AMA Birmingham’s Post

A recent Journal of Marketing study finds that Republicans, spurred by fierce political polarization, are more likely than Democrats to share misinformation—even when they suspect the information is false 👇 This behavior reflects a deeper value divide: Republicans strongly value their party winning over the competition, whereas Democrats do not value winning nearly as strongly—they place more value on equity and inclusion, seeing the world in a fundamentally different way. The results indicate that in polarized situations, conservatives’ need for ingroup dominance is elevated, so they convey more misinformation than liberals. In less polarized situations, conservatives’ need for ingroup dominance is tempered, reducing their misinformation conveyance. These findings suggest that misinformation should not be blamed solely on the individual trait of conservativism, as polarized situations exaggerate conservative motives and behaviors. The dynamics of polarization are not only eroding democratic trust but also leading to tangible consequences like restrictive voting laws. The study advocates for ways that marketers, media outlets, and policymakers can help turn the tide: 1️⃣ Reduce polarization: Craft less divisive headlines and incentives in media. 2️⃣ Bolster fact-checking: Invest in robust, strategically timed fact-checking efforts. 3️⃣ Media literacy education: Expand programs to teach future voters how to detect misinformation. Read the full Scholarly Insight for more details: https://lnkd.in/gRJgn35x Study authors: Xiajing Zhu and Connie Pechmann #polarization #misinformation #politics #publicpolicy #marketingresearch #Republicans #Democrats

At Hudson Pacific we have always had some misgivings about how public opinion research methods are used in the service of political polling. The following article explains our perspective and we hope it will help you evaluate the proliferation of publicly available political polling out there. https://lnkd.in/g2G5atji #PoliticalPolling #2024Election #PublicOpinion

It was a crazy week, last week, so I'm only now able to make time to push out a post about the extraordinary National Press Foundation event I was privileged to attend in Detroit, designed to educate reporters from news outlets all over the country about the mechanics of the voting process that ends Nov 5. Three days listening and learning from officials -- county clerks, state legislators and election administrators -- who are at the coalface of democracy. It was truly heartening to meet these people. American democracy is is in good hands and in pretty good shape, considering its history. But the country is barreling towards an election administered in thousands of different jurisdictions, that's likely to be bitterly contested, whatever the result; and that will be a battleground of AI-generated mis- and disinformation. Nightmare scenario, right? So it was notable to me how many of the most senior officials there, when asked about this problem, basically said, in the words of former DHS Secretary, now Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP attorney Jeh johnson Johnson: "It has to be up to the better angels of people in this room [ie the news media] to take that responsibility on in a in a nation with a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. ... There's a craving that we do more somehow. But government can and should only do so much." The First Amendment really ties the hands of the US government in a way that's unique among western democracies. That might be a good thing in 2024. It has been for the last 250 years. But that was before one of the most important public squares in the nation was purchased by an egomaniacal monopolist who has been reliably reported to have ordered his own posts promoted and has non-transparent relationships with US adversaries. And before Tik-Tok. I and (much more effectually) my colleagues in that room will work as hard as we can, and in communities where a local news organization has credibility that will make a huge difference. There will always be good information out there for those who take the trouble to find it. But with all that said, if it's up the American news media to gatekeep the information environment for a bitterly contested election ending Nov 5, you might want to buckle the f**k up. Props to NPF staffers Alyssa Black Sydney E. Clark, M.J. Kevin Johnson Rachel Jones Hope Kahn Jeff Hertrick. Great to meet old friends like Josh Meyer and make new ones like Joseph Gedeon Bryan Schott Bree Fowler Daniel Cooney Acacia James Amy Sherman This is the view from my hotel room.

Great feedback from Shaun Waterman, which reminds me of a political tour undertaken during the 2016 US elections which taught me three key issues would always be at play in US federal elections, all of which singularly or combined can undo democracy in a heart beat: (1) there is no single federal definition of voter identification requirements (what's required [if anything]; who needs to present it, etc); (2) there is no single federal mandate around polling booths (where they should be located; their hours of operation; the voting systems/technology to be used; their accessibility [ramps/elevators etc]); and (3) unlike in Australia where voting is mandatory, getting out the vote in the US is paramount. Sure, there are many other elements (eg. don't even think about standing without a million dollars in your kitty!), but the 50 states' unique set of election requirements and settings make it one helluva challenge. Ultimately as Shaun reports, the media plays a huge part in maintaining its role as honest brokers reminding its audiences of their choices and the consequences thereto.

We had an interesting panel discussion this week featuring five public policy scholars who had some grim insights into the current state of American politics and media. TLDR: It's gonna be a long election year! https://lnkd.in/emtckEYS

"The networks spreading misleading notions remain stronger than ever, and the networks of researchers and observers who worked to counter them are being dismantled." Thank you to Renee DiResta for raising this alarm & breaking down so clearly how the same online rumor mill Stanford Internet Observatory had been researching, turned its attention to those who had been documenting it with truly unsettling results. "The work of studying election delegitimization and supporting election officials is more important than ever. It is crucial that we not only stand resolute but speak out forcefully against intimidation tactics intended to silence us and discredit academic research. We cannot allow fear to undermine our commitment to safeguarding the democratic process." Breaking through the bubbles and silos of misinformation is increasingly difficult given many factors, including not being able to rely on critical, unsung advocacy to call out the blatant lies whipping around in every direction. https://lnkd.in/e67DH48w

"In other words, the presidential campaign is not just a debate contest. With that said, debates are at the time of the debate the most important thing in the campaign." Please read Political Analytics Advisor, Dr. Doug Usher's article regarding the debate performance between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on September 10th and how this will impact the potential outcomes of the 2024 Election. https://lnkd.in/g54BXMbJ #PoliticalAnalytics #Columbia #ColumbiaSPS #2024Election

How this election is framed is crucial to ascertaining how voters decide who should be their next president. Both candidates have significant downsides and some distinct strengths. The two candidates have chosen to use memes and trolling rather than logic and clear policy statements to define themselves and their opponents -Harris is stupid and a DEI example; Trump is weird and a danger to the future. Given the lack of non partisan understanding of the two candidates policies and positions, debates are critical. But our traditional approach to political debates is highly partisan performance art not attempts to present voters with a rational set of competing ideas and policies. The exception was the recent Trump Biden debate. This format clearly showed that President Biden was not up to being president for another 4 years. The format of this debate is a model for future Harris-Trump debates.

Lowercase conservative and liberal when referring to a political philosophy. Avoid terms like leftist or right-wing in favor of more precise descriptions of political leanings. Our current AP Stylebook Online Topical Guide is free to all users. http://apne.ws/aYSQpr4

Some professional news: I'm leaning into the participant-research method this general election cycle and am working in political organizing with the Harris-Walz campaign for part of the semester. Campaigns and voter contact methods have changed a lot since I was last on a campaign and continue to evolve to meet the increasingly tech-oriented lifestyles of American voters. Previously studied mobilization techniques, such as knocking on doors and making calls, are still very much a part of voter mobilization, but newer methods like text-banking haven't been researched by political scientists just yet. I'm excited for the opportunity to learn and execute the latest voter contact methods during this presidential race and reconnect with political operatives, who are the experts in this area of politics.