Our Disinformed Electorate

[BridgeTheGap]

We saw more aggressive fact-checking by journalists in this election than ever before. Unfortunately, as a post-election Annenberg Public Policy Center poll confirms, millions of voters were bamboozled anyway.

More than half of U.S. adults (52 percent) said the claim that Sen. Barack Obama's tax plan would raise taxes on most small businesses is truthful, when in fact only a small percentage would see any increase.

More than two in five (42.3 percent) found truth in the claim that Sen. John McCain planned to "cut more than 800 billion dollars in Medicare payments and cut benefits," even though McCain made clear he had no intent to cut benefits.

The first falsehood was peddled to voters by McCain throughout his campaign, and the second was made in a pair of ads run heavily in the final weeks of the campaign by Obama.

These aren't isolated examples. One in four (25.6 percent) of those who earned too little to have seen any tax increase under Obama's plan nevertheless believed that he intended to "increase your own federal income taxes," accepting McCain's repeated claims that "painful" tax hikes were being proposed on "families." Nearly two in five (39.8 percent) thought McCain had said he would keep troops in combat in Iraq for up to 100 years, though he'd actually spoken of a peacetime presence such as that in Japan or South Korea. Close to one in three (31 percent) believed widely disseminated claims that Obama would give Social Security or health care benefits to illegal immigrants, when in fact he would do neither.

We're not surprised. As we wrote in "unSpun: finding facts in a world of disinformation," the same thing happened in 2004 when majorities of voters believed untrue things that had been fed to them by the Bush and Kerry campaigns.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/174299?GT1=43002

[Captain Hilts]

1. And folks here thought Obama was a progressive that would lead a filibuster against FISA...

we see what we want to see.

[fasttense]

2. Some of those beliefs were based on what the candidates said.

For example: "Nearly two in five (39.8 percent) thought McCain had said he would keep troops in combat in Iraq for up to 100 years, though he'd actually spoken of a peacetime presence such as that in Japan or South Korea."

McCain sang the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran song and said the 100 year remark. True those statements taken in context did not mean he was proposing to voters to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, but it clearly showed his love for more war and a very significant presence in Iraq. Voters were reading between the lines in that case.

In other cases, particularly when the opposing candidate misrepresented their opponents position, voters beliefs were not based on reality.

The bottom line is voters need to listen to what candidates say and read between the line. But do not believe the opposing candidates description of his opponent's position.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Well, you must also grant that Iraq is NOT Germany or Japan,

and there is virtually NO chance that we could maintain a peaceful military presence there. As long as we have troops there, they will be attacked.

The Brits learned that 80 years ago. Nothing has changed.

[liberal N proud]

3. Candidate Palin proved that some people would vote for anything

their party puts in the election.

This goes in both parties but the GOP is far worse, supporting the worst the party can find to run for office.

[Lasher]

4. Cognitive dissonance

Good article, although there's some understandable false parity afoot on account of FactCheck.org's precaution against claims of partiality. But even at that the survey results show that Republicans are much more likely to be taken in by (and therefore perpetuate) lies than are Democrats. Truth does indeed have a liberal bias.

FactCheck.org is one of my two favorite debunking websites, second only to Snopes.