Brendan Nyhan

My new column at Columbia Journalism Review lauds the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s Craig Gilbert for his unusual approach to covering politics, which draws far more deeply on political science than any other reporter working today. Here’s how it begins:

One of the most encouraging trends in journalism over the past few years has been the tentative embrace of political science by a number of reporters and pundits. To be sure, that embrace is partial and incomplete: poli sci can still do more to inform news coverage, which still tends to rely on elite sources like pundits, operatives, and elected officials rather than academic research and the scholars who produce it. But notable journalists like The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and David Leonhardt and Adam Liptak of The New York Times now routinely consult political scientists as sources and frame stories in ways that reflect academic insights…

The reporter who’s probably done more than anyone else to integrate political science into daily news coverage, however, actually works at a regional newspaper in the Midwest: Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Among the nearly 700 articles archived under Gilbert’s byline in the Nexis Academic database, a remarkable 16 percent mention the terms “political science” or “political scientist.” And a closer examination of this coverage over the last two years reveals that these aren’t just cursory citations or “expert” quotes that fill out stories—Gilbert’s consultation with academics frequently allows him to bring in data or findings that are neglected in mainstream political coverage.

Read the whole thing for more.

My new column at Columbia Journalism Review discusses the problem of fact-checkers leaving the realm of verifiable evidence and weighing in on semantics and political process issues. Here’s how it begins:

What, exactly, is a “serious” plan to resolve the budget impasse in Congress? It’s not clear how to define adjectives like this, but that didn’t stop Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, from weighing in with a column on Monday arguing that President Obama’s budget is “not really a plan” because Obama hasn’t offered “a sustained presidential commitment” to it, including challenging his own party and “[making] the case for overhauling entitlement programs to the American people.”

Unfortunately, Kessler’s argument is semantic, not factual, and based in his own centrist ideology—a mistake that he and other factcheckers make too frequently. Factchecking is an inherently subjective enterprise; the divide between fact and opinion is often messy and difficult to parse. As CJR’s Greg Marx argued, it is therefore essential that factcheckers like Kessler only invoke the authority of facts when assessing claims that can be resolved on evidentiary grounds, rather than straying into subjective judgments about the political process or semantic debates over terminology.

Read the whole thing for more.

My new column at CJR challenges the bizarre mythology among some commentators that the President can somehow make Congress agree with him on a resolution to the impasse over sequestration. Here’s how it begins:

One of the recurring themes in commentary on national politics is the demand for the president to change politics as we know it to accomplish some otherwise unattainable political goal. If only President Obama tried a little harder, some critics claim, he could magically overcome legislative obstacles to gun control or clean energy legislation. I’ve dubbed this fantasy the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency in honor of the comic book superheroes whose abilities to use their “power rings” depend on their willpower.

Tuesday’s New York Times column by David Brooks on the debate over the so-called budget sequester is a case in point.

For more, read the whole thing.

On Friday, I wrote a column for CJR challenging journalistic assessments of the prospects for third parties, which prompted a reply from National Journal’s Ron Fournier this morning. I have a new column up that responds to Fournier and offers five additional points that I think journalists should consider in assessing the prospects for successful third party challenges. Here’s how it begins:

National Journal’s Ron Fournier has posted a gracious reply to my CJR column challenging what I considered to be his excessively optimistic estimates of the likelihood of a successful third party or serious third party presidential contender. I’m very encouraged by the exchange that we’ve had, which reflects the possibilities for engagement and collaboration between journalism and political science. In this case, political science research has a different perspective than the operatives and professionals, as Fournier notes.

Read the whole thing for more.

In case you missed it, here’s my prebuttal to media coverage of the State of the Union, which includes a new introduction to last year’s edition.

In my new column at CJR, I criticize the tendency for journalists to hype the prospects of third parties and third party presidential candidates. Here’s how it begins:

National Journal editorial director Ron Fournier is a respected journalist with years of distinguished service as an Associated Press correspondent and editor. So why is he issuing hyperbolic warnings about how “social change and a disillusioned electorate threaten the entire two-party system”?

In a story posted online Thursday, Fournier leaps from a hypothetical 2016 third-party presidential bid by Republican senator and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul to an elaborate scenario in which the survival of the major parties is at risk. He quotes both GOP Rep. Reid Ribble and Democratic consultant Doug Sosnik predicting, in nearly identical terms, the emergence of “third and even fourth parties.”

In reality, while changes to the party structure are of course possible and third-party candidates do occasionally emerge, the rules of congressional and presidential elections create dynamics that make it extremely difficult for third-party or independent candidates to succeed in the United States—and even harder for a third party to exist as a sustained institution.

For more, read the whole thing.

In my new column at CJR, I argue that the media should be wary of giving additional attention to Sandy Hook truthers, which may actually help to spread their false claims. Here’s how it begins:

In the weeks since the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, fringe conspiracy theorists have suggested that the shooting rampage there was staged or even perpetrated by the government to advance an anti-gun agenda—claims so absurd that even Glenn Beck has denounced them as preposterous.

The fact that these theories have been circulating should not surprise us; tragedies frequently give rise to anti-government conspiracy myths (9/11, Waco, etc.). More surprising—and unfortunate—is how much attention some media outlets are devoting to these claims, which have not been endorsed by any prominent politicians or commentators. While the coverage to date has generally sought to marginalize these conspiracy-mongers, it risks drawing more attention to their false claims and propagating the myth further.

For more, read the whole thing.

My new column at CJR covers the need for reporters to be more skeptical about politicians’ expressed commitments to their beliefs during bargaining processes like the current debt ceiling showdown. Here’s how it begins:

Insider reporting is vital to understanding what The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib describes as the “‘Groundhog Day’ loop of fiscal crisis, followed by rancorous partisan debate, followed by half-solution” that has come to dominate the nation’s capitol since the November election. But reporters covering the White House and Capitol Hill must be cautious of sources exaggerating how committed they are to their expressed positions in an effort to obtain greater bargaining leverage.

For more, read the whole thing.

My new column at CJR discusses the challenges facing health care journalists in covering the Independent Payment Advisory Board without reinforcing the “death panel” myth. Here’s how it begins:

One of the most underrated political stories of the next year is the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA), which continues to unfold at the state and federal level. It’s the sort of complex policy issue that often gets short shrift from reporters, especially in comparison to the ongoing series of dramatic confrontations between the president and congressional Republicans over the “fiscal cliff” and federal debt ceiling.

Unfortunately, one key element of the ACA—the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)—has become entangled with the “death panel” myth about the legislation, making it an important test case for whether we can have a fact-based debate about whether and how to reduce the explosive growth of healthcare costs.

Read the whole thing for more.

For those who are interested, I have a new study out in Medical Care titled “The Hazards of Correcting Myths About Health Care Reform” (gated) with Jason Reifler and Peter Ubel.

Here’s the abstract (see also this morning’s press release):

Context: Misperceptions are a major problem in debates about health care reform and other controversial health issues.

Methods: We conducted an experiment to determine if more aggressive media fact-checking could correct the false belief that the Affordable Care Act would create “death panels.” Participants from an opt-in Internet panel were randomly assigned to either a control group in which they read an article on Sarah Palin’s claims about “death panels” or an intervention group in which the article also contained corrective information refuting Palin.

Findings: The correction reduced belief in death panels and strong opposition to the reform bill among those who view Palin unfavorably and those who view her favorably but have low political knowledge. However, it backfired among politically knowledgeable Palin supporters, who were more likely to believe in death panels and to strongly oppose reform if they received the correction.

Conclusions: These results underscore the difficulty of reducing misperceptions about health care reform among individuals with the motivation and sophistication to reject corrective information.

And here’s the key graph showing how the correction was effective among less knowledgeable Palin supporters but backfired with those who were more knowledgeable:

For more, see my previous articles on misperceptions and factual beliefs:
–Beliefs Don’t Always Persevere: How political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited (pre-publication version) (with Michael Cobb and Jason Reifler)
–Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research Findings from Social Science (with Jason Reifler)
–Why the “Death Panel” Myth Wouldn’t Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate (ungated copy)
–When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions (pre-publication version) (with Jason Reifler)
–The Limited Effects of Testimony on Political Persuasion (pre-publication version)