Ignorance And Apathy

There's an old joke about a fictitious poll taker who asked people what they thought about ignorance and apathy when it comes to politics and elections. One respondent said, "I don't know, and I don't care."

I thought of that joke after seeing a recent YouGov poll. It shows a vast gap between what people believe to be true and what is verifiably true.

Here are a few examples. According to the poll, transgender individuals make up just 1 percent of the U.S. population, yet people believe the estimated proportion is 21 percent. Only about 1 percent of U.S. households earn more than $500,000 a year, but the survey shows respondents believe 26 percent earn more than that amount.

Three percent of the U.S. population identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, but the survey shows people think the figure is 30 percent. The Black population of the country is 12 percent, but people surveyed think it is 41 percent. Hispanic? The actual number is 17 percent, while the perception is 39 percent. It is the same for atheists: 3 percent (actual) vs. 33 percent (perception).

As James Freeman recently noted in The Wall Street Journal: "The current custom in journalism holds that legislation sponsored by Democrats carries the title preferred by Democrats, while a Republican-sponsored bill carries the title preferred by Democrats." He cites resident Biden's "Build Back Better" proposal, which is about raising taxes and increased spending. The media call the measure by his preferred label. Compare that to "Florida's new law shielding 7-year-olds from state-sponsored gender identity," which the media and activists insist on labeling the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Numerous other examples could be mentioned, including the media's propensity to use words like "hard right" and "extreme" when they mention conservatives, but often decline to attach the word "liberal" or "hard left" to people whose policies and views fit that description.

Variations of this quote have been attributed to different people, but it sums up the problem when it comes to the public's understanding of major issues: "Never underestimate the ignorance (or stupidity) of the vast American electorate." That sounds cynical but given how some elections have gone based on what people think is true (but often is not) it has the ring of credibility. President Biden campaigning as a "moderate" is another example of falsehood vs. reality.

People applying for a driver's license must take a written test to prove that they know the rules of the road. Those seeking U.S. citizenship must prove they speak English and have a basic knowledge of civics, the Constitution, and a familiarity with U.S. history. To earn a degree, students must pass written tests and for advanced degrees make a verbal defense of their thesis. Only when it comes to voting can someone cast a ballot with no knowledge, or incorrect knowledge, about the candidates and issues.

While I'm not suggesting mandatory tests before people can vote, which smacks of Jim Crow laws that discriminated against Black people, it would help strengthen democracy if an effort was made to ensure that voters have at least a minimal understanding of issues and candidates before they cast their ballots.

How this could be done without the imposition of one's own perceptions is key. I am open to suggestions, but the system we have now could be improved if people had a better understanding of economic, political, and cultural issues than what they get from major media.

Perhaps Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter will help swing the scale in the direction toward reality.

Pretty good article.

For example, blacks make up 12-13% of the US population, but people polled said it was 40%! (That 40% also happens to be the percent of ALL violent crime in the US perpetrated by a quarter of that 12-13% demographic)

I don’t watch television, but when I am in a room with people who are, I tend to watch the commercials critically. You would think the population of blacks in the US must be 80%, based on the proportions of people in the commercials.

I think it is fair to point these kinds of impressions people have at the media.

What accounts for this vast disparity between perception and reality? It can only be the news and entertainment media and what they choose to highlight, as well as the bias they bring to subjects and issues they seek to promote, denigrate, or ignore.
As James Freeman recently noted in The Wall Street Journal: "The current custom in journalism holds that legislation sponsored by Democrats carries the title preferred by Democrats, while a Republican-sponsored bill carries the title preferred by Democrats." He cites resident Biden's "Build Back Better" proposal, which is about raising taxes and increased spending. The media call the measure by his preferred label. Compare that to "Florida's new law shielding 7-year-olds from state-sponsored gender identity," which the media and activists insist on labeling the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

... Controlling language shapes public perception and eventually opinion.

Cherry picking what stories to cover as "national news," and which ones to ignore as "local news," is a very large part of the left-wing propaganda empire's playbook. But the selective use of language itself, which Cal Thomas explores skillfully here, is also a very large part of it.

Consider the case of the Brooklyn subway shooter in the recent headlines. That story dropped off the radar almost instantly, even though it was first described as a terrorist attack, when it turned out that the shooter was a black nationalist who supported Black Lives Matter on social media. All of a sudden, this "terrorist attack" on one of our largest cities, the headquarters of the media, became irrelevant or unimportant.

Then, of course, there's the case of the New York Post's coverage of Hunter's laptop, and the suppression of that story by Twitter and Facebook until after Hunter's dad won the election. This case has already been flogged to death, but let's put a better name on it: it was an attempt to influence an election. And it worked splendidly. By the media. For their favored party, and their favored slate of candidates: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Now that Biden has clearly become a liability and the policy decisions made in his name have undeniably failed, it appears to the media Groupthink that if the Democrats in Congress distance themselves from Biden and his policies, they can cut their losses this November. So Biden is now being thrown under the bus. The signal of this decision is the "Hunter's laptop is real, I guess" stories from the New York Times and Washington Post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.