OPINION
6A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2016
Founded in 1873
DAVID F. PERO, Publisher & Editor
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
OUR VIEW
Fake news fixation
has the power to
reshape our world
A
n early scene in George Orwell’s legendary dystopian
novel “1984” has the main character rewriting history
to suit a repressive government’s political agenda.
What we actually have in 2016, 32 years after the Orwell’s
fictional world, is a news environment in which private citizens
and those who want to manipulate us can create, share and
often believe fake news — fictions that have the power to
reshape our government.
Newspapers and other “legacy” organizations don’t have
a monopoly on the truth. We are prone to our own biases —
often a nearly unconscious belief in moderate politics and
incremental change for the common good. Even so, we are tra-
ditionally reliable curators of the news, providing a record of
the facts that is literally printed in black and white. Falsehoods
and biases are fairly easily spotted and challenged. A news-
paper that too often blatantly disregards the facts doesn’t stay
long in business. Those that
have longevity have done so Ultimately,
by building credibility within there actually is
the communities they serve
a true version
and keeping it on a daily
of the facts.
basis by diligently working
to separate fact from fiction. Any community
Slippery do-it-yourself
that wants to
news of the kind so com-
monly found on Facebook
play for real
isn’t so easily policed or
and actually
punished by the market-
place. It has neither cost nor succeed can
consequences. In fact, as
best do so
Americans increasingly seek
validation rather than objec- by embracing
tive information, there are
reality. Facts,
rewards for even flagrant
not fantasies,
lies online, so long as they
achieve enough popularity to are the path to
be shared among people with success.
like beliefs.
“People most readily believe that which they can believe
most conveniently,” Cliffs Notes observes in its essay about
“1984.” This is almost the definition of modern U.S. politics, in
which many Americans choose to believe or disbelieve stories
based on complicated personal and political preconceptions.
It is a fact of modern life that more Americans get informa-
tion from Facebook posts than directly from the entities that
actually do the hard work of fact-gathering. If you have friends
with diverse political beliefs and levels of education, you are
certain to encounter Facebook posts denying climate change
or asserting the truth or falsehood of other matters. There was,
for example, a posting last week that boldly asserted Donald
Trump overwhelming won the popular vote, despite the objec-
tive fact that the opposite is true.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has struggled with a
response to widespread accusations that his company aided and
abetted the dispersal of falsehoods that warped the outcome of
the 2016 presidential election. In essence, his problem is how
to maintain Facebook as freewheeling marketplace for ideas,
while somehow not allowing it to be an easily manipulated
stooge that regurgitates lies that are packaged in superficially
believable ways.
After initially denying it was the problem, Facebook now
reportedly is looking into third-party verification services, bet-
ter automated detection tools and simpler ways for users to flag
suspicious content.
In a Nov. 18 column in The New York Times, John Herrman
notes that these fake news items are “indefensible, easy to
identify and extraordinarily viral.” The bigger problem, in his
opinion, is the more subtle manipulation of people through a
clever blending of out-of-context “facts” that mesh with reader
biases and preconceptions.
Herrmannov is pessimistic about Facebook actually correct-
ing a profitable system in which its members get to decide on
alternative versions of reality. “Those who expect the opera-
tor of the dominant media ecosystem of our time, in response
to getting caught promoting lies, to suddenly return authority
to the companies it has superseded are in for a … surprise,” he
observed.
Even on Facebook, it is possible to be a sophisticated news
consumer. Double check the credibility of sources and look for
stories by organizations that have a direct financial and reputa-
tional stake in being reliable.
Ultimately, there actually is a true version of the facts. Any
community that wants to play for real and actually succeed can
best do so by embracing reality. Facts, not fantasies, are the
path to success.
GUEST COLUMN
Public sentiment on U.S. political system efficacy
A long-term study by DHM Research shows how Oregonians responded when asked the question:
“When thinking about the U.S. government and political system, which of the two following
statements best reflects you feelings?”
Statement
2016
2014
2008
2002
1999
The system has some problems,
but it is essentially sound. It does
not need fundamental and
radical reform.
36%
59%
58%
59%
64%
The system is a mess and needs
to be fundamentally and radically
reformed.
54
35
39
37
32
Don't know/other
10
6
4
5
4
Source: DHM Research
EO Media Group graphic
Time for Jefferson’s
‘radical reformation’
By ADAM DAVIS
DHM Research
O
n Nov. 9, before the riots
of the next night, protesters
peacefully gathered in
downtown Portland to show their
displeasure over
the previous
night’s election
results. Among the
signs at Pioneer
Courthouse Square
were a pair of
banners that read: “Honk if you’re
fed up” and “Honk if you will fight
for change.”
The words took me back to a
recent visit to the Jefferson Memorial
in Washington, D.C., when a quote
of his, inscribed on a wall, stopped
me in my tracks: “As new discover-
ies are made, new truths discovered
and manners and opinion change,
with the change of circumstances,
institutions must advance also to
keep pace with the times.” Could
it be true? Did one of our Found-
ing Fathers really feel that there may
come a time when the system is such
a mess that it must be fundamentally
and radically reformed?
We have a real mess.
I’m not alone in feeling so; I
know that because my job is to track
public sentiment. As part of this
tracking, our firm shows a startling
increase in the number of Orego-
nians who feel the system is a mess
and may very well feel we’re at Jef-
ferson’s point where the “institutions
must advance to keep pace with the
times.”
Survey says
For the past 17 years, we have
asked Oregonians the following
question: “When thinking about
the U.S. government and politi-
cal system, which of the two fol-
lowing statements best reflects your
feelings?”
The shift in sentiment, as shown
in the graphic was swift and clear.
Even two years ago, those say-
ing the system needs to be radically
reformed were bumping along at
just over one-third of the population,
while a clear majority saw the sys-
tem as essentially sound. Our Octo-
ber survey found those positions had
flipped.
What’s responsible for this
change? Oregonians see many prob-
lems, from deteriorating infrastruc-
ture and inequality in our public
schools to jobs disappearing (and
not coming back) and the effects
of climate change. They tell us in
our focus groups that government
isn’t getting anything done for rea-
sons ranging from partisanship to
overregulation.
Specifically, we hear about two
years of threatened government shut-
downs, fighting over Supreme Court
vacancies, police shootings and inac-
tion on climate change,
And of course there’s politics and
the negative feelings about the presi-
dential election (and the election cov-
erage), a process that produced two
historically unpopular candidates in
their 70s, one of whom was under
FBI scrutiny, while the other, the ulti-
mate winner, shouted about a “rigged
system” and threatened not to accept
the results.
In the past
two years,
Oregonians
have made new
discoveries,
discovered
new truths, and
a significant
number have
changed
their opinion
about our
institutions.
Here in Oregon, the perceptions
of a mess requiring fundamental
change may have grown during the
battle over Measure 97, which pit-
ted the desire to fund education and
to have “big business” pay its “fair
share” against equally strong feelings
against a “sales tax” and giving gov-
ernment a “blank check.”
The desire for radical reform is
seen across the state: 55 percent in
Portland-area, the same share in the
Willamette Valley and 52 percent in
the rest of the state.
Men and women agree at simi-
lar rates, and difference by age arises
only because 18-29 year olds are
much stronger in their support of
blowing things up compared to their
older counterparts.
Non-whites and lower income
groups are similarly more enthusi-
astic for change compared to whites
and those with higher incomes.
The most interesting split in opin-
ion, however, is by political affil-
iation. In Oregon “Non-affiliated/
Other” voters (who are shut out of
partisan elections in primaries) usu-
ally split the difference between
Democrats and Republicans, with a
leaning towards Democrats on many
issues. For this issue, however, the
strongest support for fundamental
and radical reform comes from the
Non-affiliated/Others at 65 percent,
compared to 57 percent for Republi-
cans and 43 percent for Democrats.
To some extent this is validation of
the sentiments among those in the
18-29 age group.
Where now?
So, where do we go from here
with most of Oregonians wanting
fundamental and radical change?
First, many of those people got the
change they wanted at the national
level, including a good number of
18-29 year olds and Non-affiliated/
Others who did not vote for Hil-
lary Clinton in Oregon. They want
to bring back jobs back to America,
reform immigration policies, reduce
the size of government, decrease
taxes and aggressively enforce exist-
ing laws.
Here’s the problem for Presi-
dent-elect Trump and his fellow
Republicans: If they don’t deliver on
his promise of radical change, many
of his supporters may be the ones
carrying the signs four years from
now.
As for the current protestors, the
change they wanted — first woman
president, raising taxes on the rich,
investment in education and human
services trumping increased mil-
itary spending, real action on cli-
mate change, police reform, and
expanded equality for all — did not
happen.
They’re angry. If Trump makes
good on enacting his vision of rad-
ical change, they will still be carry-
ing signs and blocking freeways four
years from now. One questions is,
“Will more of them vote?”
Jefferson couldn’t have imag-
ined the sordid details that shaped
the 2016 presidential election. But
he did seem to understand the under-
lying sentiment that helps explain
the outcome. In the past two years,
Oregonians have made new discov-
eries, discovered new truths, and a
significant number have changed
their opinion about our institutions.
Enough, in fact, where now a clear
majority feel that fundamental and
radical change is needed.
Adam Davis, who has been con-
ducting opinion research in Oregon
and across the nation for more than
35 years, is a founding principal in
DHM Research, a leader in indepen-
dent, nonpartisan opinion research,
providing consultation for private,
public, and nonprofit clients.