The Misinformation Link?

In July, a Harris poll revealed a startling fact: the number of Americans who believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction during the run-up to war had, despite all evidence to the contrary, actually increased to 50 percent, up from 36 percent in February 2005. The survey also found that 64 percent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein had strong connections to Al Qaeda. Why do these gaps persist? What, if any, responsibility can be assigned to the press? So far, media wonks of every order have tried and failed to answer these questions. But the 2005 and 2006 "State of the News Media" reports by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) lay provocative ground work for future research. They indict broadcast news, and particularly cable (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), for emphasizing live stories that are fast-breaking and popular, but also measurably thinner, more opinionated, and less densely sourced than other news forms. Typically consisting of anchors interviewing experts or chatting with reporters, these live "two-ways" now comprise around half the coverage available on U.S. cable news, according to PEJ data.

Is this enough to suggest a link between wide-spread public confusion about Iraq and cable's dominant culture of live journalism? After all, PEJ shows that cable news serves around 100 million unique viewers a month, and more people say they trust cable than they do commercial news. Add the latest Pew survey, which reveals the vast majority of Americans (83 percent) cite television as their main source of information about the Iraq War, and some connection certainly seems likely - even if the evidence is still circumstantial.

It's at least a start to observe - as PEJ does - that live news frequently consists of watery information, riddled with verbal miscues and stammering little bridges that would make a public speaking coach blush.

The reports are based on a review of media content in print, TV, radio, magazines, and major online sites. For cable, their approach is layered. Last year, they spent 20 days tracking broad tendencies; this year they enhanced that data with an in-depth analysis of coverage on a single day, May 11, 2005. The picture that emerges is of a medium that has "all but abandoned what was once the primary element of television news, the written, edited story." In its place, the authors find "a journalism of assertion," where reporters perform "off the cuff with hasty notes," and "information is disseminated with only minimal attempts to verify it."

The results indicate that 60 percent of all live stories are based on a single identifiable source, 78 percent include only one side, or mostly one side of the given issue, and 47 percent include reportorial opinion. That's compared with 14 percent in the media as a whole, and 32 percent for network news. It seems Edward R. Murrow's belief in explaining gaps in information rather than offering speculation is going the way of cigarettes in the newsroom.

Of course, it's also possible that little or no connection exists between public ignorance and television journalism, just as little or no connection exists between poor national math scores and bad algebra courses. The deeper obstacles to learning have to do with personal values, not access to information - which is a shame, because access problems would be easier to reform.