“The crisis in America, where ironically we have the world's highest rate of bachelor's degrees, is that if people don't read papers, they generally won't vote. The crisis of the press here is a crisis of democracy too. The single best indicator of whether someone votes is whether he reads a paper, according to political scientist Martin P. Wattenberg in his book, "Where Have All the Voters Gone?" But the converse is also true. Whether one votes is a much better indicator than a college degree as to whether one is reading a daily paper. The reaction between these two trends, a decline in voting and the decline in the reading of dailies, is what scientists call autocatalytic. One drives the other in a downward spiral. The under-30 young read far less, and vote far less--and according to their teachers, have fewer opinions. Not reading, not having political sentiments, they aren't especially capable of voting intelligently anyway. What can we do now? Teach our kids to read.”
[SOURCE: Chicago Tribune by Thomas Geoghegan and James Warren]
Thanks for the catch, Doc!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Dear All4word,
I found this post, curious.I would say this is similar to "cause and effect logic fallacy ." In today's lingo:"this does not compute." Tell me, If I can read the New York Times for free on the Internet or read MSNBC.COM, why buy a paper?
Maury
So, Brandon, are you arguing with the research or just insisting that the news be delivered at no cost to you?
Do you have research that your demographic in fact does read, does form political sentiments, and does vote in numbers?
Maury, they are reporting a correlation, not necessarily a cause-and-effect. And I would think reading online news constitutes reading a paper. The distinction would be watching news on TV, an also-declining pasttime in the subject demographic.
BTW, has the NYT or MSNBC.com reported on the K&I bridge/barge collision, the Camm trial, the Greenway, or EPA's release of sewer credits? If we don't have a "newspaper of record," how can we begin to engage in building a community.
I read as much as any of us, and widely. But I still value a local paper.
We're less than a month from an election. Where are you going to get the information to make an informed vote, whether you are under 30 or over?
The article and conversation have broached a chain of issues, all of which are fascinating. As recent activity in Belarus has indicated, just because people vote, don't count on them being either progressive or liberal: the elections may have been flawed (to state it lightly) but that doesn't mean the majority of voters didn't prefer the stability (draconian or otherwise) of the incumbent. This should be considered when exploring the "self-evident" progressive aspect of the new New Albany.
Whether people's newspaper habits can be reliably ascertained in this online era, well, who knows? I read articles this a.m. from six papers in the UK, will such ever be anticipated with accuracy?
I remain likewise deeply interested in Brandon's idea about the "sincere and creative," though I harbor suspicions nonetheless.
be well - jon
Dear All4word,
Here is the problem, your use of the word "Autocatalytic." This word is suspect for this discussion, leading to confusion on the reader's part.
Now using the word "correlation" makes sense. Such is a statistical technique which can show whether and how strongly pairs of varibles are related.
So ,age(under 30) + newspaper reading ( lack of)= decline in voting by age group is the premise.
Still, I do not see a strong correlation as suggested by your post. There are too may variables to consider. You might comment further on the author's use of correlation technique. What type of correlation technique(s) did the author employ?
I find the premise advance in the post interesting but not self evident.
Maury
Dear Brandon W. Smith,
In your post today at 2:31PM today,04/06/2006, you state that a person can be "politically saavy and engaged without sacrificing your honesty."
I find this an interesting statement. Could you please give an example of this. Also, how would you have handled Mayor Garner propose neighborhood walk?
I am courious to get your take on this issue you have expounded on. I would like to understand your remarks better.
Maury
Maury
I find it interesting that the generation that has invented and successfully implemented the majority of the communication tools readily adopted by those under thirty is now being maligned for not understanding the very audience it's created and continues to shape. In fact, I'm writing from an international digital media conference consisting of over 150 people and very few participants, including those dragged along by older mentors, are under thirty. The same could be said about the local blogosphere.
What I've heard consistently, though, from those in attendance are detailed accounts of the anguish they suffer due to a younger generation that understands neither the intellectual principles that form the foundation of digital tool sets nor the possible consequences of using them in the absence of that understanding.
While they may not differ much from their parents in the particular characterization, the kids can't read just fine. That's been clearly demonstrated by at least one comment in this thread. While younger people often assimilate communication technologies much more quickly than those with less early exposure, they tend to have less of an understanding of how to use them in a culturally relevant manner. A typewriter in the hands of the eloquent is a powerful tool. A computer in the hands of the illiterate is a doorstop.
If a tool performs a specific function and no one understands what that function is, is it still a tool?
Apologies for the question. I just spent the last half-hour standing in the rain discussing digital interpretations of Wittgenstein with an artist/PhD student from Nottingham. Luckily, I have time for a beer before dinner.
Reading, in this the day an age of pod cast? lol
Well our household will always remain old fashion when it comes to reading news, yes I am like Jon and tag five or six publications a day via the web, but nothing is better in the AM than sitting down with a paper and coffee.
PS..that is a good paper and double espresso.
Cheers
Brandon, you are splitting hairs, taking the author's use of "paper" to infer it is a newsprint-specific piece of research.
It isn't. The younger generation is far less likely to be a consumer of news in any form. Voters read more news. Non-readers of news vote in far smaller numbers. And the research shows that under-30 adults choose to forswear political opinions and sentiments, and to abdicate the decisions to others. Why? That's a different question, but you haven't challenged the premise.
You of all people should be aware that significant numbers of people consider the practice of law to be intrinsically dishonest. They reject the American adversarial system as being one that literally requires lawyers to be disingenuous, or in plainspeak, dishonest.
That's about as fair as your dig at the mayor. Were it not me making the announcement, were it about Rob Waiz in Jeffersonville, would you have "protested?"
I've urged this mayor to get out in the neighborhoods for more than a year. I've fostered opportunities for all city officials to meet people beyond the usual suspects, beyond the downtown lunch crowd, the ceremonial event attendees, etc. It's pretty damned whiny of you to urge increased communication and understanding and then blast the mayor when he carves time away from his family on a day when he has no city obligations.
I won't even touch where you might be coming from when you "protest" the fact that I posted an announcement of same.
Just a note of appreciation to those who posted above. One of the most articulate threads that I have read in quite a while. I am green with envy.
Dear Brandon,
The most consistent tread in your posts is motive. Why the need to examine motive at the outset? I am perplex by such action.
I thank you for answering questions posted arlier.
Maury
Do newspaper readers vote because they are informed or do voters read so they will be informed?
I was just reading a short history of the cigar industry in Florida in the Winter 06 Southernarts Journal. It discussed the lectors who were hired by the employees of the cigar manufacturers to read to them (primarly newspapersand the classics)while they rolled cigars.
In 1933 the factory owners outlawed the lectors because the workers were very political, especially in terms of working conditions, etc. The owners thought that the lectors reading the newspapers were stirring unrest among the workers.
Post a Comment