessment we have commissioned indicates that it has encouraged journalists to improve how they cover issues.
Face the Facts, a collaboration between GW University and America Speaks, has sought to insert exhaustively researched and vetted facts into the national conversation through partnerships with online media outlets, radio, and television stations. This has been supported by a set of public engagement tools (quizzes and dialogue tools) to engage the audience more deeply. While the integration of public engagement practices, online technology, and broadcast television is at a relatively early stage we expect to learn a lot from this project about how to incorporate such innovations into our future work.
Flackcheck, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, has sought to identify deceptive and misleading advertising, while supporting television stations and others to counter these deceptions. Among other things, Flackcheck has produced parody videos to raise public awareness about the types of deceptions that are taking place. It has also worked directly with local stations to encourage them to reject deceptive 3rd party ads. In parallel, Flackcheck has provided guidance to stations to support news reporting that educates viewers about deceptions within ads that are being broadcast.
The Healthy Democracy Fund has developed an innovative reform to ensure that voters can make more informed choices about ballot measures. The Citizens Initiative Review convenes random groups of citizens to deliberate about ballot measures and share their assessments with voters via the official state voter guide. To learn more, you can read a recent blog post by Professor John Gastil that describes his evaluation of the Citizens Initiative Review.

We expect to extend the number of people and organizations with which we work to address opportunities to increase the diversity of viewpoints to which the public is exposed as well as foster more sustainable and effective journalistic institutions. Additionally, the Democracy Fund will continue to seek out new innovations in technology and media.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Congratulations to Face the Facts USA

Tom Glaisyer

April 1, 2013

One of our grantees Face the Facts USA has just wrapped up its daily facts. Check out the infographic below to get a sense for what they have accomplished so far.

In just eight months, the Face the Facts team found creative ways to educate the public about 204 facts that are at the center of political discussion. They covered everything from our nation’s debt to the state of our infrastructure and education system. Face the Facts also hosted a wide array of different types of forums to give people a chance to engage with the information more deeply, including Google Hang Outs, interactive cable television events, and one-on-one discussions. The facts were disseminated on 70 radio stations, 75 news web sites and cable channels, and in over 400 McClatchy Tribune publications. The Face the Facts team talks about what they hope they have accomplished so far on this brief video. Congratulations to everyone involved!