AnswerNet’s Post

Interesting new findings from a Pew-Knight Initiative survey reveals that only 25% of Americans are satisfied with local government coverage. This survey underscores our collective responsibility—not just as journalists, but as friends, family members, and citizens—to fact-check our sources and avoid amplifying unverified information. Think before you share, as misinformation risks harming those closest to us. 📊 Key Insights: - 68% of Americans follow local political news. - Yet, only 25% are satisfied with its quality. - 70% get their local political news from friends, family, and neighbors rather than local news outlets. - Social media, a separate option, accounted for 54%. Additionally, a previous Pew study published in May of this year revealed that the vast majority of U.S. adults (85%) say local news outlets are important to the well-being of their local community. Quality of local news coverage must be a major focus for any organization seeking to strengthen our democratic systems and civic participation. At Rolli, our mission is to equip journalists with the tools and resources needed to improve the quality and depth of local reporting—addressing the very issues highlighted by this survey. Thank you Jim Brady for shedding light on this critical issue and to Knight Foundation & Pew Research Center for this collaboration.

We just published this new article open access 😊 Minds and Machines Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties Open access Published: 04 September 2024 Volume 34, article number 36, (2024) https://lnkd.in/gzCHaPk5

An economist reads the newspaper: Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are about Political News "To investigate general patterns in news information in the United States, we combine a protocol for identifying major political news stories, 11 monthly surveys with 15,000 participants, and a model of news discernment. When confronted with a true and a fake news story, 47 percent of subjects confidently choose the true story, 3 percent confidently choose the fake story, and the remaining half are uncertain. Socioeconomic differences are associated with large variations in the probability of selecting the true news story." https://lnkd.in/enEWTMge

In this week's edition of "Lehigh Valley Political Pulse," Tom and Chris discuss the latest trends emerging from science-based polls to break down local, state and national campaigns and issues. They ask an important question: How many people do you need to hear from to make a poll scientifically accurate? Borick said sample size is one aspect of polling methodology that affects the likelihood that the estimates in a poll reflect the population. As the sample size gets bigger, the chances of error become smaller and smaller. Listen/watch here: https://lnkd.in/efuVkiYV

Can you tell what’s real and what isn’t? It’s comfortable to imagine the answer is yes, but how sure can you ever really be? It’s scary and upsetting to think that what we believe to be true could in fact just be stories. When it comes to elections, the right to vote, and our political freedoms, fake news is not just frightening. It can be dangerous. Disinformation has always been a problem in US elections (a phenomenon not limited to the US, of course). As long as there are humans, knowledge and information will always be a powerful weapon as well as a beautiful gift. As tempting as it is to imagine this problem is only getting worse; let’s contend (for discussion’s sake) that the ability to use information to misinform, sway, and manipulate others is (and has been) rather constant. Way back in US history, compared to now, there are HUGE differences in: • how we get our information, • availability (or lack) of information, and • the quality/quantity of (mis)information. Lies presented as truth probably cause more psychological damage to modern humans, due to the sheer volume of harmful information we’re exposed to on a daily basis. But, taking a step back to look at the overall effect on politics and society as a whole, one might conclude that the relative impact of misinformation is unchanged over time. The harm is constant. Fake news is responsible for US involvement in at least one war (many would say two, for sure) before everyone had a smartphone. Suppressing literacy has been a common tactic throughout human history to control the population. But now, despite all of our access to information, increased literacy rates, and the speed at which the masses can access “knowledge,” are we any closer to being able to discern fact from fiction? Are we any farther away? Are the stakes higher now than they were in 1898? 1941? 1982? Years ago when presidential candidates declared each other deceased (falsely) in newspapers they owned, it took weeks for people to catch on. Now it takes hours, sometimes even days, for fake news to spread and fizzle out. But is it any MORE or LESS harmful and dangerous? What do you think? And why? We want to hear your opinion!! There are no wrong answers here - discussion and dissent is ALWAYS WELCOME at Brinkle Group.

Do different political leanings align with different levels of trust in news? 🗳️Looking across respondents who identify as politically on the left, in the centre, or on the right, there is little difference when looking at data from all our respondents (though there are partisan differences in some countries). Click to read: https://lnkd.in/deRUWEM3

Quant research 101. Don’t ask loaded questions. It skews the results. Got this in the post over the weekend. First time I’ve actually had my opinion on government policy officially canvassed, so that’s a good start. But then I read the first question and my heart sank. It leads with propaganda. And then asks for my views. Two issues. Firstly, that completely skews the results and won’t give a clear read. Secondly, I suspect the governing bodies for market research will take a dim view of mixing research and propaganda. It’s completely acceptable for political parties to share their story and achievements in the run up to an election. And it’s completely acceptable for them to canvass opinion to help with policy and strategy. I don’t like the blatant blending of the two. Personal opinion. It’s just not best practice.

A valuable lesson for democracies in Europe : How democratic Taiwan should combat autocratic China’s ongoing Narrative, Cognitive and Information warfare

Survey Reveals Shocking Popularity Rankings of Premiers! Join us as we delve into the intriguing survey results highlighting the popularity rankings of various premiers! Discover the unexpected findings and insights that could reshape your understanding of political approval. Is it good news or not? Tune in to find out! #SurveyResults #PoliticalApproval #Premiers #AngusReid #PublicOpinion #ManitobaPremier #CanadaPolitics #PopularityRankings #PoliticalInsights #CurrentEvents

Mis/Disinformation & Democracy Labelling information as false or misleading is one the most problematic issues surrounding the detection and classification of mis/disinformation, because truth is hard to determine; and that countermeasures may violate democratic principles, because of course, people have the right to express and believe what they want. The idea that mis/disinformation cannot be reliably identified is often accompanied by claims that it is premature to conclude that there is even a problem, and therefore premature to act. Targeted mis/disinformation does exist, and for democracy to persist it must rely on authentic deliberation and open debate that transparently shapes the decision making process. At present, we live a world of political rhetoric, half trues, and deliberately misleading content, and it is by no means unethical or problematic to counter such threats. C/O Pete Cooper MSc FRAeS Author: Ullrich Ecker, Jon Roozenbeek, Sander van der Linden, Li Qian Tay, John Cook, Oreskes Naomi, Stephan Lewandowsky Publication: Springer Nature Group #misinformation #disinformation #mitifyplus https://lnkd.in/eSEYyfsF