Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are about Political News

Charles Angelucci, A. Prat
{"title":"Is Journalistic Truth Dead? Measuring How Informed Voters Are about Political News","authors":"Charles Angelucci, A. Prat","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3593002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We propose a methodology to measure knowledge of news about recent political events that combines a protocol for identifying stories, a quiz to elicit knowledge, and the estimation of a model of individual knowledge that includes difficulty, partisanship, and memory decay. We focus on news about the Federal Government in a monthly sample of 1,000 US voters repeated 11 times. People in the most informed tercile are 97% more likely than people in the bottom tercile to know the main story of the month. We document large inequalities across socioeconomic groups, with the best-informed group over 14 percentage points more likely to know the typical story compared to the least-informed group. Voters are 10-30% less likely to know stories unfavorable to their political party. Also, each month passing lowers the probability of knowing a story by 3-4 percentage points. We repeat our study on news about the Democratic Party primaries.","PeriodicalId":365899,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior: Voting & Public Opinion eJournal","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior: Voting & Public Opinion eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

We propose a methodology to measure knowledge of news about recent political events that combines a protocol for identifying stories, a quiz to elicit knowledge, and the estimation of a model of individual knowledge that includes difficulty, partisanship, and memory decay. We focus on news about the Federal Government in a monthly sample of 1,000 US voters repeated 11 times. People in the most informed tercile are 97% more likely than people in the bottom tercile to know the main story of the month. We document large inequalities across socioeconomic groups, with the best-informed group over 14 percentage points more likely to know the typical story compared to the least-informed group. Voters are 10-30% less likely to know stories unfavorable to their political party. Also, each month passing lowers the probability of knowing a story by 3-4 percentage points. We repeat our study on news about the Democratic Party primaries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新闻真相已死吗?衡量选民对政治新闻的知情程度
我们提出了一种方法来测量关于最近政治事件的新闻知识,该方法结合了识别故事的协议,引出知识的测验,以及包括难度,党派和记忆衰退在内的个人知识模型的估计。我们每月对1000名美国选民进行11次抽样调查,重点关注有关联邦政府的新闻。消息灵通阶层的人比底层阶层的人知道本月主要事件的可能性高出97%。我们记录了社会经济群体之间的巨大不平等,与最不知情的群体相比,信息最灵通的群体知道典型故事的可能性高出14个百分点。选民知道对自己政党不利的消息的可能性降低了10-30%。此外,每过一个月,了解故事的可能性就会降低3-4个百分点。我们重复对民主党初选新闻的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessing Repeated and Rescheduled Attempts in Random Digit Dial Surveys Is Voting Really Habit-Forming and Transformative? Long-Run Effects of Earlier Eligibility on Turnout and Political Involvement from the UK La Falla de las Encuestas en las Elecciones Argentinas de 2019. Un Análisis en Perspectiva Comparada Internacional (The Failure of the Polls in the 2019 Argentine Elections. An Analysis in International Comparative Perspective) (Successful) Democracies Breed Their Own Support Partisan Entrepreneurship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1