University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Rebuilding a well-informed electorate in a democracy of distrust and disinformation

(USC Thesis Other)

Rebuilding a well-informed electorate in a democracy of distrust and disinformation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

REBUILDING A WELL-INFORMED ELECTORATE IN A DEMOCRACY OF
DISTRUST AND DISINFORMATION

by

Kendall Klingler

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Kendall Klingler
i

Dedication
To my parents, thank you for your unwavering patience and tireless support throughout
this process and my entire academic career. Your unparalleled commitment to my education is
the foundation of every achievement. I am eternally grateful for the path you have provided and
your love that has guided me along the way.
To my sister, thank you for always looking up to me. You continue to push me to reach
higher to be worthy of your admiration.

ii

Acknowledgements
Without help from my mentor and committee chair Matthew Le Veque, it is unlikely that
this paper would have made it across the finish line. Le Veque, I appreciate your support more
than you will ever know.
Thank you to my committee members Daren Brabham and Fred Cook for your much-
appreciated feedback and kind words of wisdom. I will be forever grateful for your help.
Last, thank you to my mentor, colleague and friend Danny Simons for constantly
challenging me and reminding me that “news is curated by the company you keep.”
iii

Table of Contents
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. v
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... vi
Preface ...................................................................................................................................................... viii
Research methodology ...................................................................................................................... viii
Special Considerations ......................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter One. An Informed Electorate is a Prerequisite to Democracy ............................................. 4
Chapter Two. Does the American Electorate Meet the Prerequisite? ............................................... 7
Uninformed .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Misinformed ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter Three. Post-Truth Politics Ensures a Misinformed Electorate ........................................... 11
Basic Facts: Just Irrelevant or Entirely Nonexistent? ..................................................................... 12
The Fact-Checking Backfire Effect .................................................................................................... 13
The Post-Truth Challenge ................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter Four. Pervasive Distrust in Washington ................................................................................ 15
History of Public Trust: The Start of the 50-Year Decline .............................................................. 15
Distrust Runs Deeper than Scandal .................................................................................................. 17
Distrust in an a Dysfunctional Democracy ........................................................................................ 19
Ineffective and Unaccountable for Results ................................................................................... 20
Wasteful and Inefficient ................................................................................................................... 23
Cycle of Distrust ................................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter Five. The Role and The Fate of America’s Fourth Estate .................................................. 26
From Information Monopoly ................................................................................................................ 27
To Information Democracy ................................................................................................................. 30
To Information Anarchy ....................................................................................................................... 31
Build Your Own Reality ................................................................................................................... 33
The Death of Objectivity .................................................................................................................. 35
When Accuracy Became Irrelevant ............................................................................................... 36
Cycle of Misinformation ....................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter Six. Creating the Perfect Storm for a Post-Truth America .................................................. 44
iv

Chapter Seven. Impacts of a Post-Truth Political Climate ................................................................. 48
Threats of a Post-Truth Campaign: How Trump Won .................................................................... 48
Anyone Trumps the Establishment ................................................................................................ 49
Anger Trumps Pragmatism ............................................................................................................. 50
Familiarity Trumps Qualifications ................................................................................................... 51
Threats of a Post-Truth Presidency ................................................................................................... 53
From Fake News to Fake Problems and Wasted Resources ................................................... 54
Accountable for Nothing .................................................................................................................. 55
Threats of a Post-Truth Electorate .................................................................................................... 57
Creating a False Consensus Reality ............................................................................................. 57
Summarizing the Threats of a Post-Truth Electorate .......................................................................... 65
Chapter Eight. Proposed Solutions for Rebuilding Trust and Truth ................................................. 67
Rethinking Government: Need for a New Approach to Information Collection, Utilization and
Dissemination ....................................................................................................................................... 68
Maximizing Government Content for a Web 2.0 Electorate .......................................................... 72
Educate New Information Gatekeepers ............................................................................................ 74
Appendix A: Interview with Tracy Westen ............................................................................................ 77
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 79

v

List of Figures
Figure 1: History of Public Trust, 1958 to Present 16
Figure 2: Government Performance Consistently Falls Short of Voter Expectations 21
Figure 3: Edelman’s Cycle of Fear and Distrust 25
Figure 4: The Wall Street Journal – Blue Feed, Red Feed 34
Figure 5: Crimson Hexagon, #SpiritCooking Volume Trend 39
Figure 6: Crimson Hexagon, Top 2016 Election Hashtags 40
Figure 7: Crimson Hexagon, Collection of Top #SpiritCooking Retweets 40
Figure 8: The Cycle of Misinformation 42
Figure 9: Trends in Public Trust Compared to Internet Access 44
Figure 10: The Intersection of Distrust and Disinformation 45
Figure 11: Trend in Social Media Use During Election Years 46
Figure 12: @RealDonalTrump Tweets on Immigration 60

vi

Abstract
A well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to a healthy, functional democracy – a
conclusion shared by nearly every democratic theorist and political actor
1
.
Recent surveys demonstrate that a majority of American voters do not know basic
information about their government
2
. Many of these voters are not just uninformed, but
misinformed
3
, leading a deeply divided American electorate to overwhelming agree that they
disagree on basic facts
4
. Post-truth has been used to brand the current political climate in which
facts are not only regarded as subjective, but irrelevant. In other words, post-truth describes an
electorate that lacks basic political knowledge. Democratic theorists would, therefore, argue that
democracy cannot succeed in a perpetual post-truth political climate.
Dramatic shifts in the way knowledge is created and disseminated paired with pervasive
distrust in the institutions of American government created the perfect storm that delivered
today’s post-truth political climate and paved Donald Trump’s road to the White House. To
reverse the post-truth phenomenon and create a more informed debate in American society, the
underlying threats must be addressed.
In this paper, the author demonstrates that a loss of trust in the nation’s institutions
coupled with the displacement of the role of the Fourth Estate enabled the current post-truth
political climate – a trend that political scholars would argue is a threat to American democracy
5
.
After demonstrating impacts and risks associated with a post-truth political environment, the

1
(Hochschild 2010)
2
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
3
(Pluta 2016)
4
(Pew Research Center 2016)
5
(Hochschild 2010)
vii

author presents potential solutions to address the underlying issues – lack of trust in a
dysfunctional system and the disruption of information control.

viii

Preface
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Both primary and secondary research were conducted to inform the writing of this thesis.
The author analyzed data from public opinion polls to understand trends in public trust. After
reviewing and analyzing datasets from several of the nation’s most reputable institutions – Pew
Research Center, National Election Studies, Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York
Times, NPR/Harvard Kennedy School and CNN – the author conducted additional secondary
research to place this data into historical context and align with trends in voter political
intelligence and news consumption. The author combined insights from this data with insights
from social media content and additional secondary research – including academic studies,
credible news stories, professional surveys and analyses, and expert blogs and publications –
to form topline conclusions as to why Americans are generally distrusting of their federal
government, how the evolving media landscape has played a role in creating an uninformed
public dialogue and how the combination of distrust and disinformation led to the current post-
truth political landscape that is plaguing democracy through encouraging a misinformed
electorate.
The author interviewed Tracy Weston to gain additional insight into the role that evolving
technologies play in how citizens interact with their government and how technology can be
leveraged to enhance public trust, political participation, and government performance. As a
web-based political organizer, former Federal Trade Commission official, president of the
Democracy Network, founder and first vice president of the California Channel, and coauthor of
10 books on campaign finance, ballot initiatives, and judicial and media reform, Weston’s
decades of experience in the field allow him to speak with authority on the issues. Throughout
ix

his career, Westen has campaigned selflessly and tirelessly for a fairer, more open, and more
responsive government.
To inform the recommended solutions proposed in this paper, the author used both
insights from her interview with Mr. Weston as well as secondary research conducted on
solutions proposed by additional experts in the field.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The author is not an expert on public trust and, therefore, relied on expert analysis to
inform conclusions.
The author initially sought to include a more in-depth look at how Russia may have had
a hand in influencing the country’s election through hacking and using fake news and
propaganda to undermine voter intelligence. However, investigations are still ongoing and much
of the data remains too preliminary.

1

Introduction
At the beginning of George Orwell’s “1984,” the doomed hero says, “Freedom is the
freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” The equation is
symbolic of any basic fact that can be recognized as objective reality despite exposure to a
broadly peddled lie. A functional democratic society cannot exist without such basic facts and
accurate information.
Since the birth of the nation, journalists held the power to decide what Americans
needed to know and when they needed to know it. The system wasn’t perfect – an elite few
controlled the flow of information, but high barriers to entry allowed journalists to serve crucial
roles as the gatekeepers of truth.
After years of slow destabilization, America just witnessed the fall of the country’s long-
standing information gatekeepers with the 2016 presidential election
6
as the full force of Web
2.0 leveled the playing field for information sharing and provided the public with mass access to
participate in the great online civic debate.
The present age of digital innovation has made it possible for all internet users to
contribute to the narrative that shapes public opinion, giving equal access to those who aim to
educate as well as all those who aim to manipulate. From ordinary citizens to foreign
adversaries, the masses have encroached on the role of the Fourth Estate, leading to a new
age of information anarchy and its merry band of hyper-partisan spin, hype and punditry
masquerading as news.

6
(Glasser 2016)
2

Without gatekeepers to determine the veracity of the information, that responsibility now
falls on the individual to properly vet the information they consume. More often than not,
however, American adults cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction
7
.
In a nation divided, this new world of information chaos has led a very polarized
American electorate to overwhelmingly agree that they disagree on “basic facts
8
.” Too many
believe that data is partisan, truth is irrelevant and facts no longer exist. The appalling
mistreatment, shocking disregard and blatant manipulation of truth has created confusion, and
Americans’ political intelligence is suffering
9
.
An informed electorate is so fundamental to a functional democratic society that the
ability for anyone anywhere to manipulate the views of the American electorate – either
accidentally or through the deliberate distortion of information and knowledge of the world – is a
threat to the future of the country’s democracy.
The threat is exacerbated by – and contributes to – Americans’ pervasive distrust in their
government institutions. When citizens no longer trust their elected leaders, political legitimacy
begins to breakdown, opening the door for other forces to take the reins
10
.
In today’s political climate, biased and inaccurate information is diluting and distorting
knowledge of the world in a way that was not possible a few short election cycles ago.
Americans’ pervasive distrust in the country’s entire political system allows false information to
carry more weight, causing greater distrust to permeate through society. The destructive bond
between distrust and disinformation will continue to infect America, inflicting deeper wounds as
they each feed on the other’s victims until both are stopped.

7
(Ipsos Public Affairs 2016)
8
(Pew Research Center 2016)
9
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
10
(Blind 2006)
3

To rebuild an informed electorate and restore truth in American politics, the underlying
threats making post-truth politics possible must be addressed: at least a basic level of trust in
government must be restored and America must adapt to the current media climate.

4

Chapter One. An Informed Electorate is a Prerequisite to Democracy
Helen Beristain lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana where she raised her three boys with her
husband Roberto. Helen became a U.S. citizen 16 years ago. Roberto obtained a work permit,
social security number and driver’s license, but was not issued full citizenship. Despite the
temporary nature of Roberto’s status, Helen voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential
election. She believed that a Trump administration would only deport the “bad hombres
11
,”
allowing her husband to stay in America because he had documentation, obeyed the law and
paid taxes. She was wrong. Roberto now sits in lockup awaiting deportation
12
.
When asked if there are times when she feels that she made a terrible mistake by voting
for Trump, Helen responded, "Like they say, ‘You should read the fine print first before you
make a selection.’ I should have listened closely to those debates. That was a mistake I made. I
didn't listen
13
.”
A lack of knowledge and understanding regarding Trump’s views of immigration led
Helen to cast a vote that she most certainly would not have cast had she been informed.
Helen’s story may be extreme, but it is not unique.
In a government by and for the people
14
, nearly every democratic theorist and political
actor agree that the health of a society is tethered to the knowledge of its citizenry, as
established by Harvard Professor Jennifer Hochschild in the Election Law Journal: Rules,
Politics, and Policy
15
.

11
(Cooper 2017)
12
(Cooper 2017)
13
(Cooper 2017)
14
(Merriam-Webster n.d.)
15
(Hochschild 2010)
5

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be,” wrote Thomas Jefferson
16
. According to Jefferson, freedom and
ignorance cannot coexist – knowledge is a prerequisite to a free democratic society, and Helen
is living proof. Helen’s story is just one unfortunate example demonstrating how ignorance and
freedom cannot go hand-in-hand as her uninformed vote supported her husband’s deportation.
Democracy cannot meaningfully function without an informed electorate. Voters need to
know who or what they are choosing and why
17
. To maximize resources and deliver effective
programs, agency leaders and policy-makers must have accurate performance information to
set priorities and make decisions. The public must have access to information about its
government to properly utilize the programs and services offered, and, when necessary,
exercise oversight of their elected representatives
18
. Accurate performance information allows
the people to hold government accountable for the programs they create, fund and administer.
An informed electorate is the most effective defense against public abuse of power and
oppressive governing.
In his bill for the diffusion of knowledge, Jefferson wrote, “The most effective means of
preventing the perversion of power into tyranny is to illuminate the minds of the people at
large
19
.”
Public access to information on government programs and performance breeds
government accountability, allows the electorate to cast informed votes that serve their best
interests, encourages appropriate use of government programs and services, maintains public

16
(Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. n.d.)
17
(Hochschild 2010)
18
(Jefferson 1789)
19
(National Historical Publications & Records Commission n.d.)
6

freedom and improves government performance – all factors underlying good governance and
public trust.

7

Chapter Two. Does the American Electorate Meet the Prerequisite?
If, as democratic theorists assert, an informed electorate is a vital requisite to a
functioning democracy, does the American electorate fulfill that basic requirement?
The question could seemingly be answered in one sentence: three quarters of the
American electorate cannot name the three branches of their government
20
. That statistic,
however, does not capture the full scope of Americans’ lack of political knowledge.
American citizens who cannot accurately answer basic questions about their
government can be divided into two categories: the uninformed and the misinformed – an
important distinction that was established by James Kuklinski and a team of political scientists at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
21
.
The research demonstrates a stark difference between the two: uninformed citizens
don’t have any information, while the misinformed have information that conflicts with the best
evidence, expert opinion, facts and reality
22
.
UNINFORMED
The mass inundation of information that technology provided was supposed to create a
more informed electorate, but the dramatic increase in available political information – and
access to it – has not translated into increased political knowledge. Despite the seemingly
unlimited information sources available today, researchers from the Annenberg Public Policy

20
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
21
(Pluta 2016)
22
(Pluta 2016)
8

Center concluded that a shocking number of Americans do not know basic facts about their
government in Washington
23
. Instead, Americans’ political intelligence is suffering.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center, the creator of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org,
conducts an annual survey testing the political knowledge of American adults. Each year, these
surveys provide new evidence of the country’s widespread – and increasing – political
ignorance. The research team’s recent conclusions show that “Americans know surprisingly little
about their government
24
” and that they have seen a statistically-significant decline in
Americans’ political intelligence in the last 10 years.
In the 2016 study, more than 30 percent of respondents could not name any of the three
branches of government
25
. A mere 26 percent of Americans could successfully name all three
branches – compared to 38 percent who could name all three in 2011
26
.
In August 2016, just weeks after the political conventions and less than three months to
Election Day, only 84 percent could name the Republican presidential candidate, Donald
Trump
27
. The vast majority could not name either major-party vice presidential candidate
28
.
Prior to the 2014 midterm elections, only 38 percent of Americans knew the Republican
Party controlled the U.S. House of Representatives
29
– half of the 76 percent of survey
respondents who knew which party was in control in 2007
30
. The decline from 2007 to 2014

23
(Walker 2014)
24
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2014)
25
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
26
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
27
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
28
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2016)
29
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2014)
30
(Pew Research Center 2007)
9

represents a reverse in the trendline – more Americans knew which party controlled the House
in 2007 than the last time the question was asked in 1989
31
.
Ignorance about party control of Congress is particularly troubling, because voters
unaware of these facts do not know which party to reward or blame for the legislature’s
performance. It’s impossible for Americans to hold their political leaders accountable without
knowing who to hold accountable for which government decisions and outcomes.
“Although surveys reflect disapproval of the way Congress, the President and the
Supreme Court are conducting their affairs, the Annenberg survey demonstrates that many
know surprisingly little about these branches of government,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson,
director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center
32
.
Increasingly, Americans express less confidence in their own collective political wisdom
– nearly two-thirds have little to no confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it
comes to making political decisions
33
. In January 2007, these opinions were almost the reverse
– nearly 60 percent had at least a good deal of confidence in the political wisdom of the
people
34
.
MISINFORMED
In addition to being uninformed, American voters today are often misinformed. For
example, crime rates have plummeted in almost every city, small and large, nationwide since
the 1990s, yet the majority of Americans polled during the last decade consistently say that
crime is up despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
35
.

31
(Pew Research Center 2007)
32
(Annenberg Public Policy Center 2014)
33
(Pew Research Center 2015)
34
(Pew Research Center 2015)
35
(McCarthy 2015)
10

Research shows that a large portion of Trump voters fall into this category – those
armed with information that conflicts with the best evidence, expert opinion, facts and reality
36
.
Research also establishes that misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in
their views and use their existing belief systems to fill the gaps in their knowledge
37
. Once these
inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski
and his colleagues found
38
.
Political scientists have determined that when misinformed citizens are told that their
facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly – causing what is known
as the “backfire effect,” according to political science researchers and professors Brendan
Nyhan and Jason Reifler
39
.
A separate study published by the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
concluded that reading partisan news online makes constituents more likely to hold inaccurate
beliefs even when they are aware of the prevailing evidence to the contrary
40
.
When Republican pollster Frank Luntz presented negative information about Trump to a
focus group of his supporters, support for the candidate only grew stronger. Study participants
were more confident in their misinformation as the session progressed, further validating the
conclusion that the misinformed tend to cling to their convictions
41
.
There is no shortage of credible scientific research to demonstrate that a large portion of
the American electorate is misinformed and would like to stay that way.

36
(Pluta 2016)
37
(Pluta 2016)
38
(Pluta 2016)
39
(Nyhah and Reifler 2014)
40
(Garrett, Weeks and Neo 2016)
41
(Weigel 2015)
11

Chapter Three. Post-Truth Politics Ensures a Misinformed Electorate
The term post-truth is being used by pundits, journalists and institutions to classify the
current political landscape in America and around the world
42
. Think about the literal meaning of
post-truth: truth comes after; it’s secondary. Candidate Trump’s loyal followers did not
necessarily reject, contest or deny the truth; they just didn’t find it relevant
43
. To a post-truth
electorate, truth is not only subjective, it is beside the point.
Before post-truth, there was truthiness, defined by Merriam-Webster as the “quality of
preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be
true – its truth that comes from the gut, not books or hard facts
44
.” According to Oxford
Dictionaries, post-truth extends that notion from an isolated quality to a general characteristic of
society
45
.
Consider how far Candidate Donald Trump was estranged from fact – President Obama
founded ISIS, Hillary Clinton initiated the birther movement, climate change was an elaborate
Chinese hoax and violent crime was at a record high
46
.
Lies, deception, propaganda, alternative facts and persuasion have always marked
public life. Politicians peddling fiction is not a new phenomenon – Ronald Reagan too had a
reputation for flirting with the truth
47
. Dictators and democrats alike have often manipulated the
truth to garner support for policy agendas or to deflect blame. It is not unprecedented that
Candidate Donald Trump openly lied. What’s unprecedented is that the electorate — or at least

42
(Wang 2016)
43
(The Economist 2016)
44
(Alfano 2006)
45
(Oxford Dictionaries 2016)
46
(Noe 2016)
47
(Marcus, Welcome to the post-truth presidency 2016)
12

a very large minority of the electorate — either didn't care or didn’t notice
48
. What’s
unprecedented is that Trump’s appalling treatment of facts and offensive remarks only helped
his campaign, leading many voters to view him as honest for saying whatever came to his mind.
The more Trump lied, the more his supporters believed him – it’s a post-truth paradox.
To add to the irony, the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact Truth-O-Meter identified Hilary
Clinton’s statements as completely truthful more often than any other 2016 presidential
candidate and more often than most of Washington’s current elected leaders
49
. Yet, polls
showed most Americans continued to find her untrustworthy. By contrast, Trump’s supporters
appeared to trust him implicitly despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times concluded, “Never in
modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as
Trump
50
.”
BASIC FACTS: JUST IRRELEVANT OR ENTIRELY NONEXISTENT?
American voters overwhelming agree that they disagree on “basic facts
51
.” An ironically
rare point of agreement – 80 percent of registered voters who backed Clinton and 81 percent
who backed Trump said the two sides are unable to agree on basic facts.
“One thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is the people
that say facts are facts, they're not really facts…there’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of
facts. And so Mr. Trump’s tweets amongst a certain crowd, a large part of the population, are
truth,” asserted Trump supporter and CNN commentator Scottie Nell Hughes
52
.

48
(Noe 2016)
49
(Tampa Bay Times 2017)
50
(Finnegan 2016)
51
(Pew Research Center 2016)
52
(The Diane Rehm Show 2016)
13

In sum, Mr. Nell Hughes is claiming that if a tweet is believed to be truthful, then it is true
to those who believe it. He is saying that not only is Trump entitled to his own facts, but so is the
American electorate.
By the time Trump issued his half-hearted disavowal of the Obama “birther” lie, he had
done so much to create and perpetuate, one national survey found that only a quarter of
Republicans were sure that Obama was born in America
53
. However, Obama was not born on
both foreign and domestic soil – only one scenario can claim truth in this instance, but that’s
irrelevant in a democracy made up of leaders and voters who all believe they are entitled to their
own facts.
THE FACT-CHECKING BACKFIRE EFFECT
“Even fact-checking perhaps the most untruthful candidate of our lifetime didn’t work; the
more news outlets did it, the less the facts resonated,” Susan Glasser, founding editor of
POLITICO, wrote in her sobering assessment of the election
54
.
Fact-checking is comically useless and out of place in an era where the data and the
details almost don’t matter. Trump supporters started to view the fact-checkers as the ones who
couldn’t get their facts straight. The tweets and retweets of outraged truth-squadders only
helped to effectively rebroadcast false messages.
More to the point, research shows that fact-checking is not only ineffective, it can
actually be counterproductive
55
. When aiming to educate those who believe the fiction being
checked to be fact, fact-checking can enhance misperceptions, according to multiple scientific

53
(Glasser 2016)
54
(Glasser 2016)
55
(Nyhan and Reifler 2010)
14

studies
56
. As referenced in the previous chapter, research demonstrates that telling misinformed
citizens that their facts are wrong often backfires, strengthening their pre-existing convictions.
THE POST-TRUTH CHALLENGE
“Whatever I believe to be true is true because I believe it to be,” seems to be the anthem
of America in 2017; it’s time to flip the record. By definition, a post-truth electorate is a
misinformed electorate. When people believe facts to be irrelevant, discretionary or worse,
building an informed electorate seemingly stretches outside the realm of possibility.
As research suggests, attempts to present corrections and generate counterarguments
to a group’s misinformed beliefs only strengthened their opinions – simple fact-checking will not
correct the misinformed when the problem runs deeper than the narrative.
To rebuild an informed electorate and restore truth in American politics, the underlying
threats making post-truth politics possible must be addressed. The author argues that pervasive
distrust in government and the disruption of information control helped to create the current
post-truth political landscape.

56
(Pluta 2016)
15

Chapter Four. Pervasive Distrust in Washington
Trust may seem like a pleasant luxury, but economists have long argued that it is much
more important and impactful than that, argues Tim Hartford, author of The Undercover
Economist
57
. Trust enables people to conduct business with one another – imagine trying to get
a loan in a world without trust. The very notion of a representative democracy necessitates that
the governed place trust in those who govern. America is in a period where trust in government
is perilously low. The 2017 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER – an annual survey assessing
global trust and credibility – found that public trust is in crisis around the world
58
, and America is
one of 10 countries where a majority of the population believes the system is failing them
59
.
Beyond distrust, the tone in America is dominated by fear and frustration with the
system, according to a survey by Pew Research Center
60
. By almost every conceivable
measure, Americans are more critical and less trusting of government today than ever before.
Going into the 2016 presidential primaries, only 19 percent of Americans said they could trust
their government in Washington to do what is right, according to public opinion data from Pew
Research Center
61
. In fact, public trust in the institutions of American government has been
permanently scarce for the last 50 years.
HISTORY OF PUBLIC TRUST: THE START OF THE 50-YEAR DECLINE
To some degree, constituents will and should always be apprehensive about investing
complete trust in their government. Elected officials hold a great deal of power that has seen a
great deal of abuse. They have a great deal of influence that has allowed them to cause a great

57
(Hartford 2010)
58
(Edelman 2017)
59
(Ries 2017)
60
(Pew Research Center 2015)
61
(Pew Research Center 2015)
16

deal of harm. As a nation founded to break free from English monarchy, the country’s
democratic system was designed to cut down government’s ability to impose on the will of the
people, making skepticism about government part of America’s DNA
62
. However, the earliest
on-record public opinion surveys show that in the 1950s and 60s most Americans expressed at
least a basic trust that their
government would do the right
thing.
In 1958, when the
American National Election
Study first asked the question,
73 percent of adults said they
trust the government in
Washington to do what is
right
63
. After peaking in 1965
with nearly 80 percent of Americans saying they could trust their government in Washington,
trust in government began a long decline that continues today. For a brief moment in the wake
of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, trust rose to 54 percent, but those who place trust in the institutions
of American government have otherwise remained in the minority for the last half-century
64
.
Trust in government plummeted from 77 percent in 1965 to 53 percent in 1972 along
with the escalating disaster in Vietnam, then to 36 percent in response to Nixon’s 1974
resignation, and then to 28 percent after the double-digit inflation and high unemployment of the
rest of the decade
65
. After hovering around 40 percent through Reagan’s presidency, trust in

62
(Shapiro 2019)
63
(Pew Research Center 2015)
64
(Pew Research Center 2017)
65
(Pew Research Center 2017)
(Pew Research Center 2017)
Figure 1: History of Public Trust, 1958 to Present
17

government plummeted even further following the Bush administration’s involvement in the Gulf
War. Since then, trust in government has fluctuated, but has never recovered, according to data
from Pew Research Center.
DISTRUST RUNS DEEPER THAN SCANDAL
When looking at the data, it is a common assumption to blame the disaster in Vietnam,
Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Clinton and Monica Lewinsky Scandal, the 2008 financial
collapse and bank bailout and the whole chain of scandals and missteps the country has
witnessed for permanently eroding faith in America’s elected officials. While all of the above
may have encouraged distrust in the institutions of American government, public opinion polls
and data from the past and present reveal a different story. An analysis of public opinion
research from the last 20 years shows public distrust in government transcends party lines and
cannot be attributed to a single leader, scandal, crisis, policy or event – the trend line that led
here is deeper and more pervasive
66
.
For example, there was a three-year period of deep distrust in government from October
of 1992 to November of 1995, with no poll showing trust in government above 28 percent.
During this time, there were no major political scandals, actions or events that triggered
discontent, yet trust in government reached its lowest point in history with only 17 percent of
Americans saying they could trust their government in June of 1994.
Furthermore, prior to 1965 when trust in government was abundant, Washington was
anything but scandal free. Since at least 1802 when Thomas Jefferson fathered children with
White House slave Sally Hemmings, Capitol Hill has been intimately familiar with extramarital
affairs and sex scandals, illegitimate love children, insider trading, bribery and tax evasion – and
all the lies and cover up stories to match. Even after rumors and facts came to light regarding

66
(Salvanto, Why don't Americans trust government? 2013)
18

some of the country’s worst political scandals of all time, the majority of Americans continued to
trust their elected leaders. Even congress used to fair better with the American electorate – in a
1973 public opinion poll, 42 percent said they trust congress quite a lot or a great deal
compared to 9 percent in 2016
67
.
In the midst of allegations of adultery and perjury against President Clinton, trust in
government declined only modestly from 39 percent to 34 percent
68
. As internet rumors and
accusations ran ramped, trust in government remained relatively unaffected
69
. What’s more
impressive – Clinton had inherited a distrustful nation with only 25 percent of Americans saying
they could trust their government as President George Bush left office. Despite the truth to the
allegations and the impeachment charges that followed, trust in government reached its highest
point in 30 years by the end of his presidency
70
. Public trust in government jumped nearly 20
percentage points while Clinton was in office, reaching 44 percent by the end of Clinton’s
presidency – the largest increase in public trust achieved during any administration yet on
record
71
. The point is worth stressing because it’s telling of the American electorate – to a
significant portion of the population, personal indiscretions are not as significant as results
delivered when determining an elected leader’s perceived trustworthiness. By the end of
Clinton’s presidency in 2001, the budgets were balanced, the federal government was facing a
budget surplus, the economy was thriving, and unemployment rates were the lowest they had
been since the 1970s. Despite scandal, lies, humiliation and near impeachment, the public’s
eroded trust in government was on the road to recovery.

67
(GALLUP 2016)
68
(Pew Research Center 2017)
69
(Pew Research Center 2017)
70
(Pew Research Center 2017)
71
(Pew Research Center 2017)
19

DISTRUST IN AN A DYSFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY
Many polls during the past two decades have asked Americans why they distrust their
government or have an unfavorable view of their elected officials in Washington. Answers vary
from year to year. However, when examining the results collected by some of the country’s most
reputable academic institutions, pollsters and non-partisan think tanks, a handful of common
responses repeatedly appear at the top of the list of reasons why Americans do not trust their
federal government. A 2013 poll asked the 81-percent of skeptical Americans why they distrust
their elected officials
72
. The researcher’s summary of the findings is telling of the results:
The replies describe frustrations with ineffectiveness, misgivings about an insular
Washington wrapped up more in its own battles than in working for average people. To
many, it seemed, lack of trust was born not from apprehension about what a government
might do to you, but rather that it isn't doing anything for you. This cynicism transcends
any current occupant of an office or seat, too. Like the trend line that led here from the
1970s, it is deeper and more prevailing
73
.
The researcher’s summary could seemingly be used to summarize findings from the last
20 years. While much has changed – wars have been waged and left ostensibly unfinished,
technology has changed the way people approach daily life, and dramatic economic swings
have disproportionately reallocated the nation’s wealth – Americans’ views of their government
have remained surprising the same.
Results from numerous public opinion polls demonstrate the majority of Americans share
the belief that Washington’s leaders are dishonest and only out for personal gain. They believe
that institutions of American government are wasteful and inefficient, ineffective and unable to
problem solve, and accountable to no one.

72
(Salvanto, Why don't Americans trust government? 2013)
73
(Salvanto, Why don't Americans trust government? 2013)
20

Ineffective and Unaccountable for Results
Public trust in the institutions of American government is suffering from the perception
that those institutions simply do not work. Americans have lost faith in the entire system and all
those involved. Most believe their elected leaders in Washington are out of touch with reality
and few believe the government is run for the benefit of the people – a belief that has held firm
for the last 15 years
74
.
Americans’ collective disdain for their elected leaders and passion towards shutting
down a dysfunctional democracy has never been so prevalent or so pervasive
75
. Results from
numerous public opinion polls conducted over the last 20 years demonstrate that a majority of
Americans believe their federal government in Washington is ineffective and unable to problem
solve, creating a perception that everyone is on the losing end of the deal. Overall, nearly two-
thirds of Americans say that on the issues that matter to them, their side loses more often than it
wins
76
.
In 1997, when researchers from Pew Research Center asked Americans why they
distrust their government in Washington, dissatisfaction with government performance and
progress toward solving national problems was the second most common answer
77
. In a 2000
public opinion survey by NPR and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, respondents
said government was the main thing going wrong in the nation above all else as well as the
single most important problem that needed to be addressed
78
. Again in 2014 and 2015
79
– and
to date in 2017 – Americans identified dissatisfaction with government as the nation's top

74
(Pew Research Center 2015)
75
(Saad, Government Named Top U.S. Problem for Second Straight Year 2016)
76
(Pew Research Center 2015)
77
(Pew Research Center 1998)
78
(NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School 2000)
79
(Saad, Government Named Top U.S. Problem for Second Straight Year 2016)
21

problem, more so than the economy, jobs and terrorism, according to public opinion data from
Gallup
80
.
Only 20 percent of Americans would describe government programs as being well-run,
and 59 percent say the federal government is in need of “very major reform,” up 22 percentage
points since 1997
81
.
Bipartisan dissatisfaction with government performance and Republican support for
smaller government has not translated into desire for less government programs and services.
Most Americans favor significant government involvement across the board
82
. According to a
2015 Research Center public opinion poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans emphasize
the need for a strong governmental role in helping the economy work better, responding to
natural disasters, ensuring safe food and medicine, managing immigration, maintaining
infrastructure, taking care of the elderly, helping people get out of poverty and the list goes on
83
.

80
(Swift 2017)
81
(Pew Research Center 2015)
82
(Pew Research Center 2015)
83
(Pew Research Center 2015)
(Pew Research Center 2015)
Figure 2: Government Performance Consistently Falls Short of Voter Expectations
22

However, even in categories where the majority of the public believes that government performs
relatively well, perceptions of government performance still fall short of voter expectations.
Americans consistently say they want their government to do more to solve the problems
facing the nation
84
, but most do not believe their elected leaders to be capable of problem
solving.
Accountability for results is the No. 1 action Americans most want from their elected
officials according pollster Dr. Frank Luntz
85
. When defining the worthiness of and choosing to
vote for a political candidate, accountability is the single most important personal characteristic
voters prize in their political leaders – more important than responsibility, opportunity, prosperity
and community, combined
86
. However, Americans view accountability as one of the qualities
their elected officials and governing bodies most lack
87
.
Big or small, at the end of the day, Americans just want a government that works. They
want to know that the on/off switch is going to function properly, or they want their money back.
They want their elected officials to do what they said they would do and help where they said
they would help.
“In the past, the biggest fear of government is that it would overreact. Today, the biggest
fear of government is that it cannot react and will not take responsibility for its failure to do so, or
that it will react, but incorrectly,” wrote political pollster and strategist Dr. Frank Luntz
88
.

84
(NPR-Kaiser-Kennedy School 2000)
85
(F. Luntz 2007)
86
(F. Luntz 2007)
87
(F. Luntz 2007)
88
(F. Luntz 2007)
23

To American voters, a government that can deliver results and can be held accountable
for those results is a worthwhile investment of their tax dollars. However, Americans believe that
their government is not capable of solving the problems plaguing the nation.
Wasteful and Inefficient
As many have observed, there is a seeming inconsistency between the public's desire
for a wide range of government services and that same public's disdain for government and
objections to paying higher taxes. The apparent inconsistency may, in part, stem from the
perceived prevalence of government inefficiencies and wasted tax dollars. Americans now –
more than ever before – estimate that Washington wastes more than it spends wisely. On
average, America’s taxpayers believe that their federal government wastes 51 cents of every
hard-earned tax dollar sent to Washington – the highest amount of perceived waste on record
89
.
In other words, Americans do not believe that they are receiving the level or quality of
government service for which they are paying.
To Americans, efficiency means getting more for less and suggests the wise use of
resources. “Efficiency is becoming more and more about innovation and technology – a twenty-
first-century approach to twenty-first-century challenges,” argued Luntz
90
.
In the 1997 Pew Research Center survey, inefficient and frivolous spending was the
third most common answer when researchers asked Americans why they distrust their
government in Washington
91
. Then in the spring of 2000, when asked why they don't trust the
federal government, the majority of Americans pointed to government waste and inefficiency as

89
(Riffkin, Americans Say Federal Gov't Wastes 51 Cents on the Dollar 2014)
90
(F. Luntz 2007)
91
(Pew Research Center 1998)
24

the primary reason (73 percent)
92
. The perceived amount of wasted tax dollars has only
increased in the last two decades
93
.
For most people, government is their biggest expense
94
. Yet, the data shows the
majority of the American electorate believes the public service return on their investment has
declined as government spending has increased. Voters are far less satisfied with the level and
quality of government services today than in the past.
In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with government and severe government debt,
there is surprising public resistance to spending cuts
95
. Despite frustrations with a perceived
wasteful and inefficient government, public opinion data shows that a majority of Americans
support maintaining or increasing government spending on nearly every major issue addressed
by the federal government
96
. But, they want those tax dollars to be put to good use, to go
further, to be invested effectively.
CYCLE OF DISTRUST
Going into the 2016 presidential primaries, a mere 19 percent of Americans said they
could trust their government in Washington to do what is right
97
. “Once trust in public institutions
erodes to such low levels, it brings the whole system into question,
98
” according to research
insights from the 2017 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER.
Decades of mounting distrust in Washington – due to perceptions of an unaccountable,
ineffective and inefficient government – created a deep-rooted loss of faith in America’s entire

92
(NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School 2000)
93
(Riffkin, Americans Say Federal Gov't Wastes 51 Cents on the Dollar 2014)
94
(Blind 2006)
95
(Kohut 2012)
96
(Kohut 2012)
97
(Pew Research Center 2015)
98
(Ries 2017)
25

political system
99
. Edelman’s research insights reveal that when the public loses “faith in the
system that is supposed to regulate a well-functioning society, they become more vulnerable to
fears
100
.”
In this climate, Americans’ societal
and economic concerns have grown into
fears
101
. Compared to the global population,
an above-average percentage of America’s
population is fearful of globalization, the
pace of innovation, immigration and the
erosion of social values
102
. And, it’s a vicious
cycle – fear, in turn, can further erode public
trust in institutions, which further undermines Americans’ faith in the entire system
103
.
In 2016, a majority of votes cast by the American electorate were based on fear and
distrust, concluded Edelman’s survey insights
104
. When citizens no longer trust their elected
leaders, political legitimacy begins to breakdown, inciting fear that motivates voters to abandon
the leaders who aren’t working for them in pursuit of those who claim they will. Americans’
pervasive distrust in Washington cracked the door for other forces to come in and take the reins,
and fundamental shifts in the way knowledge of the world is consumed and disseminated blew
the door wide open – enter Russian hackers, fake news racketeers and candidate Donald
Trump.

99
(Ries 2017)
100
(Ries 2017)
101
(Edelman 2017)
102
(Ries 2017)
103
(Ries 2017)
104
(Edelman 2017)
Figure 3: Edelman’s Cycle of Fear and Distrust
26

Chapter Five. The Role and The Fate of America’s Fourth Estate
Journalism has long been regarded as an important force in government, so vital to the
inner workings of democracy that it has been portrayed as the fourth branch of government. The
founders viewed the freedom of the press as such a fundamental component of democracy that
they protected the practice with the First Amendment. In the quest for truth and transparency, a
free press exists to strengthen the responsiveness and accountability of a government to its
citizens. Journalists long served crucial roles as the gatekeepers of truth, charged with seeking
and sifting through information to determine its veracity.
As defined by the American Press Institute, journalism is the activity of gathering,
assessing, creating, and presenting news and information
105
. Professional journalists worked to
establish credible sources who could corroborate and fill holes in a story, to master the art of
validating information with evidence, and to disseminate the information necessary to maintain
an informed electorate. They decided what Americans needed to know and when they needed
to know it – the system wasn’t perfect, but high barriers to entry helped to maintain at least a
basic level of information integrity and truth in reporting.
Today, the world is awash in information. However, information does not equate to
journalism. In 2012, there were an average of 175 million tweets each day – 99 percent
consisted of “pointless babble,” according to researchers at Carnegie Mellon University
106
. But,
to content consumers who have not been trained to detect the veracity of information through a
journalistic lens, the line between news and information is getting blurrier. Today’s media realm

105
(American Press Institute n.d.)
106
(American Press Institute n.d.)
27

is filled with entertainment, opinion, assertion, advertising, propaganda and fiction, and
journalism is being drug through the mire.
FROM INFORMATION MONOPOLY
When polls closed on Election Day in 1948, the Chicago Tribune went to print with what
would arguably become one of the most famous headline mistakes in history, “Dewey Defeats
Truman
107
.” Of course, Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey for the presidency, but the
“Dewey Defeats Truman” headline lives on as a reminder of a not-so-distant time when news
traveled slowly. Radio was the only medium of immediacy. Without access to an instantaneous
news portal, the Chicago Tribune, so certain of the outcome, preemptively went to print in an
attempt to report the news the next day – it’s almost hard to imagine given today’s live tracking
maps and interactive graphs that allow voters to access real-time updates on the number of
votes counted for each candidate in each precinct before the polls even close.
Television news existed prior to 1948, but just barely – the first evening news program
came on air in 1944, occupying a lengthy 15-minute slot twice a week
108
. By 1960, an explosion
in television sales allowed television news to take off in a way that disrupted traditional radio
news programs
109
.
Broadcast news brought a new level of transparency to American government. It brought
the nation’s leaders right to voters’ living rooms. It allowed voters to feel a deeper connection to
their candidates and elected leaders in Washington. It quite literally gave the institutions of
American government a face and a voice.

107
(T. Jones n.d.)
108
(Leon 2015)
109
(The American Experience, WGBH Interactive, PBS Online n.d.)
28

The shift forced government leaders and political candidates – at least the successful
ones – to rethink how they communicated with the American electorate. Understanding that a
picture is worth a thousand words, the young, handsome and charismatic John Kennedy had a
leg up on opponent Richard Nixon in the first-ever televised presidential debates. In the eyes of
those who watched the debate, Kennedy was the winner, but those listening on the radio were
less impressed with the content of his rhetoric and favored Nixon’s intellect and command of the
issues
110
.
Through the dramatic changes that broadcast news brought with it, the role of the
American journalist remained unchanged. The new channel disrupted the old centers of power
and brought with it a new wave of journalists with new skillsets to match, but it did not alter the
role of the Fourth Estate in American democracy. One important characteristic remained
unchanged: barriers to entry.
As recently as 30 years ago, the national media owned the political discussion. The
ability to reach a national audience belonged to a small handful of media corporations – a huge
barrier to entry that kept smaller, independent voices out of the conversation
111
.
Throughout the late 1960s and into the 80s, when accessing the news of the world,
voters had options, but not many. The American public could choose from three television
networks that mattered – ABC, CBS and NBC, two national papers for serious news stories –
The New York Times and The Washington Post, and two giant-circulation weekly
newsmagazines – Time and Newsweek
112
. Those seven sources all but constituted the national
news.

110
(The American Experience, WGBH Interactive, PBS Online n.d.)
111
(Tanz 2017)
112
(Glasser 2016)
29

To some, the national press had entirely too much power in influencing public opinion.
Some critics argued that the networks served as propaganda machines on behalf of the
powerful special interests that financed them
113
. National news networks and publications were
owned by wealthy media corporations that relied on wealthy advertisers with political agendas.
Some analysts argued that national-brand advertisers tended to not support publications they
found controversial
114
. Similarly, journalists relied on the cooperation of high-ranking sources. At
the time, some argued that the news media’s reliance on both advertisers and powerful sources
prevented the press from publishing anything too oppositional, limiting transparency through a
filtered version of the story
115
.
What’s more, the circle of journalists who had the privilege of reporting the news and
views of the world directly to the American people was small and elite. Walter Cronkite occupied
the CBS evening news anchor desk for 20 years. David Brinkley appeared on NBC for 25 years
until he moved to ABC. While it may not have been an actual monopoly, it was close.
Susan Glasser, founding editor of POLITICO, argued that the lack of competition in
journalism allowed journalists to rest on their laurels, often mistaking exclusivity for
excellence
116
.
Information from within the capital was virtually unobtainable without a major investment
of time and effort. Only by going in person could journalists find information on foreign countries
lobbying in Washington, corporate fines or campaign funding and spending, Glasser recalled
117
.
Journalists often opted to forgo the hassle
118
. Without alternative means to gather information,

113
(Tanz 2017)
114
(Tanz 2017)
115
(Tanz 2017)
116
(Glasser 2016)
117
(Glasser 2016)
118
(Glasser 2016)
30

journalists relied on the cooperation of high-ranking sources, a mutually-dependent relationship
that critics argued prevented the press from publishing anything too oppositional
119
.
With limited options available, the national outlets played crucial roles as public
commons, according to Glasser, allowing informed debates to take place across political and
ideological bounds based on individual perceptions of the same facts
120
.
Information may have been limited, but the news also wasn’t sensationalized. It wasn’t a
circle of talking heads providing spin from all sides around the events of the day. It wasn’t to be
confused with entertainment, and it wasn’t a competition to see who could be the most
provocative. It had its flaws, but for the most part – the news was just the news.
TO INFORMATION DEMOCRACY
One cold Saturday night in January 1998 – the Drudge Report became the first to leak
the Blockbuster Report that would stain Bill Clinton’s presidency
121
. Over the weeks that
followed, the internet owned the story of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, delivering
information in shockingly real-time. Following the Lewinsky Scandal, only 20 percent of
Americans turned to the internet as a source of news
122
– not enough for a massive shift in the
way news was disseminated, but it became clear that the old gatekeepers of journalism would
no longer serve as the final word when it came to what the world should know.

119
(Tanz 2017)
120
(Glasser 2016)
121
(Drudge Report 1998)
122
(Pew Research Center 2014)
31

Not long ago, Americans could count their national news sources on two hands. The
internet slowly removed the long-standing barriers that had prevented average people from
reaching a national audience, expanding the previously elite circle of America’s information
gatekeepers. The powerful media conglomerates that once held exclusive control of the flow of
news and information no longer owned exclusive rights to that control.
There were many reasons to celebrate the democratization of information and the new
abilities to disseminate it that technology provided. The shift made actual journalism better as
constant new competition forced reporters to dig deeper and go the extra mile to deliver hard-
hitting news stories worthy of an advanced democratic society, according to Susan Glasser,
founder of Politico
123
.
“For its first few decades, this connected world was idealized as an unfettered civic
forum: a space where disparate views, ideas and conversations could constructively converge,”
wrote industry experts from Pew Research Center
124
.
Greater access to information brought with it a new-found enthusiasm about the promise
and possibility of American innovation. For its first decade, the World Wide Web held
democracy to a higher standard of truth and transparency as more access to more information
was not only possible, but expected.
TO INFORMATION ANARCHY
It was 2006 when YouTube went online and one year later when Facebook joined the
scene, making 2016 the 10
th
anniversary of the birth of the social media age
125
. In the last
decade, technology revolutionized the way knowledge of the world is shaped and circulated as

123
(Glasser 2016)
124
(Rainia, Anderson and Albright 2017)
125
(Coombes 2017)
32

the rise of user-generated content brought unbounded opportunity for the average person to
create, interact, share and disseminate.
Social networking is a product of Web 2.0 – the second generation of the World Wide
Web that represents an important shift in the way digital information is created, distributed,
stored and manipulated
126
. Sharply distinct from the broadcast-oriented model of the first
generation, Web 2.0 is characterized by new trends and technologies that encourage
participation, turning content consumers into content contributors, producers and providers
127
.
With this new age, came a new wave of applications designed to encourage user-
generated content and social networking
128
. Second-generation developers introduced new
services that made it all too easy for the average person with an internet connection to create
their own medium – making it just as easy to start a blog as it was to read someone else’s
129
.
The idea behind Web 2.0 technologies is to empower users through the formation of
communities and mass publication of user-generated content
130
, connecting people across the
globe in ways that were previously unimaginable.
When contributing to the dialogue became as easy as liking, tagging, posting and
retweeting, the nation’s information providers multiplied to an extent that was unfathomable just
a few short election cycles prior when the revolutionary fax machine was more influential and far
reaching than the internet.
Web 2.0 shattered nearly all of the remaining barriers to entry, empowering anyone with
an internet connection to be an information provider, a conversation starter, a player in the great
online civic debate. If the intent of democracy is to give everyone a voice, the lack of barriers to

126
(Wolcott 2008)
127
(Darwish 2011)
128
(Darwish 2011)
129
(Darwish 2011)
130
(Darwish 2011)
33

civic participation should serve to strengthen a democratic society. But, this unfettered access to
seemingly limitless user-generated content has come at a cost.
Build Your Own Reality
In this new world of Web 2.0, Americans can quite literally build their own customized
version of the news. When presented with evidence that contradicts a belief that is dearly held,
people have a tendency to ditch the facts first
131
. The prevalence of hyper-partisan media
platforms allows voters to cherry-pick the information sources that validate their own biases and
ignore those that contradict.
“Politics was never more choose-your-own-adventure than in 2016, when entire news
ecosystems for partisans existed wholly outside the reach of those who at least aim for truth,”
wrote Susan Glasser, founding editor of POLITICO Magazine
132
.
When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and
conservatives inhabit different worlds
133
. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to
and trust. Consistent conservatives trust Fox
134
. Consistent liberals trust that they should never
trust Fox
135
.
Even President Obama famously stated, “If I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me
either
136
.”
The “filter bubble” reinforces the tendency of internet users to seek information that
supports their own personal beliefs and prevents exposure to countervailing views
137
. While

131
(The Economist 2016)
132
(Glasser 2016)
133
(Amy Mitchell 2014)
134
(Amy Mitchell 2014)
135
(Amy Mitchell 2014)
136
(Glasser 2016)
137
(The Economist 2016)
34

Google, Facebook and others can filter news according to user preference, they are poor filters
of truth.
The Wall Street Journal created an application comparing articles shared by Facebook
users who identified their political views as conservative to those who described their political
views as liberal, and the results confirm that conservatives and liberals consume very different
versions of the news, as demonstrated in the image from the journal included below
138
.
“Liberalism has always been premised on the idea that people can argue with one
another – that there is a rational basis for argument and from that argument will come some
level of common wisdom. The clash of ideas will always produce better outcomes as long as
this debate takes place in the public square, but what we have in today’s America – and in other
democracies – is quite separate public squares,” journalist Edward Luce told CNN. “It is very

138
(Keegan 2016)
Figure 4: The Wall Street Journal – Blue Feed, Red Feed
35

hard to have that intelligent argument if people are not only in different squares, but there is not
even a connecting corridor between the squares
139
.”
Today, should two people with opposing views dare to enter a political discussion, they
will find that it is much more difficult to have a civil debate when they each come to the table
armed with competing and often conflicting versions of “news.”
Partisan media is widening the divide, reinforcing biases, distorting facts and making it
increasingly difficult to empathize across the aisle. In this à-la-cart, build-your-own-reality new
world, the news media’s power to inform public opinion and bridge the divide is severely
handicapped by voters’ ability to opt out and get their own facts.
The Death of Objectivity
Of all the changes journalism has seen in the last half-century, the perceived death of
objective reporting is one of the most horrifying. This isn’t to say that there are no longer
objective journalists or objective news outlets. Of course, many reporters and editors still hold
themselves to the highest standards of objectivity, but every news source is perceived to be
biased by someone in today’s post-truth political climate. Even the most objective stories and
sources are perceived as biased by those who dislike the content of their rhetoric.
Going into the 2016 election, two-thirds of Americans said the national news media had
a negative effect on the country
140
. However, the same research center found that there are
news sources that the majority of Republicans trust. Likewise, there are news sources that the
majority of Democrats trust. In other words, Americans believe the other party’s preferred news
sources have a negative effect on the country, while they trust their own party’s preferred
outlets.

139
(Luce 2017)
140
(Pew Research Center 2015)
36

The challenge stems from the perceived disappearance of facts
141
. The American public
believes basic facts are now subjective, partisan and up-for-negotiation. Therefore, if the reality
being reported by a news network does not support an audience’s perceived version of the
facts, then they will brand the network as biased.
Politicians have exploited this disaster for personal gain by labeling accurate but
unfavorable coverage as “fake news” to discredit the storyline. In addition to furthering the
partisan divide, the perceived death of objective reporting threatens the fundamental existence
of journalism as the nation’s Fourth Estate.
When Accuracy Became Irrelevant
Accuracy in reporting is no longer a prerequisite for readership. News sources that are
expected to uphold at least some basic level of information integrity are losing audiences to
those that are completely unconstrained by the confines of fact-based reporting.
While the most alarming fake news headlines are those that standout when considering
the impact of fake news on the 2016 election, a study by Oxford University researchers found
that fake news may be more widespread than people realize – findings demonstrate that nearly
50 percent of the news Michigan voters were exposed to on Twitter leading up to Election Day
was fake and that 46.5 percent of all content presented as news about the election fell under
“the definition of propaganda
142
.”
Another study conducted Filippo Menczer and his team at Indiana University found that
articles containing misinformation were shared on Facebook just as often as those containing

141
(Pew Research Center 2016)
142
(Oxford University 2017)
37

reliable information
143
. “In other words, there is no advantage in being correct,” concluded
Menczer
144
.
Accuracy in reporting became even more irrelevant as Election Day 2016 got closer. A
BuzzFeed News analysis found that fake election news stories outperformed real news on
Facebook in the final three months of the presidential campaign – the 20 top-performing fake
election news stories generated more engagement on Facebook than the top election stories
from 19 of the country’s leading major news outlets combined
145
. Put another way, the
conspiracy-peddling, overtly fake-news stories received more Facebook traffic than all of the
leading fact-based stories combined
146
.
Americans share such content without even thinking twice, let alone checking to
determine if it is true
147
, helping the perpetrators scam an even larger share of voting
Americans. Nearly a quarter of Americans admit they have shared a made-up news story
148
.
The other three quarters of Americans don’t believe they have shared a made-up news story
that they know of
149
, but most can’t tell the difference.
Fake news headlines fool American adults about 75 percent of the time, according to a
poll by Ipsos/BuzzFeed
150
. In the survey, respondents were shown a random selection of
headlines — half true and half false — related to the election. Of the fake news headlines that
respondents recalled seeing or hearing about, 75 percent of the time, they thought those
headlines were “somewhat” or “very” accurate. By comparison, they considered 83 percent of

143
(The Economist 2016)
144
(The Economist 2016)
145
(Silverman 2016)
146
(Glasser 2016)
147
(The Economist 2016)
148
(Michael Barthel 2016)
149
(Michael Barthel 2016)
150
(Ipsos Public Affairs 2016)
38

real news headlines to be accurate. In sum, American adults believe fake news is accurate
about as often as they believe real news is accurate. The majority believed the following fake
news stories to be accurate: Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump for president, Donald Trump
sent his own plane to transport 200 stranded marines, the FBI agent suspected of leaking
Hilary’s emails was found dead in an apparent murder-suicide, a Donald Trump protestor
admitted to being paid $3,500 to protest at Trump’s rally, and FBI Director Comey just put a
Trump sign on his front lawn
151
.
Hate, fear, anxiety and anger drive participation, which equates to power and profits, so
content that drives hate, fear, anxiety and anger is not only permitted, but often encouraged by
internet trolls and companies looking to turn a profit online
152
. Understanding that most people
are easily manipulated by fear, many online publications have turned impressive profits from
pumping out hoaxes that play into long-standing rumors and prejudices to ensure their hoax
goes viral and earns clicks, according to The Economist
153
.
“Newly discovered eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s miracles, a well-known ice-tea brand
testing positive for urine, a ‘transgender woman’ caught taking pictures of an underage girl in
the bathroom of a department store—anything goes in this parallel news world,” to name a few
of the recent fake news scams cited by The Economist
154
.
While the perpetrators of fake news stories continue to profit while eradicating the value
and journalistic integrity of America’s news, the impacts of fake news are very real.

151
(Ipsos Public Affairs 2016)
152
(Rainia, Anderson and Albright 2017)
153
(The Economist 2016)
154
(The Economist 2016)
39

One fake news story about Hillary Clinton leading a child-trafficking ring out of a ping-
pong bar and pizzeria inspired a 28-year-old man to fire an AR-15 assault rifle inside the alleged
location while it was full of people
155
.
#SpiritCooking
Fake news may have influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, and it will
continue to be used to manipulate public perception because it works. Another fake news story
gained a surprising level of traction just days before the 2016 presidential. WikiLeaks published
a fake email from presidential campaign chairman John Podesta’s brother that lit up social
media with a rumor that Hillary Clinton engaged in a satanic ritual known as “spirit cooking.” It
did not matter that the rumor was baseless, it took off. An assessment of social media analytics
pulled using Crimson Hexagon shows that #SpiritCooking was used more than 560,000 times in
the weeks surrounding the election.
Not only was #SpiritCooking the most commonly used hashtag in relation to the 2016
presidential election, but in the six-month period from June 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016,

155
(Akpan 2016)
Figure 5: Crimson Hexagon, #SpiritCooking Volume Trend
40

#SpiritCooking outperformed the next ten most-used hashtags combined. The top performing
tweets using #SpiritCooking were scathing, and demonstrate the extent to which people actually
believed the rumor.

Figure 7: Crimson Hexagon, Collection of Top #SpiritCooking Retweets
Figure 6: Crimson Hexagon, Top 2016 Election Hashtags
41

CYCLE OF MISINFORMATION
“When Tim Berners-Lee conceived the World Wide Web, he envisioned something that
would not only make it easier for citizens of different countries to communicate with one another
but also a technological means of increasing understanding and empathy among different
people,” wrote Gavin Coombs, contributor to Edelman’s research insights from its 2017 global
trust survey
156
.
At first, the aspirational vision appeared within reach, but a society marked by deep
empathy and understanding does not describe today’s America. When access to the internet
became open to the public, it held the potential to create a more knowledgeable and well-
informed populous – that was until Web 2.0 came online.
While the world undoubtedly has more access to more information compared to the days
when a handful of powerful media conglomerates held exclusive control of the narrative, more
information has not translated into a more informed electorate. Research shows that the
American electorate knows little about their government and that the political knowledge of
America’s voters has actually declined as greater access to more information has increased
157
.
As the wild 2016 race for the White House progressed, Glasser argues that the lingering
fear was realized: Americans might somehow be drowning in the very flood of news and
information that they once celebrated
158
. To keep afloat, today’s fragmented media environment
makes it all too easy for Americans to cut through the clutter by choosing the information that
resonates most with their deeply ingrained beliefs, biases and views of the world. It’s even
easier to opt out of the news altogether.

156
(Coombes 2017)
157
(Walker 2014)
158
(Glasser 2016)
42

In this new world where
citizens can choose where they get
their news, they are more likely to
choose sources that confirm their
existing views while ignoring the
rest
159
. Fake news that further
validates those views will break
through, while facts that contradict
will not – and it’s a vicious cycle,
one that is reinforced by the filter
bubble. Every citizen is essentially
living in a customized echo-
chamber, built specifically to ensure the survival of their existing biases and views of the world
with customized facts to match. And, as long as facts are viewed as subjective and irrelevant to
voter decision-making, the cycle will continue, creating an even more divided and misinformed
electorate.
“Never in human history has so much information been so readily available (and at no
cost) to so many people, yet never before has a majority of people been so entrenched in their
opinions. Instead of expanding our minds, the Internet age – and especially the social media
age – has for many people contracted and blinkered them,” concluded Coombes, contributor to
Edelman’s 2017 global survey results
160
.

159
(The Economist 2016)
160
(Coombes 2017)
Figure 8: The Cycle of Misinformation
43

The result is a misinformed electorate, so sure that their own views are the right views,
that when presented with information to the contrary, it causes them to double-down on their
existing biases, rather than question their validity
161
.
Research insights from Edelman’s 2017 global survey confirm that, “As Internet-based
communication has become used more often and by more people, we have found ourselves in
the paradoxical circumstance of more information arguably leading to less understanding
162
.”
In the world of Web 2.0, partisan spin, hype, punditry and lies disguised as fact-based
reporting are pushing accuracy and journalistic integrity into oblivion. The disruption of
information control has forced the country into a new world of information anarchy in which the
same unfettered civic forum that Americans relished has been overtaken by misinformation and
new barriers are blocking facts from breaking through.
While misinformation in online discourse has already had a hand in influencing voter
perception
163
, the challenges of the current media landscape go far beyond fake news. The
challenge comes from the inability to correct the record.

161
(Pluta 2016)
162
(Coombes 2017)
163
(Rainia, Anderson and Albright 2017)
44

Chapter Six. Creating the Perfect Storm for a Post-Truth America
Public trust in the institutions of
American government has been gradually
disappearing for the last half-century
164
. At
the same time, the last 20 years have
witnessed fundamental shifts in the way
Americans create, share and consume
information as the internet became more
widely available. The rise of social
networking and user-generated content has
displaced the Fourth Estate’s role as the
gatekeepers of truth, allowing anyone to
muddy the debate with disinformation.
When the public lacks trust in their
government, they will turn to alternative
sources. Today, more people lack trust in
government than ever before. At the same time, more adults are accessing the internet than
ever before. Web 2.0 was built to be participatory, blurring the lines between content consumers
and content providers. When a frustrated electorate plays both roles, they are both consuming
and sharing content that undermines trust in government, creating one big echo-chamber of
distrust built with customized facts to support.

164
(Pew Research Center 2017)
Figure 9: Trends in Public Trust Compared to Internet Access
45

The convergence of these two threats to democracy – pervasive distrust and disruption
of information control – delivered the perfect storm that brought with it the current post-truth
political climate.
The American electorate lacks trust in government, lacks faith in the country’s entire
political system and is more vulnerable to fear than in prior election years
165
. This same
electorate is also creating, disseminating and consuming information that is likely to confirm
existing views, biases and fears about. The combination is a vicious cycle.
With the ability to cherry-pick news and information sources that confirm their existing
views while ignoring the rest, voters who lack trust in government and lack faith in the system
may skip, deny or reject news coverage that places government in a positive light. When
presented with evidence that contradicts a deep-rooted belief, voters are more likely to ditch the
facts first
166
. Pervasive distrust has created a lack of faith in the country’s entire political system,

165
(Edelman 2017)
166
(The Economist 2016)
Figure 10: The Intersection of Distrust and Disinformation
46

which has made Americans more vulnerable to fear
167
. Fear drives online participation and
opens a gaping vulnerability that can be easily exploited by internet trolls
168
.
“Unfortunately, most people are easily manipulated by fear. … Negative activities on the
internet will exploit those fears, and disproportionate responses will also attempt to exploit those
fears,” cautions David Wuertele, software engineer at Tesla Motors
169
.
Motivated by distrust, fear and lack of faith,
more Americans are going online to create, share and
disseminate information. Adults using social media
increased by 7000 percent over a few short election
cycles
170
.
When presented with a fake news story that
confirms a voter’s distrust, deeply ingrained fears or
lack of faith in the country’s political system, research
suggests that story is more likely to be redistributed on
social media than a real news story
171
. And because
this electorate cannot tell the difference between real
and fake news headlines the majority of the time
172
,
they are likely to believe the inaccurate or overtly fake
news stories that confirm their existing views, and the filter bubble will push these fake stories to
the forefront.

167
(Edelman 2017)
168
(Rainia, Anderson and Albright 2017)
169
(Rainia, Anderson and Albright 2017)
170
(Pew Research Center 2017)
171
(Glasser 2016)
172
(Ipsos Public Affairs 2016)
(Pew Research Center 2017)
Figure 11: Trend in Social Media Use During
Election Years
47

The intersection of pervasive distrust and lack of information control continue to fuel a
dangerous post-truth storm. Distrust, fear and skepticism are driving the information that
Americans choose to create, share and consume, creating a misinformed electorate and further
eroding public trust in government. The cycle is a threat to the success of American democracy,
and it must be broken.

48

Chapter Seven. Impacts of a Post-Truth Political Climate
THREATS OF A POST-TRUTH CAMPAIGN: HOW TRUMP WON
The world watched in horror and awe as the 2016 presidential election unfolded. Britons
were amused at how the “U.S. political system [had] come so spectacularly unhinged
173
.”
People across the Middle East were “perplexed, fearful and repulsed by Trump
174
.” Ninety
percent of Germans expressed support for Clinton while 3 percent backed Trump
175
. Those in
South Africa took comfort in the “outright insanity,” feeling relief that “things in the most powerful
country of the world [were] an even bigger mess than things in South Africa
176
.” While friends of
the U.S. around the world called on their American neighbors to “snuff Trump out in the voting
booth,” the clarion call to the American populous failed to reach a large minority.
Candidate Donald Trump offended countless Americans who crossed his path. He
imitated a disabled reporter, called for a ban on all Muslims entering the country, claimed that
an Indiana-born federal judge could not do his job well because he was of Mexican descent,
attacked a gold star family who lost their son in Iraq, and bragged about grabbing women
inappropriately
177
. Trump was the only presidential nominee in 40 years to refuse to release his
tax returns
178
. The “Never Trump” movement was launched by respected members of his own
party. The billionaire businessman has scammed students, refused to pay contracts and used
taxpayers to get out of debt
179
.

173
(TIME Correspondents 2016)
174
(TIME Correspondents 2016)
175
(TIME Correspondents 2016)
176
(TIME Correspondents 2016)
177
(Lee and Quealy 2017)
178
(Kertscher 2016)
179
(Reilly 2016)
49

“Trump is a wild card, a flamethrower, a man with no known party loyalties and no
coherent political principles, a thrice-married casino mogul and reality-TV star, a narcissist and
even a demagogue,” wrote TIME’s David Von Drehle
180
.
The outcome of the election shocked the world. In hindsight, it is possible that the news
should not have been all that surprising.
Fifty years of declining public trust in American government led to an unprecedented
race for the White House. From the debates and public dialogue to the candidates’ commentary
and shocking twists, Americans’ long-time frustrations with government came to head in a 2016
presidential election that will be studied, talked about and analyzed for generations.
Overflowing arenas all over the country, Americans gathered by the masses throughout
the 2016 election cycle – not in the name of patriotism and not to question presidential
contenders on their plans for America’s future but to demonstrate their utter disgust for
Washington, the country’s entire political system and all those involved.
Anyone Trumps the Establishment
Elected officials are held in such low regard, 55 percent of Americans believe that
“ordinary Americans” could do a better job of solving the nation’s problems, despite a strong
lack of confidence in the political knowledge of their peers
181
.
"I feel real confident that he can make America better. I believe him. [Other politicians]
are all liars. They're all liars. I'm sick of politicians. If he's not running, then I'm not voting," one
Iowa voter told TIME
182
.

180
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
181
(Pew Research Center 2015)
182
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
50

Fed up and frustrated with Washington, many Americans expressed that they were
willing to elect almost anyone over their political elite – voters from every corner of America
were yelling to throw them all out. Despite a lack of political experience and know-how, Former
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina showed promising leads in the
early primary polls ahead of long-time party insider Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and
beloved party up-and-comers Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and New
Jersey Governor Chris Christie
183
.
Increasingly, Americans have an unfavorable view of both parties with twice as many
Americans saying they have an unfavorable view of both parties today compared to 2008 and
four times as many compared to 2002
184
. Trump, the ultimate insider, was able to position
himself as an outsider – a man with no known party loyalties and no ties to special interests.
Anger Trumps Pragmatism
By a 2-to-1 ratio, voters thought Clinton did a better job of explaining her policy positions
than Trump
185
. Instead of discussing the nuances of policy that often fail to resonate with voters,
Trump appealed to their fears, which run deep.
The most successful republican candidates, and their Democratic counterpart Bernie
Sanders, channeled the anger felt by so many Americans – anger about an economy that
punishes workers, anger about illegal immigration, anger about health care costs, anger toward
"Wall Street billionaires," anger about politicians who don't deliver on their promises and anger
about an entire political and economic system that is “rigged” against hard working Americans in
favor of the 1 percent
186
.

183
(Agiesta 2015)
184
(Pew Research Center 2015)
185
(Gibbs 2016)
186
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
51

“These voters don't want someone to feel their pain; they want someone to mirror their
mood. Woe to the candidate who can't growl on cue,” wrote TIME’s David Von Drehle
187
.
“Perhaps nothing has hurt the Bush campaign--whose money and endorsements, lavished by
middlemen, have fizzled on the launchpad--more than Trump's observation that the former
Florida governor is ‘low energy.’ Translation: he's not ticked off.”
Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, joined the Democratic Party only a year
prior. Despite his lack of name recognition, his anger against ‘the millionaires and the
billionaires’ of Wall Street represented the fury of David against Goliath that struck a chord with
so many Americans
188
. Cruz channeled anger over Obamacare. Trump tapped into the
country’s anger over just about everything.
Even those who were not left standing in the end, candidates who tapped into the fear
and frustration of the American electorate witnessed campaign successes throughout primary
season.
Familiarity Trumps Qualifications
After 20-years of slow destabilization, America’s information gatekeepers were officially
overthrown during the 2016 presidential election. The pivotal role that social media played in
providing election information shattered barriers to entry, leveling the playing field for
information sharing and empowering people – at their best and their worst – to engage in the
great online civic debate.

187
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
188
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
52

When the American electorate was asked to name the most helpful source of
information about the 2016 presidential election, social media ranked second, and more
Americans got their campaign news from late-night comedy than from a newspaper
189
.
Candidates and elected leaders alike now have the power to create their own image and
connect directly with voters, free of the mediators, giving Trump the power to tell his story, even
if it was not entirely true
190
. Better than his competitors, Trump understood the power of
disintermediation, sidestepping all of the traditional middlemen – parties, press and pollsters –
to sell his candidacy directly to voters
191
.
“This can explain why Trump is unscathed by apparent gaffes and blunders that would
kill an ordinary candidate. His followers feel that they already know him. When outraged
middlemen wail in disgust on cable news programs and in op-ed columns, they only highlight
their irrelevance to the Trumpiverse,” Von Drehle explains.
When it was convenient for his brand, Trump bypassed the Fourth Estate and used his
“direct” relationship with the public to frame his own image. The relationship between the
president and the press has always been one of mutual dependency, but not anymore.
Politicians no longer depend on journalists to get the word out. When a news outlet focused on
a topic that Trump did not appreciate, he left them off the plane and took to Twitter to brand the
outlet as a perpetrator of “fake news” and change the subject.
Going into the 2016 election, two-thirds of Americans said the national news media has
a negative effect on the country
192
. Donald Trump knows how to exploit public perception for

189
(Jeffrey Gottfried 2016)
190
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
191
(Von Drehle, Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal 2016)
192
(Pew Research Center 2015)
53

personal gain. With the power to send his supporters directly to his Twitter feed, Trump waged
war on the media to further demonstrate that it was him against the Washington elite
193
.
The power for politicians to control the story – no matter how divorced from reality – is a
new phenomenon
194
.
“And what makes it unique has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. This time,
the victor was a right-wing demagogue; next time, it may be a left-wing populist who learns the
lessons of Trump’s win,” wrote Glasser.
In a political climate where facts are viewed as subjective, truth is irrelevant and
emotions trump all, Trump was able to tell lie after lie by circumventing the country’s fallen
information gatekeepers, controlling their access to information and taking his unfiltered lies
straight to the American electorate.
THREATS OF A POST-TRUTH PRESIDENCY
“Since the liar is free to fashion his ‘facts’ to fit the profit and pleasure, or even the mere
expectations, of his audience, the chances are that he will be more persuasive than the truth
teller
195
,” wrote philosopher Hannah Arendt in 1967.
What Arendt and Trump have discovered is that the truth may be real, but falsehood
often works better, according to TIME’s Michael Scherer
196
. It is for this same reason that
Russia deployed internet trolls during the 2016 campaign, according to U.S. investigators,
promoting lies across social platforms is an effective way to muddy the debate
197
. If a candidate

193
(Scherer 2017)
194
(Glasser 2016)
195
(Marcus, Welcome to the Post Truth Presidency 2016)
196
(Scherer 2017)
197
(Scherer 2017)
54

is free to craft his own facts to support a policy or agenda, then why bother with the truth –
hand-crafted facts are more effective and less time consuming.
Simply put, in a world without facts, the liar has the upper hand. When the lies are critical
of government, they build on the perpetual distrust in institutions that gave lying legitimacy in the
first place. When those lies trespass on Capitol Hill and infiltrate the inside, seeping through the
cracks of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the scope of the threat becomes inescapably deeper and
more prevailing.
Now that he is president, Trump has shown no indication that facts will play a bigger role
in his White House than they did in his campaign. The only difference is that President Trump
has a lot more power than Candidate Trump. He can now use his own alternative facts to
support his policy positions, justify investments in government programs, skillfully create
perceived problems that only he can solve, and distort the impact of his leadership. Leveraging
inaccurate information to support policy decisions can have an even greater impact on the
future of the country than using fiction to persuade voter decision-making.
From Fake News to Fake Problems and Wasted Resources
There is absolutely no evidence of a voter fraud problem in the United States, but that
did not stop Trump from claiming that he won the popular vote "if you deduct the millions of
people who voted illegally" nor did it stop him from peddling unfounded allegations of “serious
voter fraud”
198
.
Despite the complete lack of statistical or anecdotal evidence of even a minor voter fraud
issue in the U.S., Trump established an advisory commission on election integrity
199
. Directing

198
(Scherer 2017)
199
(Bump, A ‘voter fraud’ commission is Trump politics in a nutshell 2017)
55

taxpayer funds to bolster a political argument and the president’s ego is not only inappropriate, it
diverts the resources away from programs that aim to solve actual problems facing the nation.
The voter fraud investigation was not the only time President Trump has used fiction to
set policy, and it is unlikely to be the last. Similarly, to distract public attention away from
previously denied conversations between Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a Russian official,
President Trump tweeted an accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during
the election. After weeks of wasting FBI resources on a fool’s errand, then FBI Director James
Comey stated, "I have no information that supports those tweets. We have looked carefully
inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the
same
200
."
Using government resources to address “fake problems” is a clear waste of taxpayer
dollars. It will also make government even less effective if resources continue to be diverted
away from actual problems that need to be solved and reassigned to those that do not exist. If
this practice of post-truth governing continues, it will further erode public trust in government,
reinforcing the current cycle of distrust.
Accountable for Nothing
One of the biggest threats of a post-truth presidency is that it makes the public’s ability to
hold government accountable impossible.
“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government;
that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set
them to rights,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1789
201
.

200
(Scherer 2017)
201
(Jefferson 1789)
56

The information revolution brought greater transparency to American democracy. As
many have learned the hard way, heightened transparency has also forced greater
accountability in the private sector.
Take United Airlines, the mistreatment of one customer led to global outrage that hurt
the company’s bottom line and forced the airline giant to change corporate policies. The global
corporation was held accountable for the abuse of a passenger only because another
passenger who witnessed the incident whipped out her smartphone and captured it on video –
the chilling video was viewed by tens of millions of potential United Airlines passengers and
many took to the web to express their disgust
202
. Thirty years prior, the incident would have
gone unnoticed.
As so many politicians, CEOs and celebrities have learned the hard way, anyone with a
cell phone can capture and share just about anything. The unguarded moments that once went
unseen, now, rarely go unnoticed. In many ways, the technology revolution and rise of citizen
journalism has held companies and high-profile individuals to a higher standard of
accountability.
The notion that greater transparency forces greater accountability is a long-held belief
that has proven true time and again. However, a nations citizenry cannot hold its government
accountable without the information necessary to do so. The American electorate knows little
about how government works and even less about if it is working. The common belief that
transparency breeds accountability no longer applies to American democracy – as the nation
has achieved a lot more transparency in today’s Washington without the accountability that was
supposed to come with it.

202
(LeBeau and Wang 2017)
57

THREATS OF A POST-TRUTH ELECTORATE
Creating a False Consensus Reality
Voter Perceptions of U.S. Immigration System Contrast Reality
When Trump launched his presidential campaign, he launched his war on immigrants
coming from Mexico backed by a series of fictional claims, "When Mexico sends its people,
they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're
bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.
And some, I assume, are good people
203
.”
Following Donald Trump’s announcement of his run for president along with his plan to
build a wall along the U.S. Mexican border, immigration reform shot to the forefront of the
election coverage and to the top of the electorate’s concerns. During the 2016 election, 86
percent of Trump supporters said the nation’s immigration situation has gotten worse since
2008
204
.
Dissatisfaction with immigration levels sored in 2015 and 2016
205
, pushing immigration
reform to No. 3 on Americans’ list of the most important problems facing the U.S. in a
September 2015 poll
206
. Just one year earlier, immigration reform was not viewed as one of the
top issues among registered voters
207
.
America’s heightened concern with immigration, however, does not correlate with an
escalation in the prevalence of undocumented immigrants nor an increase in the severity of
impacts undocumented immigration has on the country.

203
(Kopan 2016)
204
(Pew Research Center 2016)
205
(Gates 2017)
206
(Riffkin, Government, Economy, Immigration Seen as Top U.S. Problems 2015)
207
(Newport, American Public Opinion and Immigration 2015)
58

On the contrary, the latest immigration debate comes against a backdrop in which the
number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. has been declining for nearly a decade,
especially for those from Mexico. The estimated population of undocumented immigrants living
in the U.S. peaked in 2007
208
prior to the 2008 economic crisis, which led some undocumented
immigrants to return home and reduced the arrival of new migrants
209
. After growing from 3.5
million in 1990 to 12.2 million in 2007
210
, the population of undocumented immigrants has
gradually declined over the last eight years.
The Obama administration has arguably taken the most aggressive steps to secure the
Southwest Border, deport undocumented immigrants and create pathways to citizenship since
the very passage of the 1965 Immigration Act that provides the foundation of today’s
immigration laws
211
. Dubbed the “deporter in chief” by some immigrant advocates, Obama
deported more immigrants than his predecessors
212
. Additionally, the resources dedicated to
securing the Southwest Border were at an all-time high under Obama, whose administration
added 3,000 border patrol agents and doubled the amount of fencing, aircraft surveillance
systems and ground surveillance systems
213
.
Obama also created more pathways to citizenship than his predecessors. Under the
Obama administration, more than 5 million undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and qualified
individuals received work permits, becoming valuable, tax-paying members of society
214
.

208
(Krogstad, Passel and Cohn, 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. 2016)
209
(Renwick and Lee 2015)
210
(Krogstad, Passel and Cohn, 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. 2016)
211
(Renwick and Lee 2015)
212
(Gonzalez-Barrera and Krogstad 2014)
213
(The White House Office of the Press Secretary 2014)
214
(Renwick and Lee 2015)
59

The vast majority of voters – 88 percent – favor immigration reform with a path to
citizenship
215
as prescribed by the Obama administration’s approach. In theory, nearly all
Americans should have been pleased with the direction of the immigration system at the end of
Obama’s second term.
Yet, no one was pleased. In another 2015 survey, Americans – democrats and
republicans alike – gave Obama’s administration its lowest performance ratings for its
management of the immigration system. Four-in-ten democrats and a mere 15 percent of
Republicans were satisfied with the government’s management of immigration – the lowest
rating among Republicans for the government’s handling on any issue
216
.
After nearly a decade-long decline in undocumented immigration, Americans expressed
heightened discontent with immigration levels and the government’s handling of immigration
policy throughout 2015 and 2016.
A central point of President Trump’s executive order regarding immigration policy and a
mainstay of his campaign speeches is the view that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to
public safety
217
. Contrary to Mr. Trump’s fictional views, several studies over many years have
concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the United
States
218
. Analyses of census data from 1980 through 2010 show that among men ages 18 to
49, immigrants were one-half to one-fifth as likely to be incarcerated as those born in the United
States
219
. Similarly, about 7 percent of the nation’s population are noncitizens, while about 5
percent of inmates are noncitizens
220
.

215
(America's Voice 2016)
216
(Dugan 2015)
217
(Perez-Pena 2017)
218
(Perez-Pena 2017)
219
(Perez-Pena 2017)
220
(Perez-Pena 2017)
60

Facts did not stop Mr. Trump from issuing an executive order stating, “Many aliens who
illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their
visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety…Many of these aliens
are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails
221
.”
Opponents of immigration often point out that in federal prisons, a much higher share of
inmates, 22 percent, are noncitizens
222
. But federal prisons hold a small fraction of the nation’s
inmates, and in many ways, it is an unusual population
223
. About one-third of noncitizen federal
inmates are serving time for immigration offenses – usually re-entering the country illegally after
being deported – that are not covered by state law
224
.
To garner support for his candidacy and his wall, Trump took to social media.
Throughout 2016, Trump posted dozens of tweets about immigrants taking American jobs and
bringing drugs into the country. From retweets to replies, Trump’s 34 tweets about the economic
and public safety impacts of immigration resulted in nearly 352,000 actions of engagement,
creating the potential for Trump’s tweets to receive more than 750 million impressions
(according to data pulled using Crimson Hexagon. A couple of examples of the content included
in Trump’s tweets about the impacts of immigration are included below.

221
(Trump 2017)
222
(Perez-Pena 2017)
223
(Perez-Pena 2017)
224
(Perez-Pena 2017)
Figure 12: @RealDonalTrump Tweets on Immigration
61

Despite vulgar rhetoric focusing on undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Mexicans
only make up about half of the population of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. While
the number of undocumented Mexican immigrants has been declining since President Obama
took office, the number of unauthorized immigrants from other parts of the world – such as Asia
and South Africa – has been on the rise
225
. Additionally, data shows that “for every ethnic group
without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” and this
holds true for those coming from Mexico
226
.
Throughout campaign season, candidates peddled misconceptions about immigration
trends, the Obama administration’s management of immigration, myths about the cost burden
associated with undocumented immigration, inaccurate information about who makes up the
undocumented immigrant population in the U.S. and the crime rate among this population.
As candidates’ speeches, rallies and commercials were splashed across primetime for
the duration of the campaign, their words were heard by the masses. Americans’ heightened
dissatisfaction with immigration levels and awareness of the problem certainly correlated with
politicians’ heightened use of derogatory language when discussing the issue, not with a
heightened issue. When a presidential candidate claims time and time again that there is a
growing problem with Mexican immigrants raping and killing innocent American citizens and that
building a wall along the border must be priority number one, it is unlikely that public opinion will
remain unchanged – American’s expressed a heightened fear of the impacts of immigration in
Edelman’s 2016 survey of global trust compared to prior years
227
.

225
(Krogstad, Passel and Cohn, 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. 2016)
226
(Bump 2015)
227
(Edelman 2017)
62

Building Fear of Declining Violent Crime
One of President Donald Trump’s biggest campaign themes was that the United States
is experiencing a violent crime epidemic like never before. Trump’s claims, however, could not
be more divorced from reality – government statistics and independent studies clearly show that
America just witnessed a 20-year crime decline like never before. The nation’s gun-related
homicide rate was cut in half
228
. The same 20-year period saw a 75 percent drop in gun crimes
that did not result in death (such as robberies)
229
. Crime rates have plummeted in almost every
city, small and large, nationwide since the 1990s, yet the majority of Americans polled during
the last decade consistently say that crime is up despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary
230
.
Trump’s wild campaign rhetoric only exacerbated the misconception as he shouted, “We
have a situation where we have our inner cities, African-Americans, Hispanics, are living in hell,
because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot. In Chicago, they've had
thousands of shootings, thousands, since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I say,
where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence,
we have to bring back law and order, in a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have
been killed. Thousands, over the last number of years
231
.”
Following the presidential election, an October 2016 poll showed that 70 percent of
registered voters believed crime was increasing nationwide, compared to 63 percent who said
crime was on the rise in 2014
232
. Consequently, from 2014 to 2016, there was a 35 percent
increase in the proportion of Americans who said they worry a great deal about crime and

228
(Krogstad, Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up 2015)
229
(Krogstad, Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up 2015)
230
(McCarthy 2015)
231
(Nussbaum 2016)
232
(Gallup 2016)
63

violence in the U.S.
233
. During that same time, however, the proportion of Americans who said
crime increased where they live remained unchanged and there was a modest decline in the
proportion of Americans who said they were worried about crime and violence in their own
communities
234
.
Americans consistently say crime is a growing national problem, but not a local one – 60
percent said crime was an extremely or very serious problem nationally compared to 14 percent
who said the same about the area where they live
235
. When asked if there is any area near
where you live where you would be afraid to walk alone at night, the proportion of respondents
who answered ‘yes’ also declined modestly from 2014 to 2016, demonstrating that Americans
have not witnessed a growing problem with crime in their own communities. The trend of
Americans believing their own communities are safe while violent crime is a mounting problem
elsewhere demonstrates that outside factors, not personal experiences, are contributing to a
perceived increase in violent crime nationwide. In other words, the heightened concern about
crime is not a result of more crime occurring within an individual’s network, but a result of a
perceived increase in the number of strangers in other cities who are falling victim to violent
crimes in their far away communities.
"The murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years, right?" Trump said.
"Did you know that? Forty-seven years. I used to use that -- I’d say that in a speech and
everybody was surprised, because the press doesn’t tell it like it is. It wasn’t to their advantage
to say that. But the murder rate is the highest it’s been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years
236
."

233
(Gallup 2016)
234
(Gallup 2016)
235
(Gallup 2016)
236
(Jacobson 2017)
64

The press did not cover this supposed murder outbreak because it didn’t happen. The
murder rate is currently at less than half its peak
237
. Specifically, the number of murders
declined by 42 percent between 1993 and 2014, even as the U.S. population rose by 25 percent
over the same period
238
, making the decline in the per capita murder rate even larger.
Despite the dramatic crime decline, the majority of Americans fear for their safety as
they believe gun crimes are more prevalent compared with 20 years ago
239
.
“I have spoken to a number of people who have insisted earnestly that America is
spiraling out of control,” an editor of an online political journal wrote in November 2015. “Most
people with whom I have spoken simply will not accept that things are better today than they
were ten years ago — or, for that matter, that America is safer today than it has been for a long,
long time. All told, this is rather strange, because the data are quite clear. Yes, America still has
a host of problems, and violent crime and gun-related-crime are among them. But those
problems are decreasing, not increasing
240
.”
The reporter’s account summarizes the problem well. The violent crime rate has reached
record lows in recent years, but politicians continue to push rhetoric claiming the opposite to be
true for political gain. As so many politicians have come to realize, taking a tough on crime
stance has proven to be an effective political tactic. Inspiring fear is a powerful way to move
people. If voters believe their country is unsafe, then that’s all the better for the “Law and Order”
candidates.

237
(Domonoske 2017)
238
(Jacobson 2017)
239
(Krogstad, Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up 2015)
240
(Cooke 2015)
65

Summarizing the Threats of a Post-Truth Electorate
Post-truth politics presents grave danger to American democracy. The premise of
Orwell’s book, 1984, is that the powers that be in the story deliberately suppress knowledge,
rewrite history and manufacture facts to create a false consensus reality that allows the “Party”
to remain in power. Orwell's protagonist goes on to wonder if the “Party” declares "two plus two
equals five" and everybody believes it, does that make it true? If the majority of Americans are
tricked, fooled or convinced into believing false storylines, the misguided perceptions will begin
to take control, influencing voter decisions that determine the future of the country.
In Trump’s America, too many voters have been led to believe that white is black and
black is white and anything else is just wrong until Donald Trump says otherwise.
And because Donald Trump’s “facts” don’t match the reality being reported by the news
media, he has declared a war on journalism, asserting that any news outlet that doesn’t conform
to his version of reality is simply “fake news.”
“What Donald Trump is saying to his supporters is ‘when you hear things on the news
that challenge me, don’t believe them because they’re fake,’” political analyst Jeff Greenfield
told CNN. “If he is convincing his people that whatever you hear on these networks is false and
that whatever I tell you is true because I assert it, then you begin to undermine as basic a
fundamental a notion of what the press is doing as I can imagine
241
.”
If the public is wrongly convinced that violent crime has reached a record high, then they
will instinctively feel unsafe and support leaders and policies that are tough on crime. Lessons
learned from the decades-long crime decline will instead be documented as failed attempts to
keep Americans safe, driving political actions known to be ineffective and inefficient.

241
(Greenfield 2017)
66

If Americans believe immigrants are more prone to committing violent crime, they will be
less likely to trust their immigrant neighbors and more likely to support Trump’s wall and
aggressive deportation rhetoric.
If persuaded to believe that Obamacare is compelling small businesses to replace
fulltime jobs with part-time ones, employees will be more likely to support its repeal – even
those who currently benefit from its existence.
If Americans are no longer free to form opinions and cast votes based on fact, then they
are no longer free. Instead, they are prisoners to the lies that they have been convinced to be
true.
As the author demonstrated from the start, an informed electorate is a prerequisite to a
functional democracy. A lack of knowledge and understanding regarding candidate platforms,
government programs and effectiveness, senate control and other key facts about the
institutions in American government forces to uninformed voter decision-making.
Throughout his life, Thomas Jefferson stressed that ignorance and freedom cannot
coexist – knowledge is a prerequisite to a free democratic society. The prevalence of
misinformation in American politics is a threat to the success of the country’s democracy.

67

Chapter Eight. Proposed Solutions for Rebuilding Trust and Truth
Web 2.0 has exposed American democracy to gapping vulnerabilities. Identifying the
misinformed and encouraging them to stay that way is an effective campaign strategy,
according to research by Jennifer Hochschild of Harvard and Katherine Levine Einstein of
Boston University
242
. And, it will likely remain one as long as the misinformed population is big
enough to tip an election. Experts have warned that burgeoning acts of economic and political
manipulation via carefully crafted digital misinformation campaigns will only get worse
243
. It’s
easy, it’s profitable and it’s effective.
Ultimately, democracy needs facts to allow for public debate and to provide a check on
abuses of power. To prevent misinformation from taking control of American democracy, the
nation’s electorate must become better informed. To bring an end to the current post-truth
political landscape, the underlying threats making post-truth possible must be addressed: a
basic level of trust in government must be restored and the American electorate must be
equipped with the knowledge and resources to adapt to the Web 2.0 media landscape.
The intersection of distrust and disinformation have created a vicious cycle – distrust,
fear and skepticism are driving the information that Americans choose to create, share and
consume, creating a misinformed electorate and further eroding public trust in government. The
only way to break the cycle is to change it.
According to Edelman’s global survey, distrust in government causes a lack of faith in
the system, making the public more vulnerable to fears, which further erodes public trust
244
. The
inverse is also true: when the people believe their public institutions to be trustworthy, they are

242
(Pluta 2016)
243
(Rainia, Anderson and Albright 2017)
244
(Edelman 2017)
68

more likely to believe that the system works, more likely to be supportive of government
policies, more likely to engage and participate – a different cycle, one that improves the
functioning of a political system, further expanding public trust
245
. The legitimacy and resiliency
of democracy, therefore, rests on the extent to which the public is prepared to trust
246
. Trust can
built be strengthening formal institutions and by improving education and communication.
A citizenry prepared to trust is not as easily led astray by disinformation, and a well-
informed electorate is more amenable to placing trust in deserving government institutions.
Building and maintaining a trusting, educated electorate requires factual, complete and useful
information about government decisions, outcomes and results, and the context that surrounds.
RETHINKING GOVERNMENT: NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH TO INFORMATION
COLLECTION, UTILIZATION AND DISSEMINATION
Public trust in government institutions is suffering from the perception that those
institutions simply do not work. A majority of Americans continue to believe that Washington’s
leaders waste their hard-earned tax dollars on ineffective programs that fail to deliver results or
solve problems with any degree of effectiveness.
As government spending continues to increase, the perceived public service return on
the taxpayers’ investment continues to decrease. In the business world, the business of
government wouldn’t stay in business for long. Washington’s leaders may not be able to provide
a money-back guarantee, but they need to give America’s taxpayers a better public service
return on their investment.

245
(Blind 2006)
246
(Blind 2006)
69

If the federal government wants to improve program efficiency and effectiveness, they
have to manage performance. And to do so, they have to measure it
247
.
It’s the Moneyball-model. The poorest team in baseball built a winning team by
approaching the game differently and relying on data to improve performance. Oakland A’s
General Manager Billy Beane broke down every activity that takes place on the baseball field,
analyzed the players and took a closer look at the factors that affect team performance. The
Oakland A’s experiment serves as a reminder that how much money an organization has
matters less than how well the money is spent.
Government agencies may not field baseball teams, but they too collect data that they
can transform into useful information that can inform and drive decisions. Yet, too many fail to
do so, and America has suffered as a result.
“Since 1990, 10 major federal initiatives including Head Start, Job Corps, Upward
Bound, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers have been evaluated with large
randomized studies — and all but one revealed modest or no impacts,” cites David Bornstein of
The New York Times
248
.
Developing accurate performance information can help leaders distinguish between
programs that deliver results and those that do not and steer leaders toward better ways of
carrying out their programs
249
. Agencies that have extracted the important lessons from their
data and relied on that information to manage performance have reduced recidivism, improved
patient care and lowered crime rates while also decreasing spending
250
.

247
(Bornstein 2012)
248
(Bornstein 2012)
249
(Bornstein 2012)
250
(Bornstein 2012)
70

Take Baltimore’s CitiStat, one of the most successful and well-known programs of its
kind, CitiStat is a map-based management application that tracks and addresses performance
indicators from murder rates to potholes
251
. CitiStat is designed to improve the performance of
every city agency by allowing the mayor and his management team to track, analyze, appraise,
diagnose, and improve the results produced by every city agency. In its first six years, the
program improved city services and saved an estimated $350-million in managerial costs
alone
252
. This allowed reinvestments in children’s programs and school construction and
renovation. It received the Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University
and sparked similar programs around the county.
In September 2010, the Obama administration brought a similar model to the federal
level, launching the Accountable Government Initiative that called for smarter, better and more
efficient government
253
. The administration brought this focus on evidence-based strategies to
six specific areas of federal funds that support social programs: home visitation, teen pregnancy
prevention, educational innovation, social innovation, career training and workforce innovation
— programs that account for close to $4-billion of spending. These programs had to be
evaluated using scientific methods and program funding was actually tied to evidence-based
models in the legislation
254
.
In 2011, the Obama administration promised to reform Head Start along similar lines by
introducing a new rule that aimed to award federal grants to programs that work and not to
those that don’t:
“Under the old rules governing Head Start, there just wasn’t enough accountability. If a
program wasn’t providing kids with quality services, there was no incentive to

251
(Behn 2007)
252
(Behn 2007)
253
(Haskins and Baron 2016)
254
(Haskins and Baron 2016)
71

improve…Under the new rule, programs are going to be regularly evaluated against a
set of clear, high standards. If a program meets these standards…then their grants will
be renewed. But if a program isn’t giving children the support they need to be ready for
school…then other organizations will be able compete for that grant. We’re not just
going to put money into programs that don’t work. We will take money and put them into
programs that do
255
.”
Beyond the Obama evidence-based initiatives, evidence-based policymaking is not
routine practice at the federal level. Policymaking, spending decisions and government
accountability are all seriously handicapped by a lack of “basic facts” about program
performance. Government managers, too, are greatly disadvantaged in their own efforts to
improve program efficiency and effectiveness by that same lack of information about results.
The blunt tool of guesswork will no longer suffice.
“Because of overall budget constraints, we are in a moment where everyone feels the
imperative to do more with less,” explained Robert Gordon, the former executive associate
director for Office of Management and Budget. “It has created a sense of urgency
256
.”
In the face of the tremendous fiscal uncertainties and severe government debt, the
future of America rests on policy-makers’ ability to make decisions that maximize the nation’s
diminishing resources, and doing so requires useful information. Government leaders and
agency managers must have the appropriate information required to report back to their
constituents that they are implementing programs that work, abandoning those that do not and
making improvements along the way.
Most importantly, the public must have access to information about its government to
properly utilize the programs and services offered, and, when necessary, exercise oversight of
their elected representatives. Public understanding of government decisions and processes
requires proper communication of such information.

255
(Klein 2011)
256
(Bornstein 2012)
72

Public trust is suffering from the belief that institutions of American government are
wasteful, ineffective and unaccountable for results. Developing useful performance information
and using it to improve program efficiency and effectiveness as well as government
accountability could initiate meaningful progress towards restoring a basic level of trust in
government.
MAXIMIZING GOVERNMENT CONTENT FOR A WEB 2.0 ELECTORATE
Once the right information about government performance has been created, collected
and aggregated, it is not enough to simply share it with the public in a press release.
The “echo chamber” has been identified as a major factor in feeding fear and distrust of
institutions, and research shows that the phenomenon reached a tipping point in 2016 – one
with potentially epochal implications, according to research insights from Edelman
257
.
In today’s political climate, a person’s “news diet easily becomes a daily double-down
digest: facts adjusted and prejudices reshuffled to fit a pre-set point of view,” wrote Coombes in
his contribution to Edelman’s 2017 research insights
258
. “Hence the disconnect between the
broad content spectrum and the narrow perspective it feeds.”
In other words, it isn’t enough to create useful performance information. That information
needs to make it into a voter’s customized version of the news.
Tracy Westen, web-based political organizer and founder of the Democracy Network,
explained that his experience demonstrates that constituents need a one-click solution – for a
citizen to engage in politics on the web, it has to be very easy and it has to come to them.

257
(Coombes 2017)
258
(Coombes 2017)
73

Today’s electorate is not combing through data and long-form narrative on the federal
government’s convoluted chain of websites. In the world of echo chambers and filter bubbles,
the information needs to be delivered where and how people like to consume it.
Quick videos can put a face on government policies. Infographics showing program
results can take the complexities of government to simple narrative. Content must be optimized
for social channels and distributed in a way that it can break into constituents’ customized
newsrooms. But, what’s more important than the packaging and placement, is the message
itself.
“In an age of software and hardware accessibility that was unimaginable even at the turn
of this century, it is only the most brutally single-minded messages speaking directly to our
reptile brains that cut through. It seems that in order to capture the attention, focus and trust of
audiences in 2017, we need to spend at least a little time thinking like we did in the day-glo
hard-sell days of 1987… or maybe even much earlier,” concluded Coombs in his summary of
Edelman’s 2017 research insights
259
.
Packaging and placement are key to making governments’ message available, but the
message itself remains the most important part of the package. The business of government is
complicated – often more complicated than Americans have time to understand. As candidates,
journalists and fact-checkers continued to explain the ins-and-outs of policy platforms and
priorities, Trump continued to yell, “Make America Great Again.” He never explained what
needed to be done to make America great again, but his message resonated loud and clear
with a large minority of Americans.

259
(Coombes 2017)
74

While designing multi-channel, real-time integrated communications campaigns
designed to reach the American public, leaders should also take the time to consider “how their
message will look on a red hat,” according to Edelman’s research insights
260
.
Just as government leaders needed rethink how they communicated with the American
electorate to adjust to the rise of television news, they must rethink their approach to
communicating public information to adjust to the Web 2.0 landscape. Across the board, the
federal government needs to make routine use of today’s best practices in communications.
EDUCATE NEW INFORMATION GATEKEEPERS
The role of America’s information gatekeepers has been displaced. America’s new
information gatekeepers, however, lack the necessary experience to assume the post, and they
may even lack awareness that they now shoulder this honorable burden.
The Fourth Estate has been replaced with a new age of information anarchy and its
merry band of hyper-partisan spin, hype and punditry masquerading as news. Without
gatekeepers to determine the veracity of the information, that responsibility falls on the
individual to properly vet the information they consume. Every voter must assume the role of
their own gatekeeper of truth, but America’s electorate clearly lacks the knowledge, desire and
skillset necessary to do so. The American people need to build their own defense system to
properly understand and interpret the information they consume.
Researchers at Stanford tested and validated students’ civic online reasoning – the
ability to judge the credibility of information that floods their smartphones, tablets and
computers
261
. The research team set what they considered to be a reasonable bar of being able
to separate fake accounts from real ones, biased sources from neutral sources, ads from

260
(Coombes 2017)
261
(Stanford History Education Group 2016)
75

articles, Photoshop images from photos, fake news from real news and activist websites from
mainstream news
262
. After collecting and analyzing nearly 8,000 college, high school and middle
school student responses, the researchers were "shocked" by how many students failed to
effectively evaluate the credibility of information and described the results as dismaying, bleak
and a threat to democracy
263
.
Sifting through the seemingly limitless amounts of information available, requires a
skillset that – until this point – voters have not needed to develop. The American electorate
needs to be educated on how to consume and interpret the news of the world.
“If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every
American to be informed,” wrote Thomas Jefferson
264
.
Faced with an abundance of information, there are new barriers to becoming informed
that Americans must learn to rise above – the ability to do so is vital to the long-term health of
America’s democracy as experts anticipate that the online realm of misinformation will only grow
more convoluted. To prevent facts and truth from permanently disappearing into the mire, civic
online reasoning or news literacy must be a fundamental component of the country’s K-12
curriculum.
Organizations and publications, such as the News Literacy Project and The New York
Times, are already creating guides and resources to arm teachers with the tools necessary to
educate students on how to navigate the media landscape and the landmines within
265
.
Teachers should immediately take advantage of these resources, because the results will also
be immediate. Already, four out of five students who have completed the News Literacy

262
(Stanford History Education Group 2016)
263
(Stanford History Education Group 2016)
264
(Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. n.d.)
265
(Schulten and Brown 2017)
76

Project’s lesson plan have said they learned to navigate sources of information in a more
skeptical manner, learned how to gather and create credible information and learned how to
seek out news that will make them more knowledgeable about their communities
266
.
News literacy lesson plans vary by publication and intended audience. However, at the
heart of the various approaches to improving news literacy is the need to develop a complete
understanding of where the information came from and why it was created.
“My students have a new understanding of the ways that powerful individuals and
groups seek control over information to shape public response to important issues. I believe
they will carry that insight with them into college and beyond, contributing to a generation of
independent thinkers,” said Jeff Zimmerman, technology director at Our Lady of Tepeyac High
School in Chicago
267
.
A national assessment of The News Literacy Institutes’ education program evaluating
pre- and post-unit surveys of students’ attitudes, consistently showed significant changes in
students’ knowledge, attitudes and behavior
268
.
Contributors to the problem – Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. – should band together
and launch a public service announcement aimed at educating American adults on how to
consume, use and create credible information.
An informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. Fake news publishers and
educators have the greatest ability to help inform the American electorate on how to become
informed, and this mission should become an upmost priority
269
.

266
(News Literacy Project 2017)
267
(News Literacy Project 2017)
268
(News Literacy Project 2017)
269
(Schulten and Brown 2017)
77

Appendix A: Interview with Tracy Westen
Tracy Westen is a web-based political organizer, former deputy director of the Federal Trade
Commission official, former president of the Democracy Network, founder of the California
Channel, founder of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, and coauthor of
10 books on campaign finance, ballot initiatives, and judicial and media reform. Notes from the
author’s interview with Mr. Westen are included below.
Can you tell me about the Democracy Network? How was it used when it was initially
launched?
The Democracy Network demonstrated how much people want information because it
was used so much. Candidates can log on and write a response to an issue and grade
comparing candidate responses. The idea of no response/no comment forced candidates to log
on and respond. Candidates would log on and respond 30-40 times on certain issues – it
received a couple million hits a day in 2000.
What did you learn from the experience that informed your next project?
Any system that requires constituents to do all the work isn’t going to work very well. The
Democracy Network created grassroots tools for online lobbying. People liked the tools, but
wanted the website to do it for them, because they didn’t have time.
Can you tell me about your plan for Digital Democracy?
There are three ways people interact with government. They use government services,
such as obtaining a driver’s license. They vote on election day – people interact once and then
stop. Then there’s day-to-day interactions about policy. The only way people can interact is by
joining some type of lobbying organization. You send the group your $25 to join and then don’t
really know what they do.
78

For a citizen to engage in politics on the web, it has to be very easy and it has to come
to them. We designed an interface to make that happen. Here’s how it works. You put an icon
on the website for any elected or appointed official. The icon says, “Click here to talk to me
about the issues.” Once you click, a menu opens with a list of policy topics and an option to add
new issues, select issue and leave your input. When an elected official starts dealing with an
issue, such as crime, then he or she can send an email to everyone who posted about crime.
The email can provide options on what they think the elected official can do. All replies go back
and are aggregated into a bar chart automatically. The elected official can then send back the
bar chart with a note about what they decided to do.
Why do you think Digital Democracy is the solution needed to encourage engagement?
It takes about 5 seconds for people to get involved. The idea is that “all people have to
do to engage with policy is check their email.” Then when an official decides to hold a forum,
people will be more likely to attend because they are already involved and engaged on the issue
with the official. You hear people say, “It’s not that I’m not interested in politics and policy, it’s
just that I don’t know what they are doing.” Enter Digital Democracy.
What are the next steps to get the project off the ground?
We have to figure out who has the data and then figure out how to get short descriptions
of the issues to the citizens who may be interested. We need to integrate channel 35 with
LACity.org and ask the City, “Tell us the issues that you care about.” We have to give them
something to do—vote on something. We have to give them choices and feedback and then say
here is the result of what we learned. We need to identify the groups involved in the issues and
get them involved. We need to give them something to do – need an outcome and they need
feedback, feedback needs to be rewarding. And, promotion is very important.

79

Bibliography
Agiesta, Jennifer. 2015. "Poll: Trump, Carson dominate GOP field as Fiorina falters." CNN.
October 20. Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/poll-
donald-trump-ben-carson-gop/.
Akpan, Nsikan. 2016. "The very real consequences of fake news stories and why your brain
can’t ignore them." PBS Newshour. December 5. Accessed December 6, 2016.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/real-consequences-fake-news-stories-brain-cant-
ignore/.
Alfano, Sean. 2006. "The Truth of Truthiness." CBS. December 12. Accessed December 2,
2016. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-truth-of-truthiness/.
American Press Institute. n.d. "What is journalism?" American Press Institute. Accessed June
22, 2017. https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-
journalism/.
America's Voice. 2016. "CNN Poll: 88% of Americans Support Immigration Reform with a Path
to Citizenship." America's Voice. September 7. Accessed May 14, 2017.
http://americasvoice.org/press_releases/cnn-poll-88-americans-support-immigration-
reform-path-citizenship/.
Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley, Katerina Eva Matsa. 2014. "Political Polarization
& Media Habits." Pew Research Center. October 21. Accessed December 3, 2016.
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/.
Annenberg Public Policy Center. 2014. "Americans know surprisingly little about their
government, survey finds." Annenberg Public Policy Center. September 17. Accessed
80

February 20, 2017. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-know-
surprisingly-little-about-their-government-survey-finds/.
—. 2016. "Americans’ Knowledge of the Branches of Government Is Declining." Annenberg
Public Policy Center. September 13. Accessed February 20, 2017.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-knowledge-of-the-branches-of-
government-is-declining/.
Baer, Drake. 2016. "The Psychology of Why Americans Are Afraid of Historically Low Crime
Levels." New York Magazine. July 19. Accessed November 5, 2016.
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/psychology-why-americans-afraid-low-crime-
levels.html.
Black's Law Dictionary. n.d. "What is SUPREME POWER?" The Law Dictionary. Accessed June
18, 2017. http://thelawdictionary.org/supreme-power/.
Blind, Peri K. 2006. "Building Trust in Government in the Twenty-First Century: Review of
Literature and Emerging Issues." 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government.
November. Accessed June 18, 2017.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan025062.pdf.
Bornstein, David. 2012. "The Dawn of the Evidence-Based Budget." The New York Times. May
30. Accessed October 1, 2016.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/worthy-of-government-funding-prove-
it/.
Bump, Philip. 2017. "A ‘voter fraud’ commission is Trump politics in a nutshell." The Washington
Post. May 11. Accessed May 12, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/11/a-voter-fraud-
commission-is-trump-politics-in-a-nutshell/?utm_term=.0c73b4a6b53b.
81

—. 2015. Surprise! Donald Trump is wrong about immigrants and crime. July 2. Accessed
November 5, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/.
Caldwell, Alicia A., and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. 2017. "Fact Check: Trump says 'Obamacare
covers very few people.' It actually covers over 20 million." Chicago Tribune. February
24. Accessed February 26, 2017.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/factcheck/ct-trump-fact-check-
obamacare-cpac-20170224-story.html.
Carroll, Joseph. 2003. Economy, Terrorism Top Issues in 2004 Election Vote. September 25.
Accessed June 22, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9337/economy-terrorism-top-
issues-2004-election-vote.aspx.
Casselman, Ben, Matthew Conlen, and Reuben Fischer-Baum. 2016. FiveThirtyEight. Accessed
November 6, 2016. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR). January 27. Accessed November 6, 2016.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm.
Chantrill, Christopher. 2017. "Federal 1965 Government Spending."
usgovernmentspending.com. April 17. Accessed April 17, 2017.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_1965USpn.
Clinton, Hillary. 2015. "Hillary Clinton Remarks at Columbia University." C-SPAN. April 29.
Accessed November 6, 2016. https://www.c-span.org/video/?325657-1/hillary-clinton-
remarks-criminal-justice-reform.
82

Cooke, Charles C. W. 2015. Careful with the Panic: Violent Crime and Gun Crime Are Both
Dropping. November 30. Accessed November 5, 2016.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-
crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke.
Diamond, Jeremy. 2016. "Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters'." CNN.
January 24. Accessed December 3, 2016.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-
support/index.html.
Diaz, Alan. 2016. "U.S. Economy Gains 160,000 Jobs In April; Unemployment Rate Holds
Steady." NPR. May 6. Accessed May 9, 2016. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2016/05/06/477009780/u-s-economy-gains-160-000-jobs-in-april-unemployment-
rate-holds-steady.
Domonoske, Camila. 2017. "In Meeting With Sheriffs, Trump Repeats False Murder Rate
Statistic." NPR. February 7. Accessed May 14, 2017.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/07/513952870/in-meeting-with-sheriffs-
trump-repeats-false-murder-rate-statistic.
Drudge Report. 1998. "Blockbuster Report: 23-Year Old, Former White House Intern, Sex
Relationship with President." Drudge Report Archives. January 17. Accessed April 2,
2017.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/17/20020117_175502_ml.htm.
Dugan, Andrew. 2015. In U.S., Six in 10 Dissatisfied With Immigration Levels. January 29.
Accessed June 22, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/dissatisfied-immigration-
levels.aspx?g_source=immigration&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles.
83

Edelman. 2017. "2017 Edelman Trust Barometer." Edelman. January 17. Accessed June 17,
2017. http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/.
—. 2017. "Trust and the U.S. Presidential Election." Edelman. January. Accessed June 16,
2017. http://www.edelman.com/trust2017/trust-and-us-presidential-election/.
Eisen, Lauren-Brooke, and Oliver Roeder. 2015. "America's Faulty Perception of Crime Rates."
Brennan Center for Justice. March 16. Accessed December 3, 2016.
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates.
FiveThirtyEight. 2016. "Gun Deaths In America." FiveThirtyEight. Accessed November 5, 2016.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/.
Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan. 2016. "US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data
From Mother Jones' Investigation." Mother Jones. September 24. Accessed November
6, 2016. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-
data.
GALLUP. 2016. Confidence in Institutions. June 5. Accessed October 16, 2016.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx.
Gallup. 2016. "Crime." Gallup. Accessed November 6, 2016.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx.
Gates, Gary J. 2017. "US Satisfaction With Immigration Levels Reaches New High." Gallup.
January 18. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/202541/satisfaction-
immigration-levels-reaches-new-high.aspx.
Gillespie, Patrick. 2015. "Pay raise: U.S. wages grow at best pace in 6 years." CNN Money.
November 6. Accessed May 9, 2016.
84

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/news/economy/best-wage-growth-in-
years/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom.
Glasser, Susan B. 2016. "Covering Politics in a "Post-Truth" America." Brookings. December 2.
Accessed December 3, 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/covering-politics-in-a-
post-truth-america/.
Goldberg, Jonah. 2016. "Take Trump seriously but not literally? How, exactly?" Los Angeles
Times. December 6. Accessed May 12, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-
oe-goldberg-trump-seriously-literally-20161206-story.html.
Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Jens Manuel Krogstad. 2014. U.S. deportations of immigrants
reach record high in 2013. October 2. Accessed November 5, 2016.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-
record-high-in-2013/.
Greenfield, Jeff, interview by Brian Stelter. 2017. political analyst (February 19).
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 2010. "If Democracies Need Informed Voters, How Can They Thrive
While Expanding Enfranchisement?. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy."
Scholars at Harvard . June. Accessed June 18, 2017.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jlhochschild/publications/if-democracies-need-informed-
voters-how-can-they-thrive-while-expanding-en.
Ingraham, Christopher. 2017. "Trump says sanctuary cities are hotbeds of crime. Data say the
opposite." The Washington Post. January 27. Accessed May 10, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/27/trump-says-sanctuary-
cities-are-hotbeds-of-crime-data-say-the-opposite/?utm_term=.998ec5cc3ae2.
85

Ipsos Public Affairs. 2016. "Ipsos/BuzzFeed Poll - Fake News." Ipsos. December 6. Accessed
February 26, 2017. http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7497.
Jacobson, Louis. 2017. "Donald Trump wrong that murder rate is highest in 47 years." Politifact.
February 8. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2017/feb/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-murder-rate-highest-
47-years/.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1789. "Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price." Library of Congress. January 8.
Accessed March 3, 2017. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/60.html.
Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel, Elisa Shearer, Amy Mitchell. 2016. "The 2016 Presidential
Campaign – a News Event That’s Hard to Miss." Pew Research Center. February 4.
Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/04/the-2016-
presidential-campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/.
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2012. Economy Is Paramount Issue to U.S. Voters. February 29. Accessed
June 22, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/153029/economy-paramount-issue-
voters.aspx.
Jones, Tim. n.d. "Dewey defeats Truman." Chicago Tribune. Accessed February 19, 2017.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/chi-chicagodays-deweydefeats-
story-story.html.
Kohut, Andrew. 2012. "Debt and Deficit: A Public Opinion Dilemma." Pew Research Center.
June 14. Accessed December 10, 2014. http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/14/debt-
and-deficit-a-public-opinion-dilemma/.
86

Kopan, Tal. 2016. "What Donald Trump has said about Mexico and vice versa." CNN. August
31. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/donald-trump-
mexico-statements/.
Krogstad, Jens Manuel. 2015. Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges
up. October 21. Accessed November 5, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/.
Krogstad, Jens Manuel, Jeffrey S. Passel, and D'Vera Cohn. 2016. 5 facts about illegal
immigration in the U.S. November 3. Accessed November 5, 2016.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-
the-u-s/.
Leon, Charles L. Ponce de. 2015. "An Excerpt from That's the Way It Is A History of Television
News in America." The University of Chicago Press Books. Accessed December 3,
2016. http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2015/De_Leon_Thats_Way_It_Is.html.
Long, Heather. 2015. "Obama economy: 8.7 million jobs." CNN Money. November 6. Accessed
May 9, 2016. http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/news/economy/obama-jobs/.
Luntz, Dr. Frank. 2007. Words that work: it's not what you say, it's what people hear. New York:
Hyperion.
Marcus, Ruth. 2016. "Welcome to the Post Truth Presidency." The Washington Post. Decemner
2. Accessed December 3, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welcome-to-
the-post-truth-presidency/2016/12/02/baaf630a-b8cd-11e6-b994-
f45a208f7a73_story.html?utm_term=.fad568730742.
—. 2016. "Welcome to the post-truth presidency." The Washington Post. December 2.
Accessed December 2, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welcome-to-
87

the-post-truth-presidency/2016/12/02/baaf630a-b8cd-11e6-b994-
f45a208f7a73_story.html?utm_term=.f6610c9d1e25.
Marken, Stephanie. 2016. "U.S. Uninsured Rate at New Low of 10.9% in Third Quarter." Gallup.
October 7. Accessed February 26, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/196193/uninsured-
rate-new-low-third-
quarter.aspx?g_source=WELL_BEING_INDEX&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles.
McCarthy, Justin. 2015. "More Americans Say Crime Is Rising in U.S." Gallup. October 22.
Accessed November 6, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/186308/americans-say-crime-
rising.aspx.
Merriam-Webster. n.d. "Definition of Democracy." Merriam-Webster. Accessed June 18, 2017.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy.
Michael Barthel, Amy Mitchell and Jesse Holcomb. 2016. "Many Americans Believe Fake News
Is Sowing Confusion." Pew Research Center. December 15. Accessed December 17,
2016. http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-
sowing-confusion/.
National Historical Publications & Records Commission. n.d. "A Bill for the More General
Diffusion of Knowledge, 18 June 1779." National Archives. Accessed June 17, 2017.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0079.
Nelson, Sophia. 2017. "Comey Firing Is the Sympton, Not the True American Problem." NBC
News. May 11. Accessed June 18, 2017.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/editorial-comey-firing-symptom-not-true-
american-problem-n757436.
88

Newport, Frank. 2015. American Public Opinion and Immigration. July 20. Accessed June 22,
2016. http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/184262/american-public-opinion-
immigration.aspx.
—. 2016. "Americans Less Likely to See U.S. as No. 1 Militarily." Gallup. February 15.
Accessed December 2, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/189191/americans-less-likely-
no-militarily.aspx?g_source=MILITARY&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles.
Noe, Alva. 2016. "Is Being 'Post-Truth' A New Concept?" NPR. December 2. Accessed
December 2, 2016. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/02/502542397/is-being-
post-truth-a-new-concept.
NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School. 2000. "Americans Distrust Government, but Want It to Do More."
NPR Online. July 28. Accessed January 15, 2012.
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/govt/summary.html.
NPR-Kaiser-Kennedy School. 2000. "Attitudes Toward Government." NPR Online. July 28.
Accessed January 15, 2012.
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/govt/gov.toplines.pdf.
Nussbaum, Matthew. 2016. "Trump at debate: Minorities in cities 'are living in hell'." Politico.
September 26. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-
minorities-living-in-hell-228726.
Perez-Pena, Richard. 2017. "Contrary to Trump's Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit
Crimes." The New York Times. January 26. Accessed February 26, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html.
89

Pew Research Center. 2016. "A Divided and Pessimistic Electorate." Pew Research Center.
November 10. Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.people-press.org/2016/11/10/a-
divided-and-pessimistic-electorate/.
—. 2015. "Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government." Pew Research Center.
November 23. Accessed December 5, 2015.
—. 2012. For Voters It’s Still the Economy. September 24. Accessed June 22, 2016.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/24/for-voters-its-still-the-economy/.
—. 2016. "In Presidential Contest, Voters Say ‘Basic Facts,’ Not Just Policies, Are in Dispute."
Pew Research Center. October 14. Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.people-
press.org/2016/10/14/in-presidential-contest-voters-say-basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-
in-dispute/.
—. 2016. "In Presidential Contest, Voters Say ‘Basic Facts,’ Not Just Policies, Are in Dispute."
Pew Research Center. October 14. Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.people-
press.org/2016/10/14/in-presidential-contest-voters-say-basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-
in-dispute/.
—. 2007. "Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information
Revolutions." Pew Research Center. April 15. Accessed March 3, 2017.
http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-
changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/.
—. 2015. "Public Trust in Government: 1958-2015." Pew Research Center. November 23.
Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/public-trust-in-
government-1958-2015/.
90

—. 1998. "Trust in Government." Pew Research Center. March 10. Accessed January 10, 2014.
http://www.people-press.org/1998/03/10/trust-in-government/.
—. 2014. "World Wide Web Timeline." Pew Research Center. March 11. Accessed December
3, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/11/world-wide-web-timeline/.
Pluta, Anne. 2016. "Trump Supporters Appear To Be Misinformed, Not Uninformed."
FiveThirtyEight. January 7. Accessed June 17, 2017.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-appear-to-be-misinformed-not-
uninformed/.
Preidt, Robert. 2016. "How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries." CBS News. February
3. Accessed November 6, 2016. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-
compare-to-other-countries/.
Rainia, Lee, Janna Anderson, and Jonathan Albright. 2017. "The Future of Free Speech, Trolls,
Anonymity and Fake News Online." Pew Research Center. March 29. Accessed April 2,
2017. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/03/29/the-future-of-free-speech-trolls-anonymity-
and-fake-news-online/.
Renwick, Danielle, and Brianna Lee. 2015. The U.S. Immigration Debate. February 26.
Accessed November 5, 2016. http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-
debate/p11149.
Ries, Tonia. 2017. "Research Insights: The Fall of Trust, the Rise of Populist Action." Edelman.
January 15. Accessed June 17, 2017. http://www.edelman.com/post/fall-of-trust-rise-of-
populist-action/.
Riffkin, Rebecca. 2014. "Americans Say Federal Gov't Wastes 51 Cents on the Dollar." Gallup.
September 17. Accessed December 10, 2014.
91

http://www.gallup.com/poll/176102/americans-say-federal-gov-wastes-cents-
dollar.aspx?g_source=wasted%20tax%20dollars&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles.
—. 2015. Government, Economy, Immigration Seen as Top U.S. Problems. September 17.
Accessed June 22, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/185504/government-economy-
immigration-seen-top-
problems.aspx?g_source=immigration&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles.
Saad, Lydia. 2016. "Government Named Top U.S. Problem for Second Straight Year." Gallup.
January 4. Accessed October 2, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/187979/government-
named-top-problem-second-straight-
year.aspx?g_source=biggest%20problem%20facing%20US&g_medium=search&g_cam
paign=tiles.
—. 2016. "Government Named Top U.S. Problem for Second Straight Year." Gallup. January 4.
Accessed February 1, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/187979/government-named-top-
problem-second-straight-
year.aspx?g_source=No.%201%20U.S.%20Problem&g_medium=search&g_campaign=
tiles.
—. 2008. Iraq and the Economy Are Top Issues to Voters. February 13. Accessed June 22,
2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/104320/iraq-economy-top-issues-voters.aspx.
Salvanto, Anthony. 2013. "Why don't Americans trust government?" CBS News. February 13.
Accessed January 10, 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-dont-americans-trust-
government/.
Salvanto, Anthony, Fred Backus, Jennifer De Pinto, and Sarah Dutton. 2016. "Donald Trump
and Hillary Clinton viewed unfavorably by majority - CBS/NYT poll." CBS News. March
92

21. Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-and-
hillary-clinton-viewed-unfavorably-by-majority-cbsnyt-poll/.
Scherer, Michael. 2017. "Can President Trump Handle the Truth?" TIME. March 22. Accessed
March 26, 2017. http://time.com/4710614/donald-trump-fbi-surveillance-house-
intelligence-committee/?iid=sr-link1.
Schuessler, Jennifer. 2016. "'Post-Truth' Defeats 'Alt-Right' as Oxford's Word of the Year." The
New York Times. November 15. Accessed December 2, 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/arts/post-truth-defeats-alt-right-as-oxfords-word-of-
the-year.html?_r=2.
Shapiro, Ari. 2019. "Distrusting Government: As American As Apple Pie." NPR. April 19.
Accessed June 21, 2017.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126028106.
Sherman, Jake. 2016. "Clinton maintains slim edge in national poll." Politico. September 18.
Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-maintains-
slim-edge-in-national-poll-228332.
Silverman, Craig. 2016. "This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories
Outperformed Real News On Facebook." BuzzFeed News. November 16. Accessed
December 3, 2016. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-
outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.qor5Kv0yq#.wfbQzWdMk.
Stanford History Education Group. 2016. "Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic
Online Reasoning." Standford Graduate School of Education. November 22. Accessed
March 2, 2017.
https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.p
df.
93

Swift, Art. 2017. "Americans Name Dissatisfaction With Government as Top Problem." Gallup.
April 13. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/208526/adults-name-
government-dissatisfaction-important-
problem.aspx?g_source=IMMIGRATION&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles.
Tampa Bay Times. 2017. "PolitiFact." Accessed 2017.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/.
Tanz, Jason. 2017. "Journalism Fights for survival in the Post-Truth Era." WIRED. February 14.
Accessed May 31, 2017. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/journalism-fights-survival-post-
truth-era/.
Taylor, Adam, and Laris Karklis. 2016. "This remarkable chart shows how U.S. defense
spending dwarfs the rest of the world." The Washington Post. February 9. Accessed
December 2, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/09/this-remarkable-chart-
shows-how-u-s-defense-spending-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-
world/?utm_term=.71864f55b668.
The American Experience, WGBH Interactive, PBS Online. n.d. "American Experience: TV
Milestones." PBS. Accessed February 19, 2017.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/technology/bigdream/milestones2.html.
The Brennan Center for Justice. 2015. What Caused the Crime Decline? New York.
The Diane Rehm Show. 2016. "How Journalists Are Rethinking Their Role Under A Trump
Presidency." American University Radio. November 30. Accessed February 25, 2017.
http://dianerehm.org/shows/2016-11-30/how-journalists-are-rethinking-their-role-under-a-
trump-presidency.
94

The Economist. 2016. "Yes, I'd lie to you: The post-truth world." The Economist. September 10.
Accessed December 3, 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-
dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and.
The White House Office of the Press Secretary . 2014. FACT SHEET: Immigration
Accountability Executive Action. November 20. Accessed November 5, 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/fact-sheet-immigration-
accountability-executive-action.
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. n.d. "If we are to guard against ignorance..." Monticello.
Accessed June 6, 2017. https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/if-we-are-guard-
against-ignorance-spurious-quotation#_note-0.
TIME Correspondents. 2016. "How the World Sees America." TIME. October 13. Accessed
October 15, 2016. http://time.com/collection-post/4521525/2016-election-global-
perspectives/.
Trump, Donald J. 2017. "Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United
States." The White House: President Donald J. Trump. January 25. Accessed February
26, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-
executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united.
Vanity Fair. 2010. "An American Original." Vanity Fair. November. Accessed June 17, 2017.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/moynihan-letters-201011.
Von Drehle, David. 2016. "Donald Trump’s Art of the Steal." TIME. January 7. Accessed
January 10, 2016. http://time.com/4170772/the-art-of-the-steal/?iid=sr-link1.
—. 2016. "Donald Trump’s Wild Ride." TIME. May 3. Accessed May 5, 2016.
http://time.com/4246108/donald-trump-2016/.
95

Walker, Hunter. 2014. "A Shocking Number Of Americans Don't Know Basic Facts About The
US Government." Business Insider. September 19. Accessed June 17, 2017.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-
government-2014-9.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to a healthy, functional democracy – a conclusion shared by nearly every democratic theorist and political actor. Recent surveys demonstrate that a majority of American voters do not know basic information about their government. Many of these voters are not just uninformed, but misinformed, leading a deeply divided American electorate to overwhelming agree that they disagree on basic facts. Post-truth has been used to brand the current political climate in which facts are not only regarded as subjective, but irrelevant. In other words, post-truth describes an electorate that lacks basic political knowledge. Democratic theorists would, therefore, argue that democracy cannot succeed in a perpetual post-truth political climate. ❧ Dramatic shifts in the way knowledge is created and disseminated paired with pervasive distrust in the institutions of American government created the perfect storm that delivered today’s post-truth political climate and paved Donald Trump’s road to the White House. To reverse the post-truth phenomenon and create a more informed debate in American society, the underlying threats must be addressed. In this paper, the author demonstrates that a loss of trust in the nation’s institutions coupled with the displacement of the role of the Fourth Estate enabled the current post-truth political climate -- a trend that political scholars would argue is a threat to American democracy. After demonstrating impacts and risks associated with a post-truth political environment, the author presents potential solutions to address the underlying issues -- lack of trust in a dysfunctional system and the disruption of information control.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Trump and the crisis of faith: how a presidential candidate built a crisis to win a country

PDF

It’s the people, stupid!: A blueprint to creating a 21st century progressive populist Democratic Party

PDF

Voter engagement in the 2020 presidential election: what we can learn from the voter engagement initiatives in California-based and national nonpartisan organizations to increase voter participation

PDF

Corporate reputation crisis in the digital age: a comparative study on Abercrombie & Fitch’s reputation crisis in the U.S., China and Taiwan

PDF

The influencer break-down: a history, categorization, and analysis of success for health & wellness influencers

PDF

Comparative analysis of nuclear crisis communication: 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis and 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear crisis

PDF

Cultural differences in communication patterns of international B2C technology companies on Weibo and Twitter: an examination of effectiveness from a motivation perspective

PDF

Are U.S. colleges being “oversold” to today’s students? A look at the realities of public relations in undergraduate higher education

PDF

These are their stories: two decades of Showrunner production, content, and context in Law & Order: SVU

Asset Metadata

Creator Klingler, Kendall (author)

Core Title Rebuilding a well-informed electorate in a democracy of distrust and disinformation

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 07/24/2017

Defense Date 07/24/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 2016 presidential election,American electorate,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-truth,President Donald Trump,public trust,well-informed electorate

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Le Veque, Matthew (committee chair), Brabham, Daren (committee member), Cook, Fred (committee member)

Creator Email kendall.klingler@gmail.com,kklingler@fionahuttonassoc.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-416031

Unique identifier UC11214618

Identifier etd-KlinglerKe-5636.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-416031 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KlinglerKe-5636.pdf

Dmrecord 416031

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Klingler, Kendall

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA