Brendan Nyhan

Yesterday, the New America Foundation Media Policy Initiative released a report (PDF) that I co-authored with Jason Reifler titled “Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research Findings from Social Science.” The report reviews academic research on misperceptions and makes recommendations for how to most effectively correct them.

Reifler and I summarize the report and our recommendations in a new post for Columbia Journalism Review titled “Countering Misinformation: Tips for Journalists.” Here’s how it begins:

With eight months to go before Election Day, the political misinformation cycle is already in full swing as misleading super PAC ads flood the airwaves.

Citizens and journalists alike are concerned that the prevalence of misinformation in our politics may pollute democratic discourse, make it more difficult for citizens to cast informed votes, and limit their ability to participate meaningfully in public debate. In particular, we know that many political myths are difficult to correct once they become established. So how can journalists most effectively counter the misleading claims that are made in the 2012 campaign?

Please read the post or the full report (PDF) for more.

Related resources:
–The webcast of the release event at New America in Washington

-Accompanying New America Foundation reports on the rise of fact-checking by Michael Dobbs and the state of fact-checking in 2012 by Lucas Graves and Tom Glaisyer (PDFs)

I have a new column up at CJR on the causes and consequences of the media’s search for a candidate’s true self:

Though he launched his first run for president more than five years ago, Mitt Romney is still widely seen as an enigmatic figure. With opponents for the GOP presidential nomination raising questions about the sincerity of the former Massachusetts governor’s beliefs, journalists and commentators have launched a round of speculation about who “the real Romney” is. (The phrase is even the title of a new biography from two Boston Globe reporters). Even Romney himself has embraced the “real Romney” framework as these questions have mounted, telling National Review this week that he “wanted to make sure that people remember the real Mitt Romney, not the one being fabricated by my opponents.” The process amounts to a public interrogation not of Romney’s record or his agenda, but of his very being.

Of course, Romney is hardly the first candidate to suffer this sort of treatment. Back in 2008, for instance, numerous articles and TV segments tried to answer who the “real” Barack Obama was—a question that was asked suggestively by John McCain in an attempt to create doubts about the Democratic presidential nominee. Similarly, George W. Bush’s campaign helped drive similar coverage asking who the “real” John Kerry was back in 2004. And, perhaps most notably, journalists frequently portrayed Al Gore as inauthentic and asked whether they were seeing the “real” Gore during his 2000 presidential campaign.

With such a pattern in mind, it’s worth asking: Why does the media keep searching for the authentic self of certain politicians? And what consequences does that approach have for the coverage that results?

Read the whole thing for more.

After going dormant for a while, attacks on dissent against the Obama administration have returned. As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald points out, a “senior American counterterrorism official” suggested that critics of US drone strikes in Pakistan want to help Al Qaeda (emphasis added):

British and Pakistani journalists said Sunday that the C.I.A.’s drone strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan have repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.

The report, by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the bureau’s Web site and in The Sunday Times of London…

A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”

I’ve added this smear to my timeline of attacks on dissent against the Obama administration, which follow a long series of Republican attacks on dissent since 9/11. It’s one of the ugliest parts of the war on terror.

My new column at CJR warns journalists about overhyping the effects of tonight’s State of the Union address on public opinion:

Tonight, President Obama will address Congress and the nation in his 2012 State of the Union address. The SOTU has become both an important civic and political ritual and a signal about the administration’s policy priorities for the coming year. However, the drama of a televised presidential speech also encourages hype by political reporters who have been taken in by the myth of the bully pulpit.

In it, I review the evidence that presidents rarely get a bounce from the speech, caution against the use of instant polls of speech watchers, and suggest other angles that might provide more insight. For more, head over to CJR and read the whole thing.

I have a new post up at CJR looking back at the way the press took Mitt Romney’s statement about health insurance out of context:

Michael Kinsley famously wrote that “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But in the 24/7 media age, another type of gaffe has emerged. In this case, the target is a defensible statement that can be taken out of context to advance some narrative about the politician.

Classic examples include Al Gore’s statement that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” while serving in Congress, which was twisted into the false paraphrase “invented the Internet”; John Kerry’s statement “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] before I voted against it,” which was rewritten as “I voted for it before I voted against it”; and Mitt Romney’s “Corporations are people, my friend,” an accurate description of who bears the ultimate costs of corporate taxes that was falsely described as a declaration that corporations have the same rights as individuals. In each case, the press appears to believe that these statements reveal the true essence of the politician in question and as such are exempt from normal standards of accuracy.

The latest example of the genre is Romney’s statement last Monday that “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” which came during a discussion of individuals shopping for their own health insurance. The furor over the quote did not prevent Romney from winning the New Hampshire primary. But before moving on, it’s worth looking more closely at how the controversy was covered since it raises broader concerns about the way the media handles these sorts of gaffes.

Read the whole thing for more.

My new post at CJR makes the case that the media are devoting too much attention to the debates in the Republican primary race. The super PAC-funded assault on Mitt Romney in South Carolina is far more likely to change the dynamics of the race:

[I]f the debates are unlikely to sway voters, is there a format where attacks can shape the primary campaign? Yes—television advertisements, which are seen by a wider and more diverse group of people than debates.

Viewed through this prism, the most significant campaign news of the last few days was not the debates over the weekend, or even today’s New Hampshire primary, which Romney should easily win. Rather, it was the report that a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich will air millions of dollars in negative ads against Romney in South Carolina…

Read the whole thing for more.