Opinion

Jack Shafer

More media won’t solve political ignorance

By Jack Shafer
October 8, 2013

The surplus of quality journalism in print, on the Web, and over the air should give the public little to no excuse for being uninformed about political issues. Never before has so much raw and refined political intelligence been available at such a low cost to citizens willing to buy a cheap computer and Web connection — or pay the bus fare to the local public library.

But uninformed the people are, as Ilya Somin delineates in his subversive new book, Democracy and Political Ignorance, and their ignorance is willful!

“The sheer depth of most individual voters’ ignorance may be shocking to readers not familiar with the research,” Somin writes on his first page. Many Americans don’t know how the government works, they don’t know much about who runs the government, and they’re clueless about how government programs work. For instance, a 2006 Zogby poll reported that only 42 percent of respondees could name the three branches of government. In another survey from that year, only 28 percent could name two or more of the five rights in the First Amendment, and a 2002 study indicated that 35 percent believed that the words “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” could be found in the Constitution. CNN found in its 2011 poll that Americans estimated on average that foreign aid consumes 10 percent of the federal budget when it actually takes up less than 1 percent.

Our political ignorance is as enduring as it is pervasive. When the Pew Research Center study compared the political knowledge of 1989 respondents with those from 2007 it found the advent of multiple 24-hour news channels, the C-SPAN channels, and hundreds of news sites on the Web had not moved the political ignorance dial in any appreciable way. Nor have massive rises in education over the past half-century put a dent in political ignorance, Somin finds. “On an education-adjusted basis, political knowledge may actually have declined, with 1990s college graduates having knowledge levels comparable to those of high school graduates in the 1940s,” he writes, even though IQ scores have been rising.

Assuming that political ignorance is a supply-side problem, some of our European friends have legislated an increase in political TV programming on private and public stations. That seems to have boosted political knowledge but most of the observed increases appear to be in the realm of international news. But Somin cautions his audience into reading too much in that finding: Americans have long exhibited less an interest in international news than those living in smaller European countries.

The public has been cashing the information dividends tossed off by new information technologies. But as Somin and others point out, most Americans are spending most of their new wealth on entertainment media — more football, more baseball, more online games, more movies and TV shows, and lots and lots more social media — and comparatively little on political information. Well-informed audiences are more likely to avail themselves to the new technologies to become better informed, according to a recent paper (pdf) Somin cites, “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout,” by Markus Prior. Total minutes of daily news consumption between 1994 and 2012 is down for all age groups, a 2012 Pew study reports.

We could try to mimic Europe — if the First Amendment allowed — and mandate more political news on TV, in print, and on the Web; government could regulate political news content in an attempt to increase its quality; and it could even be directly producing political news that it, and not PBS or NPR, supervised.

This sort of government intervention into the news media would be rightly attacked as political indoctrination and state propaganda, although Somin doubts (as do I) that the programs would have much effect on the populace. After all, unless drugged, strapped down in a straitjacket, and fitted with lidlocks, who would voluntarily watch Government Television when so much other stuff is available on cable and the Web? I doubt if even mandatory neural implants could change political IQ. As Somin puts it, “low political knowledge levels are primarily caused by lack of demand for information not lack of supply.”

Far from despairing at rampant and willful political ignorance, Somin accepts it as rational response in most cases, citing the work of economist Anthony Downs and his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy. “Voters have little incentive to become informed because there is only an infinitesimal chance that any one vote will affect the outcome of an election,” Somin writes. Governmental functions have become so numerous and complicated, he continues, “few will take the time and effort to assimilate more than a small amount of political information.” For this reason, he states elsewhere in his book, we should be grateful that voter turnout is as low as it is, because increased turnout is often likely to increase the electoral effects of political ignorance by encouraging the unmotivated to vote.

If political ignorance can’t be eradicated, what is a democracy to do? Somin scours the literature for alternatives, discussing (among others) the “Deliberation Day” option, in which voters would be paid to attend political presentations by the parties; the restriction of voting rights to the informed citizens only; and the delegation of the political authority to experts (think of an appointed Federal Reserve Board running the government instead of the U.S. Congress).

None of the alternatives impress Somin, who brings his book to a close by suggesting that if the American people don’t know anything about their government and they don’t want to know anything about it — that if they’re not interested in monitoring and tending the colossus they’ve built — then maybe it shouldn’t exist on the scale that it does. He doesn’t put it in exactly those terms, but he does hold that downsizing and decentralizing the federal government would reduce the labor required to keep informed and thereby reduce voter ignorance.

“Democratic control of government works better when there is less government to control,” Somin concludes. As the public’s information options increase at Moore’s Law pace, no voter is ever likely to invest in knowing it completely until it shrinks.

PHOTO: A man reads morning newspapers from around the United States at the Newseum in Washington October 1, 2013. REUTERS/Gary Cameron 

******

Trust me, you won’t need lidlocks to read Somin’s book all the way to the end. It’s a brief 199 pages. Send brief and knowledgeable emails to Shafer.Reuters@gmail.com. In any given week, I put 10 times more effort into my Twitter feed than I do reading about state and local politics. Sign up for email notifications of new Shafer columns (and other occasional announcements). Subscribe to this RSS feed for new Shafer columns.

Comments
9 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

You’re assuming those “news” channels are actually providing news. They’re not, they are entertainment channels. They pretend to provide news, but news doesn’t make as much money as entertainment. And now with newspapers dying out, and trying to compete with those “news” networks and websites, we get even less news.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive
 

“The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.”

Heed the Hersh: http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-b log/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa- american-media

Posted by satori23 | Report as abusive
 

The public is drugged in a figurative sense. They live mostly in the soft fantasy worlds created for them. Gangnam Style gets 1 billion hits. A public address by the president gets 100 000. It is not the 1st time the public have fallen asleep – the most infamous time being the German public of WWII, where otherwise good people allowed evil deeds to be done in their name. Beware USA, for history can repeat itself.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive
 

Since 90% of the news media are subsidiaries of the Democratic Party, which is the government party, more access to existing news media would just increase government power even faster. We’re in a downward spiral toward totalitarianism from which there seems to be no exit.

Posted by NSJ4 | Report as abusive
 

Don’t forget, much of the apathy to learning political stuff is because we are the world’s largest most affluent society/nation ever, and things are running relatively well, compared to 1848, 1930, pick any of several decades the past 200 years.
So for most people it’s doesn’t seem worth it to worry their pointed little heads about all that crap they see being fulminated about on cable and network TV news shows.
In other words, it perhaps is not an irrational choice to ignore, practically, the political arena.
And the metaphor of the fat little rich kid isn’t entirely inappropriate to apply to Americans: we are spoiled in many respects and don’t think we have to worry about many of the “big” issues in life: mom and dad can worry about that….

Posted by mplstim | Report as abusive
 

Jack Shafer somehow manages to ignore the principal cause of the ignorance he deplores—the failure to teach civics, geography, history, and grammar in American primary and secondary schools. In 1946 in my junior high school we studied rather intensively the newly formed United Nations—its structure and its functions. Unfortunately, in view of its present irrelevance, this was a waste of time. But is was a noble effort nevertheless. On the subject of grammar, Mr. Shafer will find if he listens carefully, that the past participle is rapidly disappearing in the speech of people below a certain age. Just yesterday a New York Times writer used “proved” rather than “proven”. In the crime shows I like to watch, the detectives and attorneys invariably say that “the body was found ‘laying’ on the floor”. Television is and always will be, an entertainment medium. That is also what our schools are in the process of becoming.

Posted by JamesCurrin | Report as abusive
 

Mandatory test for the right to vote. Only qualified, educated citizens have the right to vote…similar to a driver’s license.

Posted by sarkozyrocks | Report as abusive
 

Given the 14th amendment section 4 says government debts will be paid, the whole shut down will turn out to be a way for Obama to cut program he does not care for but are popular with Democrats and blame it on the Republicans. The Republicans can then tell their tea party we got the cuts for you.

Nothing like having two honest strait talking political parties. They would not think of making everyone change their investment plans because of a Washington play. Not to mention collecting contributions under false pretenses. I sent the Democrats $250 before I my attention was drawn to section 4 of the 14th amendment.

Posted by Samrch | Report as abusive
 

“Somin [suggests] that if the American people [aren't] interested in monitoring and tending the colossus they’ve built — then maybe it shouldn’t exist on the scale that it does…that…Democratic control of government works better when there is less government to control…”. Hear, Hear!

I also think that injustice is being done here to the word “ignorance”. We are all born ignorant. The condition is thus universal and unavoidable. Fortunately there are two antidotes: experience and knowledge.

True “political ignorance” only exists when individuals refuse the help that is universally and freely available. Such conscious choice, usually evidenced by the extremes of not voting or of casting a “straight ticket” ballot. So I would suggest such extremes as beyond ignorance and proclaim each “POLITICAL STUPIDITY”.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •