I was pretty shocked by this pit thread which details a poll saying that 25% of Americans think Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against US troops in the recent conflict there.
This sort of ignorance is startling. We cannot expect a populace to make rational voting decisions when they are so vastly misinformed on such an important and seemingly obvious topic. I’m not argueing that Americans are more or less informed than other countries, but America is what I know and as a democracy America does have a special concern for an informed voting public. I also don’t care which side of the political spectrum this ignorance manifests itself on. The fact that anyone is making any sort of political decisions based on easily verified and baseless untruths is frightening.
So what specific strategies can be used (on a small or grand scale) to fight this ignorance?
I’d say end state-run media. Most people don’t realize that what they consider the objective “news” has already been filtered through the ruling party down to what they consider acceptable for public digestion. Of course, we’d have to get a pretty progressive president and party (that was a lot of P’s!) in office to even come close to setting the media free of partisan slant.
Of course, there are independent media sources now, but they’re kept underground by the massive state-run titans that have been comfortably accepted by most of the population.
Favoring truth and information above a cut-and-paste mess of what the government feels is acceptable will rid us of the most widespread ignorance, IMO.
Oh yeah, better funding for public education might be important, too.
First off, we need to institute some sort of current events education in high school. When I was in school we talked about the teapot dome scandal as if it were a hot topic. We never did get past WWII (Vietnam…what?). How many adults have a truly strong grasp on the recent history of the Middle East? I know I don’t and I’m college educated and well read. And yet this region is one of the most important ones today. High school kids need a current background on world hotspots (which are conveniently defined by the CIA every year), recent Supreme Court actions, and recent legislation. In other words, they need to know enough to read a newspaper and understand what they are reading. Right now this is usually covered by teachers assigning “current event” papers where students must cut out an article from a newspaper and do a one-page write up about it. This is not enough because it does not give them the background they need to understand International news (which they often just skip over) nor the motivation to read more than a single “easy” section of the newspaper. I am loathe to make current events another required class (in CA, kids are required to take several “for your own good” classes like health, government, and economics) but I don’t see any other way of doing it. Of course this will be hard to implement because the nature of the material does not lead itself to the sort of standardized, testable education that is in vogue now.
Secondly, something has to be done about the news. I have no clue what that is. But Americans are getting the wrong impression from whatever news they are getting. Public television news doesn’t seem to be a solution, because that would be answerable to the government. I don’t want to disassemble the current news media. But there has to be some way to supplement it to provide a clearer picture than one gets in the ten second blurbs on the nightly news. Regulating media monopolies seems like some sort of start, but the effects might be too indirect to notice. Maybe more low-wattage radio stations? Better training and equipment for producers of community television? Still, none of these would really lead to better International news coverage. Any ideas.
Finally, we need better public debates. Remember that the airwaves are ours, not Rupurt Murdoch’s or Clear Channel’s. They are a public commodity which can and should be used for public good. There need to be intense, widely broadcast and unscripted presidential debates. I would also like to see general public debates and unscripted press conferences become a feature of our nation’s media.
Finally, libraries should receive funding for a current event outreach program, where they seek to provide current event education and resources to their communities. I know libraries are already struggling to do their basic duties. But they seem like the best venue to make sure that the public knows how and where to educate themselves about what is going on in the world. I’m pretty open to better suggestions for this one, though. How do we provide access to current-events education to adults already outside of the education system?
People already have excellent access to current events. They’ve got the internet, television, libraries, book stores, and newspapers. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
The biggest problem I see is that fewer people think about news. We tend to sit back and let it wash over us and we selectively pick bits and pieces out. A 1 hour news show broadcasting local/national and international news in sound bites can give a veneer of information but not enough details to allow for thought. (As a small aside I’ve found American international news to be remarkably focused on Americans in international news.)
I think if we could get more people reading newspapers, hell even on line newspapers, that would be a step in the right direction. Actual engagement with the topic at hand. Actual views in editorials that you agree with or object to. There is a real requirement to think about what you are reading and not simply noting it out the corner of your eye.
If it makes you feel better even I’m pretty sure Canadians have the same failings
While I applaud your noble intentions, Sven, it seems a futile effort. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t think there’s much that can be done to improve a populace that embraces the mindless drivel of “American Idol” or “The Bachelor/ette”.
I’ll admit, for a moment I had a brief thought that, since our news media seems so ratings-focused, perhaps if we could somehow eliminate the ratings system from the scenario…but, naw, it’d never happen.
And getting people interested in world affairs and/or their historical/contextual background? Yes, there some self-motivated and intelligent people who’d be interested - but they’re already interested. It’s the rest of the bozos you’re trying to change, and I don’t have much hope.
Your first step, sven, is to absolutely forget everything that the (generally) enormously liberal facualty from college indoctrinated you with and go out and study on your own. You might be suprised as to what you learn. As for everyone else…they have to do it (or not) on their own. The information is out there, as Marc said. You can lead a citizen to information but you can’t make them think.
An indication of the source of the problem from the April 7 issue of Newsweek:
“Last Wednesday, CIA officials gave a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill about the rising tide of anti-Americanism sweeping the Arab world. Particular emphasis was placed on Jordan and Egypt. As agency officials discussed the depth of hatred for U.S. actions, the senators fell silent. There were delicate discussions about the uncertainty, if the war was protracted, of “regime stability.” After the briefing, “there were senators who were ashen-faced,” said one staff member. “They were absolutely depressed.” Much of what the agency briefed would not have been news to any close watcher of the BBC or almost any foreign news broadcast. “But they [the senators] only watch American TV,” said the staffer.”
The people? HAH! King William of the House of Clinton actually stated that he had “read a book” on the Balkan situation the night before he got up on his hind legs and decreed that we shall bomb Serbia.
Until that time, he had no idea about the place. After that time, he still had no idea about the place. He really did seem to believe that the Kosovar separatists were not actually separatists and that there was no desire anywhere in the world to form a “Greater Albania”.
Trial? I’m not putting anyone on trial, and my advice to you is exactly the same as the advice I’d give to any recent college graduate. Study and think, don’t just regurgitate what you’ve been told.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think any news organization (even the Nat Inq) reported that Iraq used chem weapons against US troops. I don’t think the problem is that people are getting the wrong news, many aren’t getting any news. It’s their choice. You can beef up education of current events in high school, but it’ll go out the window as soon as people graduate. This is a very rich country and people who live in relative affluence become complacent. Good luck trying to fight that.
I haven’t read all that’s in this thread, but I would like to throw this out for consideration. Keep in mind that I’m single & have never had a child, so this may be old news to some.
I consider this idea liberal in that it would require governance, standardization, and money. A pork-barrel investment with a good chance of real long-term results IMO. BTW I am a liberal, and I included the above because it seems to break away from the impression I get from conservatives re: sink or swim with respect to self-sufficiency & etc.
I think that when people have children, they should receive something:
A class/pamphlet that discusses the importants of talking to children at a young age/stressing education/good parenting/methods of dealing with common rearing problems.
This would really focus on how important it is to provide a safe learning environment for infants & toddlers. I’ve seen a few cases in which a lazy (not unconcerned) parent leaves their child in a “safe room” with baby-cages in front of a television. This is what I would hope to avoid.
The most important part of this pamphlet would be a real summary of world history. I don’t intend to write a tirade on the spread of western civilization, but would rather have the parent TRULY understand the importance of raising their child to value education.
Of course, this is common sense to smart people, but to those who have children early, circumstances may prevent them from realizing what others have been brought up with.
My guess is that those 25% that don’t know about the weapons used during the war are part of the 50% of people who don’t vote in this country. There are lots of folks who simply don’t care about current events. They should not be encouraged to vote. As long as thier idiocy isn’t making it’s way into the voting booth, it don’t bother me none.
This is the type of topic that I like to see in the SDMB.
You’re coming to the same problem with Democracy that Plato had. Democracy is rule by the rabble, be they intelligent, informed and reasonable or not. That’s democracy.
Don’t you mean a Ted Turner and Rupert Murdock run media?:eek:
We don’t have a state-run media. We have a media that is run by advertising and must therefore cater to the least common denomenator of viewers. That’s why “The News” has been replaced byFOX EXTREAME ACTION NEWS!!!.
What I would do to combat ignorance:
-Create devices that will distract the most apathetic and ignorant of the population.
-Develop a system where actual decisions are made by those who have accumulated the most wealth and power.
-Every couple of years, let the people think they have some influence over world events by allowing them to select one of several nearly identical candidates. These candidates shall have already been filtered through a complex system to make sure that they are offensive to the fewest possible people.
But Eolbo, that story you linked to is problematic. It quotes an anonymous “staffer” who complains about how ignorant the senators were. But “staffers” who talk to reporters have reasons for talking to reporters. The “staffer” who said that obviously was against the war and wanted to slam the senators for being so ignorant.
See, in swallowing that story you inadvertantly proved your own point…that people don’t think critically about the news. The “staffer” thought that BBC news that predicted disaster was more objective than US news that didn’t. But guess what? The war WAS quick. Saddam is either dead or hiding in bunker somewhere. The “arab street” didn’t explode. The only regime experiencing instability right now is Iran, and they aren’t exactly having anti-American riots there.
Since that news item superficially supported your world view, you agreed with it and didn’t think critically about it. Many people do exactly the same. The BBC isn’t more objective than US media, they just have their own biases. And their biases can be even deeper for being unspoken. Paging Mr Mote, Mr Log is on line 3.
