In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter

_

New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts -- and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best.

Interesting story to read and/or listen to. They use many of the things we discuss around here as examples.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 74&ps=cprs

Cosmo

scb wrote:

New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts -- and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best.

Interesting story to read and/or listen to. They use many of the things we discuss around here as examples.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 74&ps=cprs

...
Truthiness.

gimmesometruth27

facts don't matter when we have such an informed and engaged electorate in this country.....










we can't let facts get in the way of our opinions, which are always correct, right???

markin ball

I still think people listen to reason and change their minds. I don't care what it says.

OutOfBreath

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I'll say that in politics, truth never matters, and never have. Politics is all about perceptions and appearances. Sadly.

Peace
Dan

know1

It's not just the misinformed. I think they are a small part of the problem. It's the outright corruption and deceitfulness that demonstrate that the truth doesn't matter in politics whatsoever.

Blockhead

Says the board that holds the exact same opinion as Eddie Vedder, people that form their own opinion.
I think people are foolish to hold themsevles to a label. Outofbreath is right its all about perception, there should be no reason
That someone would vote or support sara palin.

polaris_x

this is true ... simply proven by the effectiveness of negative ads and attack campaigns on the electorate ... long been established ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

this is true ... simply proven by the effectiveness of negative ads and attack campaigns on the electorate ... long been established ...

I like negative ads so long as they are truthful and not sensationalized....unfortunately, that seems to be most of them. I never really understood how specifically pointing out the failures of your opponent is a bad thing to do.

arq

People only believes what they want to believe... That's what Jesus wants them to believe.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

I like negative ads so long as they are truthful and not sensationalized....unfortunately, that seems to be most of them. I never really understood how specifically pointing out the failures of your opponent is a bad thing to do.

the thing with negative ads that have some semblance of truth is that its always distorted to some degree to suit an agenda ... it in essence is like marketing of crap food products as good for you ... it's all a sham and there is never any objectivity ...

it depends on what your end goal is i suppose ... if ultimately, it is to see one side win over the other - then i suppose you are right ... i would rather see a political debate based on ideas and transparency ... these days - rarely do the issues get covered ... people only care about sound bites ... and catchphrases ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I like negative ads so long as they are truthful and not sensationalized....unfortunately, that seems to be most of them. I never really understood how specifically pointing out the failures of your opponent is a bad thing to do.

the thing with negative ads that have some semblance of truth is that its always distorted to some degree to suit an agenda ... it in essence is like marketing of crap food products as good for you ... it's all a sham and there is never any objectivity ...

it depends on what your end goal is i suppose ... if ultimately, it is to see one side win over the other - then i suppose you are right ... i would rather see a political debate based on ideas and transparency ... these days - rarely do the issues get covered ... people only care about sound bites ... and catchphrases ...

DOn't get me wrong, I agree that most negative ads are not helpful because they are sensationalized.

But I don't agree with you that negative ads (if proper) are only good to see one side WIN over the other. I think they can help educate people on the differences so they can make a better choice. Of course, maybe my definition of a negative ad isn't correct. But if I ever ran a campaign (which I won't) I would certainly use "negative ads" highlighting my opponents failures compared with my positions. It seems pretty standard to me.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

DOn't get me wrong, I agree that most negative ads are not helpful because they are sensationalized.

But I don't agree with you that negative ads (if proper) are only good to see one side WIN over the other. I think they can help educate people on the differences so they can make a better choice. Of course, maybe my definition of a negative ad isn't correct. But if I ever ran a campaign (which I won't) I would certainly use "negative ads" highlighting my opponents failures compared with my positions. It seems pretty standard to me.

yeah ... there are the "negative ads" like - my opponent wears diapers at night and then there are the "negative ads" like - my opponent believes in supports the oil industry ...

PJPOWER

I think that facts absolutely matter. The problem is that it has become hard as hell to actually find "facts". With the exception of the overly informed members of this forum , I would say that the majority of people get their facts from corporate media outlets with agendas. The full truth is rarely fed without nasty side dishes of distortion and a desert to sweeten things up a little. Where do you get your facts?

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

DOn't get me wrong, I agree that most negative ads are not helpful because they are sensationalized.

But I don't agree with you that negative ads (if proper) are only good to see one side WIN over the other. I think they can help educate people on the differences so they can make a better choice. Of course, maybe my definition of a negative ad isn't correct. But if I ever ran a campaign (which I won't) I would certainly use "negative ads" highlighting my opponents failures compared with my positions. It seems pretty standard to me.

yeah ... there are the "negative ads" like - my opponent wears diapers at night and then there are the "negative ads" like - my opponent believes in supports the oil industry ...

Yep, and thank god for that. Without a quality negative ad like that I might end up voting for the wrong candidate. I mean, who wants your representative in congress to have an accident? He/she may miss an important vote? Personally, I think any candidate with a Diaper Champ in their office should be voted out immediately.

_

markin ball wrote:

I still think people listen to reason and change their minds. I don't care what it says.

_

PJPOWER wrote:

I think that facts absolutely matter. The problem is that it has become hard as hell to actually find "facts". With the exception of the overly informed members of this forum , I would say that the majority of people get their facts from corporate media outlets with agendas. The full truth is rarely fed without nasty side dishes of distortion and a desert to sweeten things up a little. Where do you get your facts?

I get my facts from the overly-informed members of this forum. The only news source I use regularly is NPR. But when it really comes down to it, I try to find primary sources. (Or was that a rhetorical question?)

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

I get my facts from the overly-informed members of this forum. The only news source I use regularly is NPR. But when it really comes down to it, I try to find primary sources. (Or was that a rhetorical question?)

You're welcome.

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

this is true ... simply proven by the effectiveness of negative ads and attack campaigns on the electorate ... long been established ...

I like negative ads so long as they are truthful and not sensationalized....unfortunately, that seems to be most of them. I never really understood how specifically pointing out the failures of your opponent is a bad thing to do.

...
The problem is... truth and political campaigning typically share nothing in common.
And yes, exposing the other candidate's skeletons in their closets are helpful... only if there is truth to back it.

dasvidana

I think in politics, the facts rarely matter. What matters is spin. For those interested, watch the documentary "The Boogie Man." It's about Lee Atwater and how his techniques resulted in changes in public opinion......Lee Atwater made Karl Rove look like a preschooler. It's on youtube if you're interested.

_

dasvidana wrote:

I think in politics, the facts rarely matter. What matters is spin. For those interested, watch the documentary "The Boogie Man." It's about Lee Atwater and how his techniques resulted in changes in public opinion......Lee Atwater made Karl Rove look like a preschooler. It's on youtube if you're interested.

Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Outfoxed is another great documentary about how facts don't matter.

haffajappa

This all makes sense to me.
I know someone who is as devotely attached to the Canadian Conservative party and Stephen Harper as she is to the Christian church... I've never seen anyone worship a political party to the extent of that...

And to her, no matter what, Harper is a saint.
doesn't matter what the facts are... he can do no wrong.


Kinda like some people think Obama can do no right....
Even when it comes to basketball players...

Pepe Silvia

"facts are stupid things" - ronald reagan