Blog Archives

Blog

Guest Post: Supporting a Beleaguered News Industry

Peter Levine

June 17, 2013

(This is the second in a series of blog posts by CIRCLE, which evaluated several initiatives funded by the Democracy Fund to inform and engage voters during the 2012 election. These posts discuss issues of general interest that emerged from specific evaluations. Join CIRCLE for an ongoing discussion of the posts using the hashtag #ChangeTheDialogue, as well as a live chat on Tuesday, June 25th at 2pm ET/1pm CT/11am PT.) Two Democracy Fund grantees—the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) and the Columbia Journalism Review—worked to support reporters and editors in order to improve their election coverage and better inform the public on key issues of national concern. We evaluated these initiatives by interviewing some of the potentially affected journalists, 97 in all. One theme that emerged very clearly was the challenging situation that confronts the news industry. This context has been well documented in other research. For example, according to a study of the changing news environment in Baltimore, conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of news outlets in the city has proliferated to 53 “radio talk shows, . . . blogs, specialized new outlets, new media sites, TV stations, radio news programs, newspapers and their various legacy media websites.” But the number of reporters has fallen. That means there is more written and spoken about the news than ever, but it is highly repetitive. A search of six major news topics found that 83 percent of the articles and blog posts repeated the same material—sometimes with commentary—and more than half the original text came from paid print media such as the Baltimore Sun. In turn, Baltimore’s remaining professional journalists are so overstretched that they cannot provide what is called “enterprise reporting” (digging to find new information not already in the public domain). The city government and other official institutions now have more, rather than less, control over the news. The report notes, “As news is posted faster, often with little enterprise reporting added, the official version of events is becoming more important. We found official press releases often appear word for word in first accounts of events, though often not noted as such.” Our interviews found ample evidence of similar conditions. One reporter said, “the political reporting in our state has shrunk to the point where a lot of the major reporters are ones that have been doing it for decades and, quite frankly, their reporting (and lack of digging) reflects how tired they are.” On the whole, our interviewees were very pleased to be provided with support in the form of CPI’s in-depth reporting and the Columbia Journalism Review’s coverage of their work. For example:

“Without that kind of work I don’t know how one could sort themselves through what’s happened, unless they’ve been following for the past 5 years.”

“Without Open Secrets and CPI I don’t know how a journalist who is new could figure this stuff out.”

They noted various ways in which these interventions had affected them. They mentioned learning about good practices that are used in other newspapers, getting ideas for stories, and encouraging high quality work. Commenting on the CJR’s effort, one reporter said, “It sort of serves as a watchdog to remind people to do a good job, to do a thorough job, to look for fresh angles, to dig beneath the surface, and, ah, hopefully those are things that I’m doing already.” Local coverage emerged as an area that needs special attention and support. As a reporter told us, “One of the faults with journalism coverage and journalism criticism, in general, is that it tends to focus on the big national players and the big national issues. And as we’ve seen a number of major publications pull back on local coverage …, it’s become all the more important that we have some sort of press criticism function taking care of local media and engaging with local media. And I think that a lot of reporters working locally and regionally would benefit from that sort of attention and that sort of engagement as well.” There were, however, a few concerns that also related to the limited capacity and fragile financial condition of the news industry. CPI’s model is to provide in-depth reporting that news sources can use in writing their own articles and broadcasts, and a few respondents were worried that CPI might become a competitor for readers. The Columbia Journalism Review wrote appreciative as well as critical articles about political news coverage, but a few respondents felt that these articles did not demonstrate adequate sensitivity to the limited capacity of local newsrooms. Although most interviewees were pleased with the CJR’s coverage, the relatively few respondents who felt it was unfair were likely to think that the CJR’s correspondent had overlooked their limited capacity to accomplish what was being suggested. CIRCLE’s interviews suggest the following conclusions:

Because of staffing cuts and turnover in the profession, the news media struggles to cover politics. They are aware of their difficult situation and generally grateful for assistance.

Providing high-quality information and constructive criticism does change reporters’ behavior.

Professionals in the news media are understandably somewhat sensitive about being given advice unless the person offering it recognizes the practical limitations they face.They are also concerned about being manipulated by ostensibly nonpartisan organizations that they fear may have partisan objectives. (See our previous blog post on the problem of distrust.)

Interventions designed to support the news media should not inadvertently compete with the news media by taking away readers or viewers.

The previous entries in the series can be accessed below: 1 – Educating Voters in a time of Political Polarization

Back to Ideas

Blog

Guest Post: Educating Voters in a Time of Political Polarization

Peter Levine

June 13, 2013

(This is the first in a series of blog posts by CIRCLE, which evaluated several initiatives funded by the Democracy Fund to inform and engage voters during the 2012 election. Our posts discuss issues of general interest that emerged from the specific evaluations.) During the 2012 campaign season, the Democracy Fund’s grantees experimented with a wide range of strategies to educate and engage the public. Some produced videos and other educational content to directly inform the views of voters. Others worked with journalists to improve the information that the public receives through local and national media. In all cases, CIRCLE’s evaluations found that the public’s polarization made it significantly more difficult for these efforts to achieve their goals; polarized individuals often resisted the messages and opportunities offered to them. Americans perceive the nation as deeply divided along political lines. In February 2013, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, 76 percent of registered voters said that American politics had become more divisive lately and 74 percent believed that this trend was harmful. Academics disagree somewhat about the degree of polarization and whether it has become worse over time, but few doubt that political polarization can exacerbate fear and distrust, prevent people from understanding alternative perspectives and considering challenges to their own views, and reduce the chances of finding common ground. The challenges of engaging polarized citizens emerged clearly in CIRCLE’s evaluations. For example, Flackcheck.org produced parody videos that taught viewers to reject deceptive campaign advertisements. In testing whether these videos were effective, we showed representative samples of Americans real campaign advertisements that we considered misleading. One example, “Obamaville,” produced by Rick Santorum’s campaign, displayed President Obama’s face alternating with that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a television screen in a post-apocalyptic setting:

More than 80% of Democrats but fewer than 20% of Republicans considered this video “invalid and very unfair.” Among the Republican viewers, some made comments like this:

“It does make him look like a threat…He is a threat to the United States and the well being of the people and welfare of our country…”

“Tells the truth about Obama”

“TO SHOW VERY CLEARLY WHAT OBAMA IS DOING AND TAKING THIS BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY! BELIEVE IN OBAMAVILLE”

We showed a different sample of respondents a MoveOn advertisement entitled “Tricky Mitt,” in which Mitt Romney’s image faded into Richard Nixon’s:

More than 70% of Republicans and less than 10% of Democrats considered that video “invalid and very unfair.” Some Democrats made critical comments about “Tricky Mitt” (e.g., “Accusatory, urges the viewer to associate guilt with Romney, not reflective of what I expect from politicians”), but many were positive about the video, saying things like this:

“excellent”

“entertaining and points out the crookedness of Romney”

“Giving us information that we didn’t know about. All true”

“I think it exposed the truth about Romney of what kind of person he really is.”

Essentially, people approved of ads that supported their own partisan position and criticized or invalidated ads that threatened their preexisting beliefs, although both ads we tested were deceptive. We also evaluated Bloggingheads.TV videos, which showed pundits of opposite political persuasion taking part in civil discussions about controversial issues. We asked people who watched various videos a scale of questions that measured their openness to the other side. An example of a question in this scale was “I have revised my thinking on the issue.” Regardless of which video they watched, the strong partisans were always less open to deliberation. Strongly polarized statements also emerged in many of the open-ended questions that CIRCLE asked of Democracy Fund grantees. For example, we asked a representative sample whether they ever shared political videos. Out of 195 respondents who chose to explain why they did so, 24% mentioned anti-Obama goals, often adding very strongly worded comments against the president. (“Obama confessing to being a Muslim”; “A black heavy set lady going on about Obama care, and that we should go ahead and work to pay for her insurance”; “Michelle Obama whispering to B.O., ‘all this over a flag!’”; “I come from a military family and I am extremely offended by the both of them. I have never seen a more un-American couple in the White House!”). Another 17% percent mentioned anti-Romney videos, often the Mother Jones video about the “47%.” Some of the Democracy Fund grantees did not directly influence average citizens, but rather worked to support professionals in newspapers or broadcast stations. In general, these journalists, editors, and station managers seemed less prone to partisanship than average citizens. However, some reporters expressed skepticism about the neutrality of Flackcheck.org and wondered whether it had a partisan agenda. “I am suspicious of so-called non-partisan fact checkers,” one said. A broadcast station-manager, asked how he or she would react to being told that a given ad was misleading, said, “It would be difficult to determine the true nature of the intent [behind the criticism] or that the third party was indeed unbiased.” These responses suggest that an atmosphere of polarization and distrust may create challenges even for organizations that work with nonpartisan professionals. Going forward, the Democracy Fund and its grantees may consider a range of possible strategies, such as:

Focusing at least some attention on youth and young adults, since young people tend to be less committed to partisan and ideological views and still open to and interested in alternatives.
Finding ways to get people of different ideological persuasions into sustained contact with each other, since simply knowing fellow citizens with different views makes it more difficult to stereotype and demonize them. Actually collaborating with a diverse group of people on some kind of shared goal can be especially helpful.
Experimenting with new messages and formats that educate polarized adults more effectively.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Guest Post: Learning from the Democracy Fund’s Early Grants

Peter Levine

June 5, 2013

Last year, the Democracy Fund made a series of inaugural grants during the 2012 election that experimented with different approaches to informing voters, exposing them to alternative points of view, and reducing the influence of deceptive political communications. CIRCLE (the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at Tufts University), was asked to evaluate these projects in order to learn more about their reach and influence. The evaluations were conducted by myself and the rest of the CIRCLE team. Two experiments involved disseminating videos online in order to change viewers’ responses to misleading or divisive political rhetoric:

Flackcheck.org produced video parodies of deceptive campaign ads in order to immunize the public from the deceptions.

Bloggingheads.tv produced videos featuring civil disagreement with the goal of increasing viewers’ respect for people with different points of view.

Two experiments involved convening selected citizens for some kind of discussion or interaction with peers:

“Face the Facts” experimented with a variety of different methods for educating and engaging people about key facts, ranging from info-graphics to Google Hangouts. (This experiment was evaluated by Prof. John Gastil and Dave Brinker of Penn State University, on a subcontract from CIRCLE)

The Healthy Democracy Fund’s “Citizens Initiative Reviews” asked small groups of citizens to make recommendations about pending ballot initiatives in Oregon and disseminated their recommendations to voters through the state’s official voter guide. (evaluated by John Gastil)

Three experiments involved helping or influencing professional journalists or media outlets to produce news that would serve the public better:

Flackcheck’s “Stand by Your Ad” campaign urged broadcasters to reject deceptive campaign ads and encouraged local stations to run “ad watches”.

The Columbia Journalism Review’s “Swing States Project” attempted to improve the quality of local media coverage of the election by commissioning local media critics to critique coverage.

The Center for Public Integrity’s “Consider the Source” provided in-depth reporting on campaign finance issues.

In a series of blog posts over the coming weeks, we will share some of the findings that emerged from these evaluations. We will not focus on which particular interventions were effective, but rather on broad themes that are relevant for anyone who seeks to improve the quality of public engagement during a political campaign. The topics of our blog posts will be: 1. Educating Voters in a Time of Political Polarization 2. Supporting a Beleaguered News Industry 3. How to Reach a Large Scale with High-Quality Messages 4. Tell it Straight? The Advantages and Dangers of Parody 5. Educating the Public When People Don’t Trust Each Other 6. The Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Stay tuned for the first of these six posts which will be coming soon. Peter Levine is the Executive Director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Reflections from a Stormy Election Day in Ohio

June 5, 2013

Election Day, Cleveland, Ohio 2004. I participated in an election observation trip for the newly established U.S. Election Assistance Commission, travelling around Cuyahoga County, Ohio, from dawn until dusk. The goal was to observe as many different kinds of polling places as possible—more than a dozen locations that spanned Cleveland’s diverse neighborhoods. One polling place in particular sticks out in my mind as emblematic of the difficulties that we faced, then and now, in improving election administration. It was in a location in the east side of Cleveland—one with a higher percentage of African-American voters. Rain had started to fall, and while the line was long when we arrived—just before the lunchtime rush—it grew, snaking around the block so that the entrance to the polling place was no longer visible at the end of the line. What was the problem? After observing the polling place and talking to some of the frustrated poll workers, the answer soon became clear.

More than half of the voting stations—where voters were allowed to complete their ballots—were not set up and sat abandoned at the corner of the room. The chief poll worker saw that there was a greater number of voting system plugs compared to the electrical outlets in the polling place, and believed they only had power to assemble half of the machines. Sadly, no-one recognized that: (a) the voting machines could be plugged, one into the other, ‘daisy chain’ style and (b) that because the system of voting was the last of the ‘punch card’ system—the purpose of the electricity was not to ‘power’ the machine, but to operate the light on the top of a movable, privacy-enhanced portable table. These problems were not intractable. The first element of the problem could’ve been solved by clear instructions, better pollworker training, or clearly labeled election equipment. The second element of the problem could’ve been solved by ensuring that the polling booths were more closely placed near the ample windows in the polling place, using backup, battery powered lights, or asking voters to cope with the existing light inside the facility. There was no apparent effort to suppress the vote at that polling place—there was just poor education, poorly designed election equipment, and limited ‘fail-safes’ built into the system to fix the problem once it had been identified. If it could be identified.

Some have asked: what’s the harm with long lines? Isn’t democracy worth waiting for? Sure, and we all should be willing to put up with some level of inconvenience in order to cast our votes. No-one should expect voting to be instantaneous, but it is also unreasonable to suggest that voters must undergo a ‘red badge of courage’ –extreme personal inconvenience while waiting in line—in order to prove their patriotism. Many working men and women do not have schedules that allow them to wait for hours to vote. Americans make sacrifices to vote every time they leave work early, skip a comfortable lunch at their desk, or pay for an extra hour of babysitting service. Those sacrifices can be financial, personal or reputational. That much was clear in the rainy polling place in Cleveland. I overheard many cell phone conversations between folks waiting in line and their bosses—pleading that ‘they knew their lunch hour was over, but they’re almost to the front of the line.’ Exasperated voters would try to get the attention of poll workers and let them know they’d been in line over two hours. Dismay was palpable on the faces of folks who were about to get in trouble at work and needed to pick up their children, and with a huff, abandoned the line. The breakdown of order at that polling place challenged the faith in democracy of many that day, and many voters (at that precinct alone) left the lines without casting a ballot. They just ran out of time.

I raise this example from Ohio in 2004 because it highlights the complications that can occur from one key error in administration: the failure to deploy available voting machines. These mistakes are by no means representative of most election officials, or poll workers, who put in long hours for limited to no pay in service to our democracy. However, as we are looking to ways to improve our electoral processes, it’s important for every actor with responsibility to fully examine the fault lines in elections. Election administration seems like every other public administration challenge—except it’s different. It’s almost entirely staffed by temporary employees; it is governed by a host of local, state and federal legal requirements; ‘Election Day’ proper happens only once (without the ability to have a ‘do-over’); there is limited ability to control when voters try to access the service; and there is significant pressure for officials to ‘report’ initial results the very same day.

There are few other government functions that are required to operate with that size and scope, and under as big a microscope as elections. That is why a sustained focus on efforts to innovate and improve the process is necessary. A nine year old example is still relevant today, as we continue to struggle with problems of long lines, inaccuracy in registration, and limited adoption of cutting-edge technology. In this first of regular blog posts for the Democracy Fund site, it is my goal to try to highlight problems, complexities and opportunities in the administration of elections and issues related to the undue influence of money in politics, as well as showcase the work and research of the Democracy Fund’s grantees. In all of these areas, it is clear there is no silver bullet, just a variety of options and strategies that will improve the election process over time, and allow a more engaged public to work to improve the process. The more that officials can focus on best practices and improved metrics to judge whether or not our political processes are working, the better off we’ll be.

Anything that can be done to improve the structure of election administration and the campaign finance system is merely ‘setting of the stage’ for participation to occur. It is the candidates, the parties, the advocacy groups, and ultimately the citizens that must engage in the political process; to contribute (or not), to register (or not), to vote (or not) based on their views and circumstances. I would like to think that we look for ways to reduce artificial barriers, to support the local and state officers who run elections, to look for ways to ensure average Americans can engage and have a meaningful impact into the electoral process. That is what those voters in line on that rainy day in Ohio were hoping for; the ability to cast their ballots without undue delay, and then continue their daily routine.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Improving Local Coverage

Greg Marx

May 17, 2013

When my colleagues and I at the Columbia Journalism Review began the Swing States Project—critiquing and seeking to improve the quality of coverage in nine key states during the 2012 campaign—we weren’t sure quite how we would be received. Nobody likes a backseat driver, after all, and morale in many newsrooms—especially those owned by “legacy” media companies—is not necessarily high at the moment. To be sure, we ended up with our share of angry emails, tweets, and phone calls from journalists around the country who felt our critiques hadn’t quite found the right line. But we were pleased to discover that, far more often than not, reporters and editors were open to what our team of correspondents had to say—even when it was critical. They were keen to employ suggestions about how local TV station records can reveal who’s spending big money to swing election results, and eager to learn best practices for beating back political misinformation. When local reporters came across outstanding journalism, they would often share it with our writers, and of course, they appreciated it when we praised their good work. Most gratifying of all, we encountered journalists who engaged with our critique of their work—who pushed us to be better critics, and who were ready to be pushed to better serve their communities. Much has been said and written—including, fairly recently, at CJR.org—about the diminution of public-affairs coverage at the state and local level. The numbers showing a decline in reporters and in story counts are indeed grim, and, as we observed firsthand during 2012, coverage in many markets is patchy. But we also saw plenty of examples of “laurel”-worthy coverage, and an appetite for resources, tools, and know-how that will allow journalists to cover politics and policy better. As our initiative has evolved in 2013 into the United States Project, we have tried to meet that appetite. Our correspondents in the Mountain West, the Great Lakes, the Midwest, the mid-Atlantic, California, Florida, and Texas monitor coverage of federal, state, and even city issues in their regions, highlighting stellar work and identifying missed opportunities. They cover the experimentation in editorial and business-side models to support this sort of journalism in a challenging economic environment. And they are building networks of reporters with which they share resources, reporting strategies, and story ideas. Along with our regional roster, we have five “national” contributors—writers on the healthcare, tax and budget, money-in-politics, and factchecking beats, plus a roving reporter. Their subject-area expertise is a resource for our entire team, and they regularly produce primers on coverage of complicated subjects—like the rollout of the new health insurance “exchanges,” or how to tell when your congressman is skirting ethics laws to enjoy a lobbyist-sponsored junket—designed to be of use to state and local political reporters. Going forward, we expect to find new harmonies both among the regional roster and between the regional and national teams. As we look ahead to the 2014 elections and the many policy battles to be fought (and covered) before then, our goal is that the project will serve as a second layer of editorial support—providing practical guidance and constructive criticism, and exhorting journalists around the country to set ambitious standards for their work. For many years, CJR’s motto was “Strong press, strong democracy.” It’s not just the “press” anymore—but the old aphorism still applies.

Back to Ideas

Blog

7 Submissions Worth Watching at Looking@Democracy

Joe Goldman

May 10, 2013

There are just a few days left to vote on the submissions for the MacArthur Foundation’s Looking@Democracy competition. $100,000 in prizes are available for short, provocative media pieces that either tell a story about why government is important to our lives or tell how we might together strengthen American democracy. Almost 400 entries have been submitted. I certainly have not viewed them all, but I did look at quite a few. I found myself drawn to the videos that explore how different types of people can come together and find common ground, as well as a few very well made videos from organizations that I respect. Here are 7 submissions that you may want to take a look at while voting is still open (until May 16):

Reinventing Democracy Through Participatory Budgeting: A brief video that explores how participatory budgeting has empowered people in New York, Chicago, and elsewhere. Participatory Budgeting is an innovative process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. It gives ordinary people real power over real money, letting them work with government to make the budget decisions that affect their lives.

The Chamomile Tea Party: The Chamomile Tea Party was formed in 2010 by designer Jeff Gates to work towards a more effective dialogue about the future of America. To this end, graphic designer Jeff Gates has been remixing World War II propaganda posters with new text about the rancor so prevalent in American political and cultural discourse.

Bring It to the Table: “Bring It to The Table” encourages Americans to stop blaming the ‘other side,’ examine their own assumptions, and take responsibility for strengthening our democracy. This project is an online platform, series of short videos, and community engagement campaign aimed at bridging political divides and breaking down partisanship. It is meant to spark a movement of citizens leading the charge for civil discourse.

Purple Couples on Red/Blue Union: Meet five red/blue couples whose plight mirrors America’s: divided by politics, wedded to a shared future. But unlike red/blue politicians, purple couples realize they can’t wriggle out of this bind. When they square off, sparks fly. They stick by their guns (sometimes literally), but they move forward, together. The videos are a project of PurpleStates.tv.

Living Room Conversations: A video showing how the founder of MoveOn can cometogether in conversation with the founder of the Tea Party Patiots. A project of LivingRoomConversations.

Civic Hacking in Pursuit of Democracy: This video from the Sunlight Foundation tells the story of a nascent community of civic hackers who are building apps and tools that benefit their communities and changing the face of democracy using open government data.

Work Together: A series of paintings by Keith Grace inspiring non-partisan cooperation.

Kudos to the MacArthur Foundation for attracting some interesting and compelling art about our democracy.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Campaign Finance Research and Experiments

Joe Goldman

April 30, 2013

The Democracy Fund approved two new research grants earlier this year that will help us to better understand more about how certain campaign finance reforms work in practice, as well as the potential role of technology to improve the regulation of campaign financing. A $300,000 grant to researchers from Fordham University, Columbia University, and Binghamton University will support an innovative set of field experiments that aim to shed new light on the relationship between money and our political system, as well as how well reforms like increased disclosure and the use of public funds to match small donations work. The Democracy Fund chose to support this research because we believe that the data on many critical questions about money in politics remain unclear. The unique application of field experiments offer reformers, policy makers, and the courts with definitive answers to some of these questions that lie at the heart of current legislative and judicial debates. The two-year research project is led by Professors Don Green of Columbia University, Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, and Jonathan Krasno of Binghamton University. Green is a leading pioneer in the application of field experiments to the realm of elections, campaigns, and our democracy. A $50,000 grant to Reinvent Albany will support research into how regulators in New York State could use technology to modernize the reporting and compliance of campaign finance contributions under a proposed small-donor matching system that is being considered in Albany. Working with a team of local technologists and experts, the Reinvent Albany team will assess the needs of candidates, regulators, and the public as it develops recommendations for how technology may be able to streamline the process, encourage greater accountability, and foster a stronger campaign finance system The Democracy Fund chose to support this research project because we believe it will offer unique insight into the bipartisan application of technology to improve how our campaign finance system operates. In the coming months, we look forward to updating you on the progress of these two exciting new grants.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Recognizing and Rejecting Patterns of Deception

Kathleen Hall Jamieson

April 18, 2013

During the 2012 election, FlackCheck.org flagged two different kinds of recurrent deceptions to put candidates on notice and increase public understanding of the substance of presidential campaigns. The first featured fabulations such as ‘Romney opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest’ and “Obama ‘gutted’ the work requirement in welfare reform”— that persisted in the face of debunking by the major fact checkers. The second drew on campaign rhetoric to illustrate “patterns” – including false logic and misleading uses of language— that campaigns use to invite false inferences or propel audiences toward unjustified conclusions.

Two statements made by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich exemplify what we mean by a pattern of deception. In late 2011, Gingrich claimed that “I balanced the budget for four straight years…” and last summer Clinton said, “I gave you four surplus budgets for the first time in more than 70 years…”

Instead of crying “false” (because their level of self-congratulation is unwarranted) or “partially true” (because each did play a role in balancing budgets), the Detecting Patterns of Deception page identifies the misleading move that Clinton and Gingrich share as “Overestimating an Individual’s Power.” Each is claiming full credit for balanced budgets when the plaudits should be shared with many others, ranging from the Congressmen who supported the deficit reduction packages of two administrations to the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and those who created the tech boom of the 1990s. Efforts to reject misleading moves and deception have been around for a long time. Since Aristotle defined thirteen fallacies, theorists have fashioned primers to protect audiences from seductive errors in reasoning and machinations that cloud judgment. Flackcheck’s Detecting Patterns of Deception page has followed this tradition, defining and illustrating 28 deceptive patterns clustered into six categories: Overestimating Power, Misleading Language, Misleading Audio-Visual Cues, Not Telling The Whole Story, False Logic, and Hypocritical Attack. With this work, we are targeting those too young to have developed the strong partisan reflexes that produce confirmation bias. We expect that regular exposure to the Detecting Patterns of Deception page will teach even those who rationalize their own side’s excesses to spot the sorts of recurrent moves that would have made Machiavelli proud. In the ‘more difficult but doable’ category of goals, we expect that our explanations will increase our audience’s understanding of how these inference-forging moves mislead. A tougher objective aspires, over time, to translate recognition and understanding into disapproval. In the “maybe under some circumstances” box, we hope (but with longer odds) that among at least some of our audience, our process of labeling, defining, explaining, and illustrating will lead them to reject the deceptive pattern regardless of the ideology of the candidate or cause employing it. Put more technically, the Detecting Patterns of Deception pilot project assumes that IF: a) We craft clear definitions that schematize the relationships among our Patterns of Deception, b) Identify cogent exemplars from both left and right to populate those schemas, and c) Over time familiarize those who have not yet formed strong partisan attachments (i.e., high school and first year college students) with the categories embodied in the labels, the explanations of why each is problematic, and illustrations of the misleading moves from both left and right, THEN WE WILL: d) Enhance audience political acuity by increasing recognition, understanding of the misleading nature, disapproval and rejection of misleading moves in ongoing campaigns and issue debates regardless of their source and do so without activating cynicism. To see how well the categories illumine the gun control debate take a look at the rhetoric we’ve labeled “out of context”. “overgeneralization,” “ad hominem,” “slippery slope”, “red herring”, “false categorical” and “guilt by association.”

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!

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.