One-in-three Americans struggle badly with current events
The latest Pew Survey on News Consumption, which is conducted every other year, was released yesterday, and is chock full of interesting tidbits and results. Most notably, there was a great section of the report on news-consumer knowledge and sophistication.
About half of Americans (53%) can correctly identify the Democrats as the party that has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. In February 2007, shortly after the Democrats gained control of the House after a dozen years of GOP rule, many more people (76%) knew the Democrats held the majority.
The public is less familiar with the secretary of state (Condoleezza Rice) and the prime minister of Great Britain (Gordon Brown). About four-in-ten (42%) can name Rice as the current secretary of state. The public’s ability to identify Rice has not changed much over recent years: In April 2006 and December 2004, shortly before she was sworn in, 43% could correctly identify her.
The prime minister of Great Britain is not well known among the public. Just more than a quarter (28%) can correctly identify Gordon Brown as the leader of Great Britain.
Overall, 18% of the public is able to correctly answer all three political knowledge questions, while a third (33%) do not know the answer to any of the questions.
I’ll admit, I’m torn about how humiliating this is to the nation overall. For the typical American not to know Gordon Brown strikes me as only mildly distressing — Brown has only been Prime Minister for about a year, and most of the public was probably more familiar with Tony Blair.
But one-in-three Americans got all of the questions wrong. For all the talk about the Democratic Congress, barely half the country knows there’s a Democratic majority.
Maybe my perspective is skewed because I just finished reading Rick Shenkman’s “Just How Stupid Are We?” but at a certain point, the political world is going to have to come to grips with the fact that a striking percentage of the electorate has no idea what’s going on.
As for the other results from the Pew survey, it was also interesting to note which news consumers did better than others.
From the report:
Regular readers of magazines such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Harper’s Magazine stand out for their political knowledge; almost half (48%) can correctly identify Rice, Brown and the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives. NPR listeners rank closely behind, with 44% of regular listeners registering a high knowledge score. More than four-in-ten regular Hardball (43%) and Hannity & Colmes (42%) viewers also score relatively high for political knowledge.
In general, well-educated news audiences have high levels of political knowledge; for instance, 54% of regular readers of publications such as The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Harper’s Magazine are college graduates, as are 54% of regular NPR listeners. However, a greater proportion of regular readers of business magazines are college graduates (60%), but just 36% answered all three political knowledge questions correctly.
Just a third of regular Rush Limbaugh listeners are college graduates, but this audience scored as well on political knowledge as did regular business magazine readers. Similarly, only about three-in-ten (31%) regular Hannity & Colmes listeners are college graduates, but a relatively large proportion (42%) answered all three questions correctly.
Some highly knowledgeable and attentive news audiences – such as The New Yorker’s, Limbaugh’s, Hannity & Colmes’ or Hardball’s – are older than average. However, age is not always a correlate of political knowledge: the CBS Evening News has one of the oldest audiences of the news outlets included on the survey; 63% of the regular viewers of this program are 50 or older. But just 10% of regular CBS News viewers correctly answered the three questions.
The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are notable for having relatively well-informed audiences that are younger than the national average: 34% of regular Colbert viewers answered the three political knowledge questions correctly
, as did 30% of regular Daily Show viewers. Less than a quarter of either audience is older than 50 (22% Colbert, 23% Daily Show), compared with 41% of the general public.
Now, I found this particularly interesting because four years ago, Fox News viewers were the most confused about current events, especially when it came to subjects such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam Hussein “working closely” with al Qaeda. Viewers of “The Daily Show” were among the best informed at the time.
So, have things changed? I kind of doubt it — these Pew questions were easier and covered non-controversial subjects. My hunch is, had Pew asked more about subjects relating to Republican talking points, those Fox News viewers would have done considerably worse.
Call it a hunch.
TCG
says:Fox News viewers were the most confused about current events, especially when it came to subjects such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam Hussein “working closely” with al Qaeda.
I hear that those weapons may have been sent to Russia before the Iraq War so that Putin could use them against Plucky little Georgia, Estonia and/or Alabama. That Saddam was one tricky dude.
This may or may not be true. You decide.
Stephen Daugherty
says:It already has come to grips with it, and exploits it to the full degree. It’s a condition we need to reverse.
Scott F
says:Andrew Sullivan senses a momentum shift, as I think a number of us do. Kerry didn’t survive August. It looks like the same for Obama. Both didn’t appear to see it coming thinking that voters would know better. They don’t. This post explains why the negativity works. Unless we go negative and hard we will lose this election. I don’t give a damn about principles at this point. We can work on voter education after November.
MLE
says:As long as the confusion is random, and not systemic, this sort of news bothers me very little. Random errors tend to cancel each other out. System error — of the variety fostered by the likes of the republican noise machine, right wing talk radio, and Faux News — however does bother me greatly as it has a strong effect, especially as apathy tends to reduce the population size necessary to effect political direction.
It is after all a free country, and if politics is not one’s cup of tea, fine by me. We in the political blogosphere probably have well above average interest in politics and shouldn’t look down on people that do not. While in an ideal world, I’d eliminate/reduce the apathy & random error it introduces, I’ll settle with eliminating the tragedy of the systemic bias & intentional error.
scott_m
says:Let’s not blame the American people for this one, or even the nonsense-obsessed press.
What have Democrats in the House or Senate done with their majority these past two years?
What has Condoleezza Rice done these past four years?
To get noticed, you have to do something — impeach Bush and Cheney, cut off funding for the Iraq War, prevent Russia from invading Georgia, dangle your baby from a balcony, get dumped by Brad Pitt — something.
lou
says:Americans know one thing — the American way of profligate living in not negotiable and John McCain will go to any lengths to keep them happy or confused in thinking that down is up, that morning is in America, and that he will keep gas cheap, the military strong, and terrorists on the run. That is all they need to “know”.
thorin-1
says:For all the talk about the Democratic Congress, barely half the country knows there’s a Democratic majority.
Maybe is they stopped voting for Republican policies more people would notice they are Democrats.
Just a thought
citizen_pain
says:I don’t think I sense a momentum shift necessarily; I think we were all so used to McCain gaffing, flip-flopping, and revealing his ignoarance on a daily basis that when he came off during this religion ‘excercise’ over the weekend as reasonably intelligent and articulate, it gave his supporters some hope, and his cheerleaders in the press something to swoon over for the next 2-3 news cycles.
But bear in mind, he was preaching to the choir, almost literally, and it was Obama that took the greatest risk. He did well, but obviously it was a McCain audience.
And you know, if the stupidity of the American electorate, against their best interests – once again, hands the election to a man not fit for the office, then so be it. We’ll just have to suffer through it. In reality, the American democratic experiment is over, this would just be icing on the cake.
Cynical? Goddamn right I am.
Nashville_fan
says:I think that this poll just demonstrates that you can’t assume nothing.
Even though John McCain is a liar the media and the public at large are impressed with his DELIVERY of the lies.
In the end, that’s all that matters.
Sad but true.
But you know what – I believe that Senator Obama will be the next President of the United States. It’s just that it’s going to get REALLY UGLY on the way there.
hark
says:Every survey reaches the same conclusion: the American people are woefully ignorant about virtually everything but the world of entertainment. I think most could name the American Idol winner, for example.
It raises the question of how democracy can survive when the electorate has no understanding of the forces and events that shape the world around them.
And maybe it can’t.
Obama is struggling mightily (well, maybe he isn’t fighting passionately enough, as Paul Krugman observes today) to win against McCain, when on paper the election should be a laugher, but in actual fact is a cliffhanger. Why?
The answer has to be that the American people are too ignorant to know what’s going on, and the Democrats don’t know how to persuade such an electorate, and the Republicans do.
The Caped Composer
says:I believe it was the 90’s band Harvey Danger that put it best:
“Been around the world, and found that only stupid people are breeding.”
Or perhaps it was Mike Judge who held the mirror up to our society the best, in his film Idiocracy. Either way, this is what we’re up against, and it makes me extremely pessimistic.
citizen_pain
says:I agree to a degree with #10: “The answer has to be that the American people are too ignorant to know what’s going on, and the Democrats don’t know how to persuade such an electorate, and the Republicans do.”
The Democrat’s problem is that they give the voter the benefit of the doubt. They say to themselves, we have all the issues on our side. The public supports our agenda 3 to 1. Surely that will translate into election victory.
Well, the fact is they can’t think like that anymore. Time and time again the voter has been scared away from the democrats by the republican smear machine.
Really simply, the Democrats in general have more faith in the people, they try to use reason and run relatively dignified campaigns. The republicans have already figured out that lying, cheating, and stealing work even better.
It’s time for the democrats to take the gloves off. If there’s one thing you can say of American voters, it’s that they can be turned off by negativity, but they are turned off even moreso by a candidate that appears to not stand up for themselves and fight back.
jhm
says:While this is depressing (all the more so since it is hardly a surprise), note that the population here is all Americans, more than half of which do not vote.
Dale
says:I’d say ignorant,not stupid.
Greg Worley
says:Marshall McLuhan, anyone? “Style is substance.” Not that anyone anymore really wants substance. Having to actually listen gets lost in the crunchy sounds of eating the potato chips.
Pdog
says:I recall watching a show about a female surgeon who admitted to not knowing who the president was, instead of being jump on about civics, was given praise for her work with brain-dead people. On a Jay Leno program I remember him asking a young man “Who won the civil war?” and he replied “I don’t know and I don’t care”. For a lot of people there are other things in their life more important than politics.
joey
says:The dumber Americans are kept the better the Republicans do at the polls. Vote Republican because it’s easier than thinking. Make the economy so tough that normal working folks just don’t have time for politics. As the voting populace goes up the chances for republicans winning elections goes down…that is why they go to any length to disenfranchise voters.
Ravi J
says:1 in 3rd? Isn’t that a very optimistic estimation?
Michael7843853
says:How many of you smarty pants, who know who Gordon Brown is, can name the Blair policy reversals he has supported. How strong is his parliamentary majority? Not me, I thought he was the fish and chips guy.
When I was eleven I could name all of Kennedy’s cabinet; I guess I was more knowledgeable then. Obviously, the guy who should be our leader is Ken, the all time champ, from Jeopardy.
24AheadDotCom
says:For new visitors and for those who are confused, for this post we’re supposed to pretend that correlation equals causation, and we’re also supposed to pretend that H&C isn’t on Fox. HTH.
Curmudgeon
says:I confess I wouldn’t have remembered Gordon Brown’s name if I’d taken the survey. Just not as dashing and flashy as….what’s his name, the former prime minister…..oh, you know who I mean….that guy! 😉
Chad
says:9. On August 18th, 2008 at 11:15 am, Nashville_fan said:
I think that this poll just demonstrates that you can’t assume nothing.
Even though John McCain is a liar the media and the public at large are impressed with his DELIVERY of the lies.
In the end, that’s all that matters.
Sad but true.
Can’t assume nothing? That my friend is a double-negative and it drives me nuts. That means you can assume something.
Calling McCain a liar is pretty standard on this blog, but you always fail to call Obama a liar which he does quite well too, and Obama is far more impressive delivering his lies.
What’s sad about this is that the people who don’t know anything are still going to vote, and most of them will vote for the popular pick, not the candidate who’s more qualified.
Always hopeful
says:Chad said: “What’s sad about this is that the people who don’t know anything are still going to vote, and most of them will vote for the popular pick, not the candidate who’s more qualified.”
I guess that is why the Republicans and McCain in particular were scared spitless that Obama was a “celebrity”…
Chad
says:#23 wrote: I guess that is why repubs…were scared spitless that Obama was/is a celebrity…?
Yeah, I guess you might be right. The GOP wants someone as president who’s qualified based on achievements, experience, and policy. Not someone who’s so damn popular with the MTV crowd who doesn’t have a track record of substance. So if you want some celebrity running your country, that’s great, but some people aren’t voting for the homecoming king, they’re actually voting for the President of the United States.
olo
says:About half of Americans (53%) can correctly identify the Democrats as the party that has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. In February 2007, shortly after the Democrats gained control of the House after a dozen years of GOP rule, many more people (76%) knew the Democrats held the majority.
HUH ?
Ya gotta have a sense of humor
majun
says:Lessee, viewers of FAUX News, for all practical intents and purposes an official organ of the GOP, were able to accurately identify the Republican Administration’s Secretary of State, and knew that Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s Democratic Congress (you know, the ones that are responsible for everything that is wrong with our country) is run by “the other party”, the one that is not the GOP. I’m stunned!!!!
I don’t know how to explain how any of them got Gordon Brown, but that is another story. Frankly, unless it was multiple choice, I’m not sure I would be able to remember Brown’s name if asked. All I would be able to say is, “it’s not Tony Blair anymore.”
PJ
says:Chad in # 24 wrote: Yeah, I guess you might be right. The GOP wants someone as president who’s qualified based on achievements, experience, and policy.
Really? The same GOP who nominated and elected George W. Bush — the candidate who couldn’t name the Canadian Prime Minister, who had never been outside the United States, and whose public service consisted of the part-time job of Governor of Texas and whose other most recent work experience consisted of writing checks for a baseball team ? The same GOP who is now running a candidate whose post-military career achievements consisted of getting hired by his rich wife’s dad in the family business before running for office and who said he didn’t know much about economics, then proved it by suggesting a Gas Tax Holiday this summer, who five years after the American Invasion of Iraq didn’t know the difference between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis, and whose idea of foreign policy is Bomb Bomb Iran? That GOP??
Yeah — I see what you mean Chad. How could a professor of Constitutional Law at one of America’s most respected universities who also spent nearly a decade as a state legislator and U.S. Senator possibly be anything other than a pretty face compared to those two GOP giants of “experience and achievements?”
Chad
says:PJ, Obama was never a professor of Constitutional Law. That’s a lie, he was a lecturer. He never signed on for tenure full time, thus, he’s not a professor. This is from factcheck.org:
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Also, your argument for voting against Bush is the same that we’re using now for voting against Obama. It looks like the GOP has learned their lesson from Bush, maybe you guys should too. We need experience, not empty rhetoric and false hope of change.
JimK
says:To Chad at #24
…voting for pres based on achievements, experience and policy…
Like the Repubs in the 2000 SC primary who went for Bush with NO foreign policy or experience and NO sucessful business experience over McCain based on a smear campaign against McCain’s mental health from his POW experience and his wife being a drug addict and his adopted child an secrete love child?
And went for Bush over Gore who only racked up a nobel prize after another smear campaign in 2000 and went for Bush over Kerry in 2004 after another smear and fear campaign.
Admittedly, McCain was at the bottom of his class at Annapolis.
Admittedly, McCain had a higher rate of plane crushes during training than the average pilot and did not last long over North Vietnam but all that should be forgiven because he was a POW for 4.5 years and refused to come home early, JUST LIKE THE majority of other POWs.
And he was sucessful enough to dump his wife who was faithfully raising his kids while he was a POW, even after her CRIPPLING crash and marry a $100 million dollar heiress, 14 years his junior within months of his divorce finalizing. That was certainly some achievement. It got McCain a job with his new Dad’s company as a stepping stone into politics and close friends with members of the Keating 5.
McCain in 2008 has done an amazing job of flip flooping on every position so that should count for achievement in some corners. It seems the Repubs love to change the rules every election.
2000 = Being a guy to have a beer with counted. ChickenHawk in Nam not important for Natl missing years Guard Bush or his VP, 6 deferments Cheney.
2004 = marrying a rich heiress made you TOO elitist but not in 2008 for McCain and his 10 houses as the regular guy against the elitest “OTHER” guy with the funny name and only one marriage and one house.
Rabi
says:While a Fixed Noise viewer is likely to have a sketchy view of the issues, the simple fact that they watch talking head shows and news shows on a regular basis makes it likely that they will no simple things like the names of people in certain positions.
rusty59
says:The Republican party figured out how uniformed a majority of americans are a long time ago. That is how they keep winning elections. They can lie about John Kerry’s service in Viet Nam, lie about George Bush’s lack of service, lie about John McCain’s changing positions on everything and lie about everything related to barack Obama. they do it because it works. Have you ever listened to some of your co-workers or neighbors? the guy in the cube next to you who still thinks Obama is a muslim is not alone
zeitgeist
says:chad @ 28: can you read?
You assert: Obama was never a professor of Constitutional Law. That’s a lie, he was a lecturer.
For support, you cite to FactCheck, which — in the very passage you provided — recites from a statement from U Chicago itself:
Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors
So UC considers him a professor, but you know better?
better – at least literate – trolls please?
Lance
says:JimK, internal consistency is not a virtue to a Republican’t. They focus purely on the current battle, and the spin and lies they have to spout to win is always justified in their minds because they are cowards afraid to see another successful Democrat in the White House.
The six years of Bill Clinton in the White House while they controlled Congress (1995 to 2000) has scarred their little pychies beyound repair or redemption. They can only now cling to power, how ever corruptly, because Bill Clinton took far too many of their ‘positions’ away from them simply by being a far better President they any they had in office for the last thirty plus years.
Chad
says:Lance, Yes I can read. he’s regarded as a professer, but it doesn’t mean he was a professor.
A:
His formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.
Just because you’re regarded as a professor, doesn’t make it so. He was a senior lecturer.
Chad
says:sorry, I meant zeitgist
Crissa
says:I’ll admit I don’t know Gordon Brown. But I at least know they’ve changed PMs, and what platform he was elected on, and what policies he’s done recently…
And last week I was wondering, ‘Is Rice still at State?’ It’s not like it’s a position that Americans hear about much, as it’s our face to the rest of the world, rather than the administration’s face to us.
zeitgeist
says:dude, UC says he served as a professor. that means he was a professor. how much clearer do words have to be, Chad in Wonderland?
Chad
says:Yeah, and North Korea says Kim Jong Il is the country’s greatest leader ever, but that necessarily doesn’t make it so.
zeitgeist
says:so, as I said above, you are claiming to know better than UC who is a professor at UC?
yeah, no arrogance or presumptuousness in those wingers. uh-uh.
lemme guess – Chicago, a famously conservative institution, is conspiring to cover up for Obama?
glad we’ve found a winger who isn’t opposed to recreational drug use. . .
mark923
says:i teach at UC. obama was a lecturer and a professor, so zeitgeist is correct.
Michael7843853
says:Has anyone ever read or seen anything important(if such exists) with regards to Gordon Brown in which his title was not mentioned? If you can name all the ‘stans’ and their politics/geography/ethnicity/…, you either have a photo memory, work for a predatory multinational, or need a life.
BC
says:“…For the typical American not to know Gordon Brown strikes me as only mildly distressing..”
I’m not sure whether to be saddened or angered by that comment.
Is the bar set so low that there is no expectation the average American would know anything outside the US? How poor. How truly saddening.
Gordon Brown is a major world leader. The UK is the origin of the US, part of the G8 and a strong ally even in it’s ‘War on Terror’ offering up the lives of its people. Why *shouldn’t* people be aware of who the hell runs it?
I’ve decided to have a mixed reaction.
=my2c
BC