What Civic Engagement Looks Like
Via Chris Bowers, Gallup has numbers showing that Americans are paying closer attention to the news lately:
It’s probably worth emphasizing that a lot of the things that bien pensant types deplore—like this past summer of crazy rallies and political polarization more generally—are inextricably tied up with things that bien pensant types claim to want, namely an increased level of civic engagement. The politics of the late-19th century was incredibly vicious, polarized, and un-edifying. It was also an era of high turnout and booming newspapers.
Also interesting to note that Republicans, being older, wealthier, and maler also follow the news more closely:
I’m inclined to think that if the production of political news and commentary weren’t so dominated by the white dude demographic, that political news might get a larger audience among progressives. That, in turn, could help close some of the “enthusiasm gap” issues that frequently plague progressive activists.
28 Responses to “What Civic Engagement Looks Like”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I’m hoping that those longterm unemployed start congregating on the National Mall and perhaps on Park Avenue. A few Hoovervilles might raise the awareness of Joe Sixpack.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Other things contribute to the progressive enthusiasm gap, like:
Senate Finance Committee kills public option amendment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090929-712129.html
September 29th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Or maybe:
U.S. helps George Soros make money off Petrobras investment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10237597.html
September 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Alternatively, Republicans are more likely to lie about how closely they follow the news, or have a lower threshold for “very closely”.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Progressives actually believed the knee deep crap Obama has been shoveling and so the last nine months have been one long drug withdrawal.
As Alan points out in noting the latest defeats.
But hey just remember that the public option isn’t THAT important… it is just a tool and Obama still has other hammers on his tool belt, right?
HaHaHaHa!
And did you hear the one about Guantanamo?
September 29th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I don’t agree that news content needs to be made more exciting or enjoyable. News is, almost by definition, bad, depressing and difficult to understand. What you seem to be advocating is FOX News. Screw that. If you don’t follow the news, it doesn’t mean you’re substantially less informed than someone who’s glued to CNN 24/7. Quite the opposite – news is entertainment. Civic engagement and following the news are two different things.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I agree with N. Lehrer is as high-tech/attractive as news should be.
And I wonder if people on the right, more conscious of their ill-informed nature, are more likely to inflate the level of “closeness” of their news-watching.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
There was a time I got my news from Time and NBC Nightly. Gradually, I shifted to The Economist and NPR, plus local letters to the editor.
AFAIK, The Economist is still largely written by a room full of pasty white men.
When comparing my news sources, what offers value for me is reporting that describes the bigger picture for politics, business, and societal treads, rather than oddball crimes, showbiz, and instant polls.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“Gallup has numbers showing that Americans are paying closer attention to the news lately:”
The poll has numbers showing that more Americans say they are paying close attention to the news lately.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Mat writes:
“I’m inclined to think that if the production of political news and commentary weren’t so dominated by the white dude demographic…”
Matt is referring to my demographic analysis of the new “Atlantic 50″ of the top pundits:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/09/demographics-of-top-50-pundits.html
According to the Atlantic Monthly’s methodology of determining the commentators who “shape national debates:”
- 96% are white (Eugene Robinson and Fareed Zakaria are the only exceptions)
- 82% male
- 0.5% Hispanic (Matt’s Cuban grandfather)
- 6% are out of the closet gays (Sullivan, Maddow, Greenwald)
- About 50% of Jewish background
The under-represented include women, Hispanics, blacks, East Asians, and people of Protestant backgrounds. White Jewish dudes are over-represented by about 50 to 1 compared to the total U.S. population.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Matt is referring to my demographic analysis of the new “Atlantic 50″ of the top pundits
Thanks for that. I, and everyone else, had not the first clue that punditry is dominated by straight white men of European ancestry. And those sneaky Jews! Who knew?
September 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Alternatively, Republicans are more likely to lie about how closely they follow the news, or have a lower threshold for “very closely”.
Can you provide a source/some evidence for this? I don’t doubt that there problems of social desirability bias involved with self-reports (cf. http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nfp002v1), but was not aware there was a partisan split. Nor one with the “very closely” metric.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Also, Steve, if you’re going to call me ‘Caucausian’, shouldn’t you be calling black people ‘Negroid’ and East Asian people ‘Mongoloid’?
September 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“Caucasian” is insulting to you, but “white dude” is not? What’s the difference between Sailer’s and Yglesias’ obsession with “demographics”, which to them both means mainly race and ethnicity? I don’t see any difference at all.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
And what are the numbers on attention to Local/State political news? Probably pretty dismal – and that’s why the GOP manages to get their team of cretins and banksters elected. Gotta fill the bench.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“Caucasian” is insulting to you, but “white dude” is not?
‘Caucasian’ is generally used by most people in a PC attempt to avoid saying ‘white’, in order to be consistent with the notion that you should call black people ‘African-Americans’ rather than ‘black people’ (The Cosby Show was the most hilarious example of this — there was hardly an episode when they didn’t use ‘Caucasian’ like 50 times). Silly, yeah, but not really insulting.
Sailer, though, uses ‘Caucasian’ in its original context because he thinks there’s some deep, super-scientific basis to the notion that white (and asian) people are genetically superior to everyone else.
What’s the difference between Sailer’s and Yglesias’ obsession with “demographics”, which to them both means mainly race and ethnicity?
I’m not following you here. There’s nothing wrong with discussing demographics per se, and discussing blacks and whites and Jews and Hispanics as aggregate clusters, since pretty much everyone everywhere is comfortable self-identifying as belonging to racial and ethnic groups, and there are real, observable differences between these groups in countless social/biological/economic contexts.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I believe your profession of ignorance.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Similarly, what’s the difference between Lennin’s and Mother Theresa’s obsession with “economic class?” I don’t see any difference at all.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
It’s hardly a secret that Matt is a regular reader of my work, and that, say, roughly a dozen of his postings per month are inspired by my work. That’s one reason he is good at what he does. He simply puts a more boring spin on thoughts that are inspired by my work, or leaves out the really interesting parts so that a howling mob of the politically correct won’t come after his head.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Okay, I’ll bite: what does being “maler” have to do with increased attention to the news?
September 30th, 2009 at 2:08 am
There’s nothing wrong with discussing demographics per se, and discussing blacks and whites and Jews and Hispanics as aggregate clusters, since pretty much everyone everywhere is comfortable self-identifying as belonging to racial and ethnic groups
Yes, there is definitely something wrong and incredibly stupid about bringing race (totally meaningless characteristic) where it doesn’t belong. In this case:
is nothing but condescending and racist bullshit. Are these “progressives” he is talking about such idiots that they will listen to political news and commentary delivered by a black woman rather than white dude; the content doesn’t matter? Is this how Yglesias picks his political commentary, or (seems more likely) he thinks that he is smart while the rest of “progressives” are that stupid?
Although, looking at some of you guys here (you, Joe), yeah, maybe he got something there.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Actually, you know monad, this:
…is also bullshit. Yes, people do identify their race, they do answer the question, but they will also answer the question about their shoe size. And most of them, in neither case they mean: “I belong to The Group of Size 11, these Are My People”. Oh, I don’t know: you, Joe, Sailer, and Yglesias probably do identify with The Group, but normal, rational, civilized people certainly don’t.
And “identifiable differences”, what does it mean? You pick any arbitrary meaningless characteristic – you’ll find various correlations; and why pick this one? I don’t know what “biological” has to do with any of this, but if you want to bring the socio-economic context (which does make sense), why not go for something like income quintiles, urban vs. rural – the real characteristics that really do define the context? Why race?
September 30th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Joe, Mother Theresa was obsessed with economic class, is that right? Never heard of it, but if so – good for her.
Economic class is a fundamental characteristic of one’s existence; race isn’t. Black billionaire lives the same sort of life as a white billionaire; white homeless drug addict in an urban ghetto is no different from a black guy in the same situation.
It’s only to idiots like you they are somehow different; I guess the white homeless guy is somehow less deserving, correct?
September 30th, 2009 at 4:16 am
Alan wins the thread in a landslide.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Sounds great, until you know that at least half of the TV news channels make people less informed than they were before.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:38 am
abb1, I suspect that the average African-American would be surprised to learn that race is not a fundamental characteristic of their existence. Race is a fundamental characteristic of every American’s life, no matter what their race. It does make things more difficult to figure out, but if you want to understand or fix any of the problems we have in the U.S., you have to deal with both class and race, as well as gender.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
you have to deal with both class and race, as well as gender
Yes, in relevant context. When you’re talking about racism, then you talk about race; when you’re discussing sexism, you talk about gender.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I don’t get it. Why would anybody want to follow the crap that these right wing propaganda peddling media tyrants offer up as news? Ladies and gentlemen this tripe is not news, it is an attempt to control the debate and the perceived public opinion so as to keep enough of us calm enough so they can maintain their control of government and there-by society. Ever since that traitor Colin Powells’ traitor son headed the F.C.C. at the great airwave/media give away/consolidation the rich white men of the conservative ilk have turned what could have been the best thing ever, t.v. that entertains and teaches, into pure garbage. My local cable has 67 channels and nothing but garbage on. You don’t think that happens by accident do you? The boob tube is your connection to a nice clean mind, as in brainwashing. They control the discourse which is trivial and pathetic by and large. Real news gets buried as the public hears about Glen Becks latest fruit loop fantasy, or Ruskie Limpbergers latest drug haze delusion. Why does anyone even care about what some republican thug has to say about anything, yet that is all they play on the news. If too many people realize the mental haze this country is in is due to the corporate mind control network, then maybe we the people might regain what is rightfully ours, namely a free press whose sole purpose is to inform and educate the population as to what’s really happening. Maybe the public would realize the police state we live in. Or the war waging corporate secret government that has taken over.