NationStates Jolt Archive

PIPA is the Program on International Policy Attitudes, and they've garnered a reputation in the last year or two for studying what the public believes versus what exists in the actual world and discussing the disconnect between the two. They burst on the scene last year with a study that showed that people whose primary source of news was Fox News Channel were the most likely--by a wide margin--to have misconceptions about the war in Iraq.

Well, they've got a new one out (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1) that studies the differing beliefs of Bush supporters versus Kerry supporters. And if you think this is going to be flattering to Bush supporters, well, you don't know me very well.

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
Now I assume that Bush supporters are not all morons--just like I assume that not all Democrats are uber-intelligent. But I have to wonder what could be causing this huge disconnect between perception and reality, especially when I read stuff like this:
57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.
Now I would be surprised if we polled the average NS user and found anything close to these numbers--even the people I most vehemently disagree with are usually at least factually correct on this kind of stuff. They generally don't care--but there's a major difference between not caring and just flat out being mistaken about facts.

I don't have any answers here. I don't know why there's such cognitive dissonance at play, and I certainly don't think it's because this large a percentage of the population is stupid, but if any of you have some answers, I'd be glad to try to figure something out.

57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred.

What did the remaining 1% think? :p Anyhow. That's interesting, though I really don't have anything particularly intelligent to add.

neo-conservatism is a faith

therefore facts are meaningless

neo-conservatism is a faith

therefore facts are meaningless
That does remind me of a Ron Suskind piece in last Sunday's NY Times where he talked about a White House aide (anonymous, unfortunately) who referred to Kerry supporters as the "reality based community." I'm not making that up.

57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred.
Fuckin' hell!

I know. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

The fact that Bush supporters even think people outside of the US like Bush in any large numbers must not watch any international media or even CNN for that matter. Of course, there are people who hope for Bush's re-election in every country, although in many a lot would prefer Kerry.

Well, sure. Most people think Kerry voted against 87b for the troops(He technically did, but only in support of a different bill for 87b, which most dont realize). Most people think he voted to cut many military programs, when he only voted to cut a few, most notable the B-2(Most cut claims were one broad bill that he voted against, about funding, not about keeping individual ones). Most think he voted to cut 1.5b, i believe it was, from the intelligence department, when actually that was money from a program that the cia(i believe it was) never started up, and it was more of a refund then a cut.

But most americans, especially the rural ones who are in swing states(damn non-equal representation), only hear the soundbites from the GOP.

Go figure.

Sometimes I'll be arguing with someone over the Iraq War, I'll say, "Look, we went in to disarm him, found no WMDs, and now it's supposedly a 'democracy-spreading' mission to -"

And I'm interrupted by, "We did find WMDs!"

...

There was a line in a play I saw last week that reminded me of the kind of thinking tracked in this survey (and one person in particular, but I won't get into that)
"Between the facts and what I know, I'll take what I know"

It takes a second for that line to sink in, but sums up batshit mentality pretty well.

One of these days I'm gonna get a reading list out of you Incertonia.

There was a line in a play I saw last week that reminded me of the kind of thinking tracked in this survey (and one person in particular, but I won't get into that)
"Between the facts and what I know, I'll take what I know"

It takes a second for that line to sink in, but sums up batshit mentality pretty well.

One of these days I'm gonna get a reading list out of you Incertonia.Reminds me of the line--from where I have no idea--from a guy who was caught cheating on his wife: "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

What kind of reading list you want, dude? I'll hook you up.

Now I assume that Bush supporters are not all morons--just like I assume that not all Democrats are uber-intelligent. But I have to wonder what could be causing this huge disconnect between perception and reality, especially when I read stuff like this:

Now I would be surprised if we polled the average NS user and found anything close to these numbers--even the people I most vehemently disagree with are usually at least factually correct on this kind of stuff. They generally don't care--but there's a major difference between not caring and just flat out being mistaken about facts.

I don't have any answers here. I don't know why there's such cognitive dissonance at play, and I certainly don't think it's because this large a percentage of the population is stupid, but if any of you have some answers, I'd be glad to try to figure something out.

me and my gf were discussing the results of the previous pipa study - which showed that super-majorities of bush supporters think bush is in favor of things he is openly and loudly against - awhile back. this one fits in with our conclusion too. large percentages of bush supporters are single or dual issue voters (put religion back in government, and give me assault weapons) who don't pay any attention at all to much of anything beyond one or two sources of 'information' and just sort of assume things about the world without checking.

which, quite frankly, scares the fucking crap out of me.

its ok

its alright

we are strong and steadfast and we will succeed...
*****************
I'm reading this book called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. I reccomend it to everyone!

Go figure.

Sometimes I'll be arguing with someone over the Iraq War, I'll say, "Look, we went in to disarm him, found no WMDs, and now it's supposedly a 'democracy-spreading' mission to -"

And I'm interrupted by, "We did find WMDs!"

...

You did find WMDs! :p


They say Saddam's smell, after extraction from the hole he was in, was so toxic 15 U.S. soldiers died on the spot. Which justified the 15,000 lost Iraqi lives.

That's rather strange. I live in Colorado, one of the "battleground" states. Virtually no one I've ever talked to thinks Bush is popular overseas (or even north of our border). Granted, I can only speak for the conversations I've had in much of Colorado, but I've got to wonder at the validity of this study. In my own "I'm making up numbers to try and reflect what I've seen in a real battleground state" poll, I would say 5% of people think Bush is favored overseas, 10% think he's favored by our allies like Australia and the UK but no others, and the other 85% know that Kerry is favored pretty much everywhere outside the US.

And all the papers in Colorado just came out with a new poll today showing Bush leading 49-43% against Kerry here (+/- 4%) and wondered aloud whether that'll take us out of battleground status.

That's rather strange. I live in Colorado, one of the "battleground" states. Virtually no one I've ever talked to thinks Bush is popular overseas (or even north of our border). Granted, I can only speak for the conversations I've had in much of Colorado, but I've got to wonder at the validity of this study. In my own "I'm making up numbers to try and reflect what I've seen in a real battleground state" poll, I would say 5% of people think Bush is favored overseas, 10% think he's favored by our allies like Australia and the UK but no others, and the other 85% know that Kerry is favored pretty much everywhere outside the US.

And all the papers in Colorado just came out with a new poll today showing Bush leading 49-43% against Kerry here (+/- 4%) and wondered aloud whether that'll take us out of battleground status.I've got to admit, I was surprised as well, until I thought about what passes for news analysis on tv and on the radio these days, and how large a percentage of the newsday is taken up by it.

As for Colorado, as long as Ken Salazar is in the lead or close to it, Colorado will be considered a battleground. I do think, however, that if Kerry wins Colorado, it'll be because he rode Salazar's coattails.

The part I think I don't get is where anyone from any country thinks their news service is accurate, fair, balanced, or whatever adjective you want to throw at it. I've traveled through much of the world and stayed for long periods in quite a few countries. There are people in the US that assume any one of a number of their news stations are better (Fox and CNN seem to get the most attention), and the same goes for people in Sweden, the UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc.

From what I've seen, each country's news is either blatently ratings driven (as it is in the US) or is so heavily biased towards the country's majority viewpoint (socio-political / religious / whatever) that you virtually /never/ simply get a reporting of the facts. Granted, that might be an impossible goal to achieve, but when I watch the news in the UK say the US is once again making a mountain out of a molehill out of the Janet Jackson superbowl thing, then fly to Saudi and see news outlets use this as an example of America sliding further into turmoil, then come back home and watch our media drool over both the coverage and the trials to come ... I just get fed up with all of it.

Sorry, I realized I'm going to rant for pages if I don't stop.

I was mostly responding to posters who keep saying things like, "Can't they (people in the US) see what we see over here? How can they be so mislead?" or some such mantra. People in every country I've visited are "mislead" by their majority favored news services as much as every other country ... though I might be inclined to agree that the ratings-based US systems and government controlled middle-eastern news systems take the cake.

I think it's the ratings obsession--because of the effect ratings have on revenue--that's partly to blame for the horrid condition of the news media in general. If I were to list the three most reliable news sources I can think of off the top of my head (in no partcular order) they would be the BBC, the CBC and NPR/PBS. What do they have in common? They're not corporate--or at least not as corporate--and therefore not as revenue driven as most media outlets. That's where I think the problem really lies.

I think it's the ratings obsession--because of the effect ratings have on revenue--that's partly to blame for the horrid condition of the news media in general. If I were to list the three most reliable news sources I can think of off the top of my head (in no partcular order) they would be the BBC, the CBC and NPR/PBS. What do they have in common? They're not corporate--or at least not as corporate--and therefore not as revenue driven as most media outlets. That's where I think the problem really lies.

But then, of course, those programs can't afford much of the extras like the flashy graphics, on-site reporters (in some locations), first scoops, celebrety visits, and all that. Not being /in/ the news media business, I'm not exactly sure how much money can make a differencein reporting ability (though I'll assume it does). There's not really a good answer to the problem, I think. If the choice is simply between being corporate or "publicly owned" or "government sponsered" then either way you're opening a can of worms.

I think it's the ratings obsession--because of the effect ratings have on revenue--that's partly to blame for the horrid condition of the news media in general. If I were to list the three most reliable news sources I can think of off the top of my head (in no partcular order) they would be the BBC, the CBC and NPR/PBS. What do they have in common? They're not corporate--or at least not as corporate--and therefore not as revenue driven as most media outlets. That's where I think the problem really lies.
Not all news is biased/ not informing people.
Tehe most reliable name in News is the Daily Show. Yes I know they say they are a fake news show but they are just joking :)

But then, of course, those programs can't afford much of the extras like the flashy graphics, on-site reporters (in some locations), first scoops, celebrety visits, and all that. Not being /in/ the news media business, I'm not exactly sure how much money can make a differencein reporting ability (though I'll assume it does). There's not really a good answer to the problem, I think. If the choice is simply between being corporate or "publicly owned" or "government sponsered" then either way you're opening a can of worms.
Well, if I've got a choice between solid factual reporting and flashy graphics, I'll take the reporting any day. A well funded news organization that cares about getting solid stories is the best option--unfortunately, in the US we have media companies with lots of money who care for about share price than stories, and who are willing to parrot party lines instead of actually busting their asses to get to the bottom of stories.

Well, if I've got a choice between solid factual reporting and flashy graphics, I'll take the reporting any day. A well funded news organization that cares about getting solid stories is the best option--unfortunately, in the US we have media companies with lots of money who care for about share price than stories, and who are willing to parrot party lines instead of actually busting their asses to get to the bottom of stories.

True. I would as well, but most people wouldn't (as is clearly evidenced by the ratings), and how can /any/ of us be certain of the validity of it when we find it?

Unless of course we just tune in the Daily Show :)

True. I would as well, but most people wouldn't (as is clearly evidenced by the ratings), and how can /any/ of us be certain of the validity of it when we find it?

Unless of course we just tune in the Daily Show :)
There is a certain level of trust necessary at some stage, to be certain. I guess I look at the kinds of errors a media organization makes, how they apologize for them and/or correct them, and what, if any agenda they're pushing when I determine how much I'll trust them. For example, I trust the Washington Post a little more than the NY Times, and a lot more than either the NY Post or the Washington Times. I trust the Nation as much as I trust Newsmax, which is to say not at all. And I don't have cable anymore, so I don't have to bother with CNN, FNC or MSNBC. I just watch the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. :D

Bush supporters, you are being duped! Hornswaggled! Bamboozled! Bush didn't land on that aircraft carrier, Bush landed on you!

Not all news is biased/ not informing people.
Tehe most reliable name in News is the Daily Show. Yes I know they say they are a fake news show but they are just joking :)

The whole reason the Daily Show doesn't deceive is because they poke fun at spin itself. They aren't presenting information that is any more factual but people know they are being treated to satire before they tune in and so are forced to use their critical thinking faculties. The "mainstream" news puts people to sleep.

anyone else find the lack of people shouting "this study is biased and/or fake!" to be interesting?

Ah, so it's true FS. Bushvoter = delusional. :D

Ah, so it's true FS. Bushvoter = delusional. :D

No, I think it's more accurate to say: Bush voter = deluded (meaning that someone has intentionally misinformed them.)

No, I think it's more accurate to say: Bush voter = deluded (meaning that someone has intentionally misinformed them.)

Or possibly both.

No, I think it's more accurate to say: Bush voter = deluded (meaning that someone has intentionally misinformed them.)

i don't know - who exactly has been saying that bush is in favor of joining the international criminal court? or signing the treaty banning landmines? or of writing labor and environemtnal standards into international trade agreements? because super-majorities of bush supporters apparently believe that those are bush's positions.

to a certain extent, we are dealing with a large number of people who hold a large number of beliefs that don't map onto reality at all. and for a good chunk of those beliefs, nobody that i know of is presenting these things as truth. maybe there is some other source of info that 70-odd% of bush supporters are listening to that tells them these things. if so, i'd like to know about it so i can go there and hurt them severely.

i don't know - who exactly has been saying that bush is in favor of joining the international criminal court? or signing the treaty banning landmines? or of writing labor and environemtnal standards into international trade agreements? because super-majorities of bush supporters apparently believe that those are bush's positions.

to a certain extent, we are dealing with a large number of people who hold a large number of beliefs that don't map onto reality at all. and for a good chunk of those beliefs, nobody that i know of is presenting these things as truth. maybe there is some other source of info that 70-odd% of bush supporters are listening to that tells them these things. if so, i'd like to know about it so i can go there and hurt them severely.Personally, I think that it's a combination of factors. Part of it is likely that they want to believe in the President, because they want to believe in the office of the president. They want to believe in the guy who stood tall after the 9/11 attacks and talked tough, no matter what the current situation is. They want to believe in Commander Codpiece's landing on the Abraham Lincoln, and what they really want to believe in is the fact that they supported him for a good reason when he said Iraq was a necessary war, because if they don't, they'll feel guilty about the needless deaths of over a thousand soldiers, the tens of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis, and the more than ten thousand US causalties.

But because they want to believe in the man, they transfer their own beliefs onto that man. My bet is that many of these people believe that the ICC would be a good idea, that the landmine treaty would be good, or even that Kyoto would be good, and so they transfer their personal beliefs onto the President, assuming that since they agreed with him on something, that he'll agree with them as well. Of course, it doesn't work that way, and since these people don't tend to be activists who would be willing to wade through what passes for news in this country, they're not likely to be contradicted in a forceful enough manner to dissuade them from their delusions.

i assume you saw john stewart on crossfire, yes?

Well all thats well and good incertionia. But isnt ultimately becuase they are just ignorant?

They have a different idea of what truth is.
Instead of being based on observable fact, it's based on what your leader and his ministry of information (i.e., talk-show spindoctors) tell you is true.
This sounds like a cheap shot but it's not meant as one: Look at what the fascists did in places like Spain and Argentina. It was remarkably similar.

i assume you saw john stewart on crossfire, yes?
I did--in fact, I found a downloadable version of it and have it on my computer now. It's a thing of beauty.

That's rather strange. I live in Colorado, one of the "battleground" states. Virtually no one I've ever talked to thinks Bush is popular overseas (or even north of our border). Granted, I can only speak for the conversations I've had in much of Colorado, but I've got to wonder at the validity of this study. In my own "I'm making up numbers to try and reflect what I've seen in a real battleground state" poll, I would say 5% of people think Bush is favored overseas, 10% think he's favored by our allies like Australia and the UK but no others, and the other 85% know that Kerry is favored pretty much everywhere outside the US.

And all the papers in Colorado just came out with a new poll today showing Bush leading 49-43% against Kerry here (+/- 4%) and wondered aloud whether that'll take us out of battleground status.

First of all, the numbers are for bush supporters. It is unprobable that you spoke to bush supporters only. Secondly, your sample cannot be large enough to minimise statistical errors and more important, your sample cannot be respresentative for all bush supporters as they will be geographicaly located in a small area and will most likely be in your social enviroment and thereby they will have similar interests, education and information (in general).

I did--in fact, I found a downloadable version of it and have it on my computer now. It's a thing of beauty.

though i find it slightly suspicious that it ends the way it does - given another 5 to 10 seconds or so and less interruption, i'm sure he could have explained that holding people's feet to the fire does not in anyway mean getting somebody from the oppossing side to yell that side's talking points at them. that it means the media accepting that there are facts in the world, not just positions, and that the entire point of the media is to present those facts and see how well what officials say maps on to reality. no yelling, no "equal and opposite" opinion holders, just the facts as best we can determine them and the sources of those facts.

This proves that large percentages of Bush supporters are ignorant. That's not the same as stupid. But it appears that when Americans educate themselves about the real issues they inevitably lean away from Bush.

This proves that large percentages of Bush supporters are ignorant. That's not the same as stupid. But it appears that when Americans educate themselves about the real issues they inevitably lean away from Bush.
That they are ignorant of the facts as they stand doesn't surprise me. I don't think Republicans in general are bad people, nor do I even disagree with them on some issues, but I find it hard to understand how anyone can look at the country, compare it to the way it was four years ago, and honestly come to the conclusion that Bush has done a good job, not without being deluded about the situation the country finds itself in today. There are certain groups for whom the situation has improved--the super-wealthy come immediately to mind--but there's no objective measure in which the country as a whole is in better shape than it was in January 2001.

And yet, if the polls are anywhere near correct, there's about 40-45% of the populace who believe exactly that. I wish I knew why.

It just pisses me off that this election could be decided by ignorance.

It just pisses me off that this election could be decided by ignorance.
Let's be fair--every election is decided by ignorance, simply because most people don't care enough to cast an educated vote. Hell, we could have incredible turnout this time around and a third of the people wouldn't cast a vote at all. But yes, it does bother me that our news media has done such a piss-poor job that a politician can get away with such dangerous misinformation and almost never be called on it. Doesn't matter what ideology the politician favors either--the press is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog.

And yet, if the polls are anywhere near correct, there's about 40-45% of the populace who believe exactly that. I wish I knew why.
Not all Bush supporters love the President. A recent survey indicates that about 20% of them are only voting for Bush because they feel Kerry is worse.

anyone else find the lack of people shouting "this study is biased and/or fake!" to be interesting?
Yes - presumably the people who would normally do so agree with the findings.
However - when you *know* that your own media is dodgy, and have no reason to believe that other nation's is any better - when you know that demonstrators aren't normally representative of a nation's opinions (which was just proven again by the AUS election) - then it's not as if there are any facts to 'confuse' the issue!