New America report on countering misperceptions

Yesterday, the New America Foundation Media Policy Initiative released a report (PDF) that I co-authored with Jason Reifler titled "Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research Findings from Social Science." The report reviews academic research on misperceptions and makes recommendations for how to most effectively correct them.

Reifler and I summarize the report and our recommendations in a new post for Columbia Journalism Review titled "Countering Misinformation: Tips for Journalists." Here's how it begins:

With eight months to go before Election Day, the political misinformation cycle is already in full swing as misleading super PAC ads flood the airwaves.

Citizens and journalists alike are concerned that the prevalence of misinformation in our politics may pollute democratic discourse, make it more difficult for citizens to cast informed votes, and limit their ability to participate meaningfully in public debate. In particular, we know that many political myths are difficult to correct once they become established. So how can journalists most effectively counter the misleading claims that are made in the 2012 campaign?

Please read the post or the full report (PDF) for more.

Related resources:
-The webcast of the release event at New America in Washington
-Accompanying New America Foundation reports on the rise of fact-checking by Michael Dobbs and the state of fact-checking in 2012 by Lucas Graves and Tom Glaisyer (PDFs)

Comments

[David in Cal]

The suggestions made by Brendan and Jason seem sensible, provided that the media have sufficient wisdom, knowledge and impartiality. Unfortunately, I don't think they do. I'd rather see the media publish even statements they think are false than play the role of censor.

[David in Cal]

Here's an example, courtesy of opinionjournal.com, showing why reporters cannot be relied upon to distinguish information from misinformation:

"Here's yet another "fact check" classic from the Associated Press's Calvin Woodward:

GINGRICH: "The duty of the president is to find a way to manage the federal government so the primary pain is on changing the bureaucracy. On theft alone, we could save $100 billion a year in Medicaid and Medicare if the federal government were competent. That's a trillion dollars over 10 years. And the only people in pain would be crooks."

THE FACTS: A sober look at the books shows leaders from both parties that painful choices must be made in entitlements. Medicare and Medicaid are running into trouble mainly because of an aging population, the cost of high-tech medicine and budget woes. The number-crunchers say solving health care fraud alone is not enough. Health care fraud investigations are already a big source of recovered money, surpassing fines and penalties collected for defense contracting fraud.

So is Gingrich's factual claim--that competent enforcement of Medicare and Medicaid rules could save $100 billion a year--true or false? Woodward doesn't say! He merely editorializes vaguely that "painful choices must be made." He also points out that one of the causes of Medicare and Medicaid's "trouble" is "budget woes." There's some deep analysis for you."