Poll: We’re getting dumber
posted at 2:30 pm on April 16, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Three 24-hour cable news channels, newspapers available online everywhere via wi-fi, a billion blogs parsing the news…and apparently we’re less informed now than we were in 1989.
Since the late 1980s, the emergence of 24-hour cable news as a dominant news source and the explosive growth of the internet have led to major changes in the American public’s news habits. But a new nationwide survey finds that the coaxial and digital revolutions and attendant changes in news audience behaviors have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.
FigureOn average, today’s citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago.
—
In 1989, for example, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle’s name when asked who the vice president is. Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney. However, more Americans now know that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered a conservative and that Democrats control Congress than knew these things in 1989. Some of the largest knowledge differences between the two time periods may reflect differences in the amount of press coverage of a particular issue or public figure at the time the surveys were taken. But taken as a whole the findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge.
What I have observed since I started blogging back in 2001 is that some people are far more informed than they probably would have been without blogs, the net, etc, but most aren’t. So you have hyperinformed people who know the minutiae of the daily news, but they’re still a tiny minority. And among the hyperinformed, news consumption today is more tailored to individual interests than it could have been 20 years ago. There’s some confirmation of this in the survey:
The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs. The polling does find the expected correlation between how much citizens know and how avidly they watch, read, or listen to news reports. The most knowledgeable third of the public is four times more likely than the least knowledgeable third to say they enjoy keeping up with the news “a lot.”
Basically, you can’t make people get interested in the news if they’re not interested. And if Hollywood gossip is all they care about, that’s all the news they’ll seek out. Twas always thus. Now it’s just easier to find the news you want and avoid the rest. For those who are interested in hard news, world affairs and that sort of thing, it’s information overload.
Exit question: Does this mean that hard news blogging is a waste of time, or that there’s a huge audience out there just waiting to be found?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No, no audience waiting. We are becoming a dumber society overall. We have lost a grade level every 10 years since 1900 roughly. The ignorant don’t care. The new audience will be a by product of the informed sharing their information and directing people to the blogs and news and/or our educational system focusing on government, economics, history, and american culture.
Theworldisnotenough on April 16, 2007 at 2:40 PM
B. - There’s a
hugelarge audience waiting to be tapped. People use their TVs and internet connections to enjoy what they like. There’s a growing market out there as more people get online. But some folks have no interest in ‘hard news’ period - only time to upload the rest of their 5,691,043 pictures of their two cats, Freckles and Mr. Boots.Hoodlumman on April 16, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Two Americas… the well informed… and the Dems.
huckleberry on April 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I agree with #1. It’s a waste of time. Clearly, we are in the “apathy” stage of the evolution of great societies. Drudge reported that 53% get major money from government. That will only keep growing over time. Then we’ll be in dependence, and then it’s done.
lorien1973 on April 16, 2007 at 2:50 PM
You can lead a slacker to the news but you can’t make him think.
It’s all about market penetration. Plug plug plug, and a television ad now and then might not hurt.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I just had a thought that there are many of the uninformed that could only be reached by word of mouth if at all. Some just want to stay blind, I dated a gal last year like that,just ignored the news because it stressed her out. Was completely uninformed about anthing except movie chat.
bbz123 on April 16, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I blame the NEA.
georgej on April 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Exit question:
It is not necessarily a waste of time but it does feed to a kind of “fast food” delivery of the news. In the old days before the internet people (those who were interested) had to search out much of their news to get a balanced perspective. This meant reading articles and opinions, usually in their entirety. In the current state the blogs offer a service of giving the slant a person may be looking for instead of weighing the facts. How many people respond before they have checked out all links and read the reference material?
Will it develop over time and become more comprehensive and contribute to informed debate? Only time will tell.
Bradky on April 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Wait. Did I read that right?
31% of people can’t name the current Vice-President? Is that what that says?
Oh. Dear. God.
Professor Blather on April 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM
This is the stupidest article I ‘ve ever read!
It’s exactly the same as what’s wrong with the education system. The schools did a study of how many minutes per day students were working on “core” subjects. Mind you, kids sit in 50 minute periods a day per subject, but the magic number of actual minutes working on a subject, such as math, was 10.5 minutes only. Five core subjects, that’s 10.5 x 5 = 57.5 minutes per day of genuine work focusing on all the subjects, combined. One hour???? What is everyone doing from 8 am to 3 pm, which is the average school day? To enhance the waste in the school day, students spend more time reading about Democrat Party icons than reading about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson … so on and so forth. Children browbeat daily with PC restrictions, are bored, stifled and uneducated, while excuses to cover this disaster are manufactured: developmental delays, need Ritalin, softening parents to accept lowered expectations for basic skills, not enough money. National testing boards like SATs bowed to pressure and dummmied down their tests to help cover the steady national decline in abilities.
The media, especially the MSM TV and radio news, is doing exactly the same thing, filling up everyone’s time with fluff and emptiness. News 24/7, but the actual “news” delivered to the starving public might top eight minutes in a 24 hour period, and a chunk of that 8 would probably be weather updates.
It’s the intellectual equivalent of eating marshmallow Peeps all day long.
Then, we get served these airhead surveys of “Americans don’t know much anymore. What’s wrong with them?”
Liberals own the schools and try to shut down school competition, Liberals own the media and try to shut down the competition. We are all being smothered under a fraud, in news, in education, in politics.
naliaka on April 16, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Coming up next on The Violence Channel - an all new episode of “Ow My Balls!”
xardoz on April 16, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Fast food is the perfect analogy–convenient, predictable, little actual nutrition. We all fall victim to what’s easy versus what is of most value.
That said, I really wonder who the respondants to these surveys are, how could you avoid knowing who the vice president is? Chief justice or speaker, well still really a sad state not to know that, but the VP????
honora on April 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Ignorance can be innocent or it can be willful. I know people in both camps. But generally I’d say yes, the stupid are multiplying faster. Just look at the last 2 elections. In even a moderately intelligent society, what percentage of the vote should a party standing for surrender to a barbaric, fantically aggressive enemy arming itself with WMDs be reasonably expected to get? 2%? 3% tops (and then only among the deranged)? In 2004 they got 49% and last year they trounced. That’s not just dumb…
Halley on April 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM
*gag* 52.5
shouldn’t post when I’m pissed off, get sloppy.
naliaka on April 16, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Why me read blog?
Kid from Brooklyn on April 16, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I’m sorry, but I would beg to differ on our getting dumber. We are just as dumb as we ever were…no change in anything except the following:
1. Big Three news outlets are bitter because we get out news so many other places - thus we must be dumb.
2. We are paying more attention to how much we don’t know, in comparison to decades, centuries before. The more you see DUMB, the more prevalent it appears.
It’s kinda like that new acquaintance we meet that has a car make you’ve never paid attention to. All of a sudden, that car make is all you see.
This is much ado about nothing, in the big scheme of things, and I’m surprised at how many of our group here is buying into this nonsense.
tickleddragon on April 16, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Nice one, kid from brooklyn!…
And apparently, if you watch FOX News instead of Jon Stewart and Colbert, you’re even dumber
JetBoy on April 16, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Too many words! Post a video of someone getting kneed in the crotch!
frankj on April 16, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I suspect that there’s been no drop in the average man’s ability to recite the batting record of most major league baseball players, or the line ups of their favorite team’s last five seasons. Or of the average woman’s ability to describe the current drama on their favorite soap or TV show.
People aren’t dumber in the sense that they can’t assimilate information. They just care less about what’s going on outside of their immediate personal lives.
It’s narcissism, not devolution.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Yep, I’m sure they’re celebrating at DNC headquarters
over this survey. Keeping people ignorant and lacking in critical thinking skills is an essential part of their agenda, especially in the school system.
ReubenJCogburn on April 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Well as much as I would like to say, “Of course!” I suspect the data would confirm that the best informed are people who have multiple sources for their news. Fox News may “suffer” from having viewers who get their news only from that outlet–it’s not watching Fox News that makes them “dumber”, it’s that people who limit their news outlets to only one are by definition not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
honora on April 16, 2007 at 3:47 PM
“Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney.”
Rove, you magnificent Bastard! Keepin’ Cheney on the down-low. What will he come up with next? Wait, were all those VT students registered Democrats? (too fresh? sorry in advance)
ej_pez on April 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Rosie is still on the air, and we needed a poll to find out we were dumber? This wasn’t self-evident?
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM
What?????
honora on April 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM
I think I’m closer to naliaka (education problem) on this than tickleddragon (no problem). I think it’s arguable that if it weren’t for a counterbalancing alternative media, we’d be even dumber, as the message of the mainstream education system has become, over the last two generations, pretty much “Bad America!” - race!, class!, gender! and “more Europe, faster please…” and the MSM and the cultural desire for all-American-Idol-all-the-time reinforces that emptiness.
And when larger doses of effluent inevitably hit the cooling device (see today’s Stak Attack), there will be ever louder calls for “even more Europe, even faster, please”. The country will be more divided, and without efforts like those of the folks at HA, only the Give Up On America And Don’t Be Mean crowd would be heard, and who the VP is could become of remarkably little significance.
eeyore on April 16, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I’m gonna guess that while the people are actually “less” informed, the would overestimate their own knowledge base. More apt to rail an opinion without the ability to back it up with facts.
Carin on April 16, 2007 at 4:09 PM
It depends on what what you see as the point of hard news blogging. The internet makes it marginally easier for those interested in hard news to get it when they want it (and even the apathetic want it sometimes). But I think AP is correct that it still remains a market subject to consumer choice.
If the point of hard news blogging is to tap into a larger audience, I would note that the very outlets that attract the most knowledgeable audiences — The Daily Show, Limbaugh, etc. — draw eyes and ears by packaging hard news in ways that differ markedly from the failing MSM model. And O’Reilly and Limbaugh pretty much dominate their competitition. I would say most hard news blogs haven’t figured out how to duplicate that kind of success.
Not to suck up, but I would say that HotAir, with its emphasis on video, and its mix of content (funny and serious, global issues and pop culture) is one of the blogs that I would say has a good chance at ultimately tapping into a much broader audience. It’s already something like number 58 on Technorati.
Ultimately, however, reaching a broader audience may depend on the further convergence of internet and trad media. The percentage of the public reading blogs at all is pretty small. Phenomena like viral video may fuel some growth in the short to medium-term, but the recent study on the demographics of YouTube usage suggests to me that you won’t get MSM size audiences until the Internet is able to compete with MSM technology, or the two converge.
Karl on April 16, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Sorry, Honora. Does this help?
>sarcasm off
ej_pez on April 16, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Question: Why is it when a liberal talks of FOX News and it’s viewers, FOX ends up being the “only news source” for those viewers…but when it’s CNN or MSNBC’s viewers, they somehow have various news sources?
Just wondering…
JetBoy on April 16, 2007 at 4:50 PM
That explains the last election, and poll results on Iraq War etc….
RightWinged on April 16, 2007 at 5:33 PM
What’s a blog? Is George Shultz still Secretary of State? When did they fire that Jocelyn Elders? She was a spitfire!
robblefarian on April 16, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I can’t find the original study:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez092700.asp
Another study showed that democrats were less informed on daily news as well. I’ll have to dig that one up too. So, as usual, democrats lead the charge into stupidity.
Forward ho!
lorien1973 on April 16, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Hey!
Jim Treacher on April 16, 2007 at 6:01 PM
>What is everyone doing from 8 am to 3 pm, which is the average school day?
Diversity training.
Seriously.
Doghouse on April 16, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Anna Nicole?
Anna Nicole!
ANNA NICOLE!
Reaps on April 16, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I can tell you this. While I’m looking for a permanent position, I’ve taken a temporary position grading standardized math exams taken by 8th graders from Maryland. Basically all I’ve done so far is grade the same problem thousands of times over, but I can tell you this: the vast majority of those kids couldn’t tell you what probability was if it curtsied on their face. Even fewer could actually find it given a six-sided die and a set of frequencies. At least I’m guessing they couldn’t find it. The handwriting was so godawful you’d think a bunch of kindergartners somehow leapfrogged to the 8th grade. Of course, to do that, they’d probably have to know what probability was.
Mark V. on April 16, 2007 at 9:30 PM
I think it’s the natural entropy of humans to gravitate to a class system. Rather than an economic system, as they have in India, or a religious system, as with the Holy Roman Empire, we now have in the USA a class system of intellect. There’s the informed, successful class, the class that’s too busy with day-to-day living and playing to keep well informed, and the trash class, which also seems to be the criminal and poor class. I can only guess at the percentages of the population for each class, but the trash class doesn’t seem to care much about their lot in life, as long as they have beer, drugs, cigarettes, and someone to
screwbe intimate with. They also don’t care where the money to do these things come from, whether they get government assistance, beg, steal, burglarize.From what I’ve observed, the trash class may account for as much as half our population.
stonemeister on April 16, 2007 at 10:41 PM
the trash class doesn’t seem to care much about their lot in life, as long as they have beer, drugs, cigarettes, and someone to screw be intimate with. They also don’t care where the money to do these things come from, whether they get government assistance, beg, steal, burglarize.
From what I’ve observed, the trash class may account for as much as half our population.
stonemeister on April 16, 2007 at 10:41 PM
What you’ve “observed”, eh? You need to work on those Powers,/ stonemeister. Half of Americans are “trash”?
That sounds a lot like the snotty-snobby elitist rantings at KOS. What you and they overlook is that most people in any modern society are decent people who although not well- informed about World Events are nonetheless aware of and concerned about their families and friends and co-workers
They are not in control of their own lives, and don’t feel comfartable dabbling in examining the Workings of Power in D.C. or Geneva or anywhere else. Too many of them are spending too much time in an increasingly available escapism, but it is hard to fault them for that
In the New Age of cell phones and internet and laptops, it is easier to be Informed and paradoxically easier to be Ignorant. And yes, liberal rule and Democrat desk-jockeys
are making people stupider–people in general and kids in particular
Janos Hunyadi on April 17, 2007 at 3:08 AM
…and ironically, education.
Talk to your parents/granparents. All that’s been said for decades is that the American educational system is headed downhill fast. At the same time, math and science are being taught at a level that wasn’t even dreamed of several decades ago. Ask your parents/grandparents if calculus, physics, chemistry etc. were even an option when they went to school. And computer science… what’s that? Even elementary music classes have greatly changed from when we just sat in class and sang songs.
I don’t buy that kids are dumber -it doesn’t fit with my personal observations (the dumb have always been with us). I would offer an alternative explanation -the breadth of knowledge has expanded at an amazing rate. Our ability to learn and retain has not. That means compared to the “body of knowledge” any individual “knows” a shrinking percentage. That’s what we see in these polls. Yes, its sad so many don’t know who the vice president is, but those kids may have extensive knowledge in another field that far surpasses anything their contemporaries from a generation ago achieved.
taznar on April 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM