According to a survey of 15- to 30-year-old men in the two southern provinces where President Barack Obama sent the bulk of American surge troops, 92% of respondents said they didn't know about "this event which the foreigners call 9/11" after being read a three-paragraph description of the attacks.They must really wonder what the hell we're doing there.
Random blog posts about research in political communication, how people learn or don't learn from the media, why it all matters -- plus other stuff that interests me. It's my blog, after all. I can do what I want.
Showing posts with label wall street journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wall street journal. Show all posts
Thursday, September 8, 2011
What Afghans Don't Know
What is this 9/11 thing of which you speak? That may be the response of most Afghans, according to this Atlantic Wire mention of a Wall Street Journal story.
Monday, August 16, 2010
WSJ and Pew, um, and TARP
I love the Pew Center's political knowledge index and I wrote about the latest version the other day, the one that found more Americans could correctly identify Twitter than TARP. A Wall Street Journal article examines what people know and this question in particular. Worth the read.
Labels:
pew research center,
tarp,
twitter,
wall street journal
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
What Sarah Palin Knows
It's easy to poke fun of Sarah Palin, especially when it comes to political knowledge. To balance the score, I point out this Wall Street Journal column and its eloquent defense of Palin. It ends by paraphrasing an infamous quote by William F. Buckley, saying:
...in the spirit of which I hereby declare that I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.Not saying I necessarily agree, but the author, Norman Podhoretz, offers a spirited comparison between Palin and a conservative's most favored prez, Ronald Reagan. And it's a point well worth considering.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Squiggly Lines Redux
Remember my earlier post on CNN's squiggly debate lines? You know, the measure of emotional response by undecided voters watching the debates? Sure you remember.
Anyway, came across this WSJ article on how those lines may influence people watching CNN. Here's a quote:
Damn right. Remember my infamous quote from that old old play: Public opinion is no more than this, what people think other people think. Nice to see someone else go that direction. And this makes twice in one day I've drawn from the Wall Street Journal. A new record for me.
Anyway, came across this WSJ article on how those lines may influence people watching CNN. Here's a quote:
"We don't realize how much we are influenced by other people," said Steven Fein, a social psychology professor at Williams College who has used footage from residential debates in experiments examining how voters might be swayed. "We can't ignore what we think other people think."
Damn right. Remember my infamous quote from that old old play: Public opinion is no more than this, what people think other people think. Nice to see someone else go that direction. And this makes twice in one day I've drawn from the Wall Street Journal. A new record for me.
Labels:
cnn,
debates,
squiggly lines,
wall street journal,
wsj
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)