Roughly once a week the Project on Ethics in Political Communication highlights something we’re reading and something we’re watching. We will largely (though not entirely) avoid the presidential election on the assumption that readers are already following it closely, and probably have strong opinions about the candidates and their rhetorical strategies.
June 26, 2024
What We’re Reading
Elite Misinformation?
In his most recent Slow Boring piece, Matt Yglesias argues that “Elite misinformation is an underrated problem.” He defines elite misinformation as “erroneous ideas that are perpetrated by mainstream institutions.” Two of the examples he highlights are recent news about maternal mortality in the US and fossil fuel subsidies.
Both are a big deal, and both need to be dealt with. But, as Yglesias notes, the apparent recent surge in maternal mortality is largely the result of how maternal mortality is measured, not its current rate compared to past rates. Again, maternal mortality is a critical issue, but not one that is suddenly getting much worse.
A different take on elite misinformation is what counts as a “subsidy.” For most of us, most of the time, a subsidy means a specific and immediate benefit - tax breaks, matching dollars, that sort of thing. But a subsidy can also mean long term costs of the impacts of something paid for by someone else. For example, I subsidize the heath care costs of those without health insurance who suffer from illnesses in part brought on by their own choices (smoking, eating a lot of food that’s bad for them, etc.).
Surging rates of mortality, excessive subsidies and other headline grabbers can help draw attention to important issues. Policymakers tend to focus on a limited number of issues at a time. If your issue isn’t on the agenda, it probably won’t get dealt with. That doesn’t make policy hyperbole OK.
We all get frustrated when those with whom we disagree make rhetorical mountains out of policy mole hills. We rightly point out that it’s unfair and misleading when opponents claim a few anecdotes are the same as actual data, exaggerate impacts, take advantage of vague or slippery language, or otherwise fudge the facts. If our opponents shouldn’t do it, we probably shouldn’t do it either. As Yglesias succinctly puts it, “lying to people is bad.”
What We’re Watching
The Debate
Of course we’re planning to watch Thursday’s scheduled debate between President Biden and former President Trump. Not because we want to, but because we have to. I for one would rather watch the Copa America. Since I teach and talk about political communication (I’ll be part of C-SPAN’s pregame show on Thursday) I am obligated to watch the debate and think of thoughtful things to say about it afterwards.
My hope is that both candidates will show the best of what political debate can be: pointed, sharp, insightful, educational, and rational. I also hope that both candidates go out of their way to praise critical democratic institutions like the courts, the media, elections, and higher education. As a fan of DC United, Arsenal and the Red Sox I am used to my hopes being dashed. But I hope nevertheless.
June 18, 2024
What We’re Reading
A new, old Republican Party?
Last month a handful of prominent Republican former elected officials announced an organization called Our Republican Legacy. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, the group’s chairs - former Republican Senators John C. Danforth (MO), William Cohen S. (ME) and Alan K. Simpson (WY) - wrote, “We believe that our nation’s well-being depends on having the positive, stabilizing influence of a healthy, two-party system, which we currently do not have…” The group is neither pro- nor anti-Trump. Rather it is looking post-Trump at a set of principles on which candidates can run. Next week former US Rep. Charlie Dent, an initial member of the group, will join me for a conversation about the effort. Stay tuned for details.
What We’re Watching
Recent Talks, Cheap Fakes and Primary Stories
Missed US Rep. Derek Kilmer’s conversation with the Project about why politicians and elected officials should behave ethically? You can check it out here.
Cheap fakes - deceptively edited clips, Frankenstein pictures assembled from bits of other images, images out of context, and so on - are in the news. For example, conservative media outlets and pundits are circulating videos of President Biden edited or used out of context to reinforce stereotypes about his age and mental acuity. This deception is wrong on its own. As it gets exposed it can also decrease public trust in media in general - if everything can be fake, then why would voters believe anything is real? One risk of mis and disinformation is that it can lead people to believe things that aren’t true. A knock-on risk is that it can lead people to believe nothing at all. To quote Warren Zevon’s theme song for the mid-90s show Tek War, “The skies are full of miracles/And half of them are lies.”
Finally, of course, we’re watching the primaries. We’re especially interested in the stories pundits, the press and campaigns tell about why candidates won or lost. People win or lose elections for all sorts of reasons, some of which may have little to do with the campaigns. But the story of why one won or lost can help determine what comes next, and how candidates behave in the future. If political professionals believe that bombastic candidates won because they were bombastic, future candidates will be bombastic. If the story is that bombast lost and reasoned discourse won, the future campaigns will be more reasonable.