Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
This week's edition of our general newsletter, MWI Weekly, focuses on, of all things, the news.
In a survey of the American public conducted by Gallup and released this week by the Knight Foundation, about half of the respondents strongly disagreed with the statement, "In general, most national news organizations do not intend to mislead, misinform, or persuade the public." The Associated Press reported on the release with the headline, "Study shows ‘striking’ number who believe news misinforms."
To his credit, AP national media writer David Bauder did a much better job in the story's lede: "Half of Americans in a recent survey indicated they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting."
The comma and the word "or" are doing quite a bit of work there. Misleading, misinforming and persuading are three different things, and only the first two are always no-nos when done intentionally; the third is not only ambiguous, but often perfectly alright depending on the kind of journalism we're talking about (for example, opinions and editorials are by definition trying to persuade).
By lumping those three concepts together, Knight/Gallup is presenting three different views as one. It's pretty loose methodology (something, to be honest, Gallup is often guilty of).
What's worse, the next question commits another sin by introducing the normative: "In general, most national news organizations care about the best interests of their readers, viewers, and listeners." Respondents had to not only decide what "care" means before agreeing or disagreeing; they also had to make a judgment on what "best interests" means, too.
As it is, 52 percent strongly disagreed with that statement (we don't know if it was the same half who disagreed with the last one).
Predictably, right-wing media seized on the misleading part. Never mind the logical inconsistencies; their audience understands they're talking about the Other Guys. And just as predictably, the Other Guys were more inclined to lament the decreasing level of trust than anything else. Neither seemed too disposed toward digging down a little to see where the problem really lies.
Somewhat surprisingly, it's not actually a uniquely American problem. Previous studies (often much more rigorous) have shown Americans aren't all that different from the rest of the world. In 2018, Pew Research found we had (at least back then) pretty much the same desires and expectations as the rest of the West.
A couple years before that, during the 2016 campaign cycle, Pew found a majority of Americans wanted facts reported without interpretation -- but there were already signs of a growing partisan divide, including on the very subject of what actually constitutes a fact in the first place. One can only guess how much greater the divide must be on the question of what constitutes an interpretation.
And that, of course, is one of the caveats of public polling. Ultimately, as much as we try and quantify and objectify, the data can't help but be influenced by the subjective views, perceptions and emotions of the respondents themselves. People don't use the same words in the same way.
That's one of the reasons it's so important to carefully frame questions to begin with; ambiguity leads to misinterpretation. It's also important to not paint with too broad a brush. A majority of Americans may agree with a particular statement in a survey, but for very different, or even completely opposite, reasons.
Of one thing we can be fairly confident: the rise of cable followed by the rise of the internet have radically altered the media environment, especially when it comes to the news. How much the online algorithms especially have served to manipulate the online news consumer is a matter of great debate, as well as a crucial upcoming Supreme Court case involving Section 230. But it's hard to escape the commonsense conclusion the algorithms must, at the very least, influence what we actually see.
It's also hard to see how getting rid of Section 230 would actually help in any way. The chilling effect would be devastating to the free flow of news and information while doing nothing to correct the flaws of the algorithms. Americans, instead of struggling to sort through the facts, would be faced with the prospect of having no verifiable facts at all.
Whether that's one of the reasons some of the more vocal opponents of Section 230 want to see it gone is worth considering.
In the meantime, a lot of their arguments against it don't hold up well to any kind of analysis. And for Whigs, who honor the necessity and value of a free press for a free People (the fourth star on the Whig Owl represents the Fourth Estate), little is more important than the ability of the public to be informed.
And that's true even if we can't always agree on what we mean by a fact.
The Kids Are Not Alright
In other survey news, on Monday, Feb. 13 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report on the mental health of America's youth. Included in the report were data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey which included some eye-popping numbers, especially when it comes to the mental health of teenage girls: almost 60 percent of the girls surveyed reported persistently feeling sad or hopeless, an increase of over 20 percentage points from the survey of a decade ago.
A lot of the other numbers are equally troubling, including a significant increase in suicidal thoughts and plans to commit suicide. Sexual violence against girls was also markedly higher from the previous study, with 14 percent of the female students surveyed now reporting being forced to have sex. The numbers were even higher for youths who identify as LGBTQ.
One important caveat: the survey was conducted in 2021, when public health measures to combat the Covid-19 pandemic seriously disrupted the lives of young people across the country. Separation from friends and group activities and the isolation which went with it was surely a factor.
But the story isn't quite so simple. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the NYU Stern School of Business points out in this excellent essay, the mental health crisis among America's youth, especially among girls and young women, began around a decade ago, long before the onset of the pandemic. It's very much worth reading in its entirety: The Teen Mental Illness Epidemic Began Around 2012 (substack.com)
Pinning down a cause is much harder than pegging the start of the crisis, of course. And from a methodological perspective, there's always an inherent danger in any survey where subjects are self-reporting; it's the subjectivity problem again.
Still, whatever the air in the data, it's hard to escape the conclusion something is going on. And it's not good. Our culture is apparently driving a large percentage of our young into a persistent state of unhappiness, and it's not just recently. Every indication points to a structural cause.
But what can it be? Correlation is not causation, but it's hard to ignore the fact the spike in negative emotions began right around the time social media exploded into general usage. Facebook crossed the billion monthly user threshold in 2012, the same year Twitter gained full traction, especially among younger users, and Facebook itself bought Instagram.
Given all the social pressures teens and adolescents normally face, is it possible social media aggravates some of the most negative emotions through amplification? On its face, it's a pretty simple conclusion to reach. Thanks to whistleblower Frances Haugen, we know Facebook's own internal studies showed Instagram is, in many ways, harmful for young girls. It's not much of a reach to draw a broader conclusion about social media in general.
Or maybe media, period. It could well be all of us, adults included, are just awash in too much stuff. Just as the Knight/Gallup survey paints a picture of adults struggling to sort through the endless pipeline of information, so too are teens, adolescents and young adults struggling to process all the images and fashion memes and idealized looks and targeted advertising even as they're just learning who they are.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," said famed scifi author Arthur C. Clarke. Millions and millions of our kids have a Magic Rectangle in their pocket -- a handheld computer connected to the entire world, with access to everything happening around them, all the time. It's relentless.
Maybe it's all just too much.
Odds and Ends
In news about the Institute, we paused publishing to the National Gazette this past week in order to review where we are and allow some contributors to get ahead a little. We're going to resume publishing on Mon, Feb. 20. Going forward, we'll continue to publish a new essay on Mondays and Wednesdays as well as cross-posting MWI Weekly on Fridays.
(Subscriptions to the Gazette are just $5/mo. All funds go directly to supporting the Institute.)
Last week, we touched on some general themes of Whig economics. A couple days later, Robinson Meyer, the climate change reporter at the New York Times, hit some similar points and highlighted some of the same challenges we see: Opinion | A Huge, Uncharted Experiment on the U.S. Economy Is About to Begin - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Meanwhile, the backlash against the backlash against author J. K. Rowling is gaining steam. Needless to say, it's a good thing. If there are any lessons to be learned from her story, it's the validity of the horseshoe theory -- the extremes on both sides really do keep bending until they meet: The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling (thefp.com)
And this op-ed is a nice complement: Opinion | In Defense of J.K. Rowling - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
The most dangerous mobs of all are the righteous mobs.
On another note, speaking of the young, military recruitment is pretty challenging these days: Military Services Competing Over the Same Recruiting Pool of Less Than 500,000 - USNI News
The good news is, we seem finally to be recognizing how vital our defense industrial base truly is. As brutal as the War in Ukraine has been on the Ukrainians, and as better off the world would have been had Putin never invaded, it may turn out to be the wake up call we needed: Tank plant in small Ohio city plays big role in Ukraine war | AP News
Getting tanks to Ukraine fast enough may now be our biggest priority. Russia may have lost half their armor already, including most of their best tanks, but they still have the advantage of numbers. Evening up the odds even a little may be enough to finally turn the tide -- and it may come as a shock to the average Russian when that happens: What do Russians think “victory” means in Ukraine? (grid.news)
On the home front, turns out politics can be good for business (we knew that already, of course): After helping MBS’s rise, Trump and Kushner benefit from Saudi funds - The Washington Post
But don't try and navigate the Washington scene without knowing just a little about the dance of the sand crabs: Never Say ‘Nice to Meet You’ and 27 Other Rules for Surviving in D.C. - POLITICO
And finally, the recent deadly storms in California were brutal. But all the rain was badly needed, as was the massive snowfall in the mountains. Mother Nature can be a tricky girl: Photos document Lake Oroville's rise after storms hit California (cnbc.com)
See you next week.
Kevin J. Rogers is the executive director of the Modern Whig Institute. He can be reached at director@modernwhig.org. ___________________________________________________________
The Modern Whig Institute is a 501(c)(3) civic research and education foundation dedicated to the fundamental American principles of representative government, ordered liberty, capitalism, due process and the rule of law.
To join the Institute, click here.
