There's a popular theme these days: The Main Stream Media favors a certain candidate. And therefore the Main Stream Media won't dig into negative facts that, if known, might turn voters away from said candidate.
Well, I say, "So what?" If we don't trust the MSM anyway then we shouldn't care whether or not they report something. There's a new medium on the block now, and there are diligent souls out there with nothing more than blogs and internet connections digging up dirt and making it known. The word gets around, and if they are wrong there's a self correcting feature as others re-dig that same dirt. And it's wrong to say that lies simply get reinforced when they're proven to be false. It's difficult to know whom to trust, but we use our best judgment and find credible people.
Politics -- believing falsehoods
The inspiration for this particular rant is The Power of Political Misinformation in which the author cites two studies purporting to show that once false information is absorbed then in some cases a debunking of that false information tends to reinforce the original erroneous belief. But then they claim that conservatives have a stronger tendency than liberals to cling to the erroneous beliefs. (Read the comments at that article for a flavor of the contempt many non-conservatives hold for conservatives and factor that into any speculation on why so many people eschew main stream media.)
Here are links to the two studies: John Bullock's The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs and Nyhan and Reifler's When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions (PDF).
I haven't read both of these studies in their entirety, but I've read enough to be skeptical of their conclusion about conservatives. In Nyhan and Reifler's study the test subjects were college students about whom the authors say: "college students are also known to have relatively weak self-definition, poorly formed attitudes, and to be relatively easily influenced ..." but then they say that makes for a more accurate study because those are "characteristics that would seem to reduce the likelihood of resistance and backfire effects." Hmmm, I'm not so sure that follows. An equally valid and likewise insulting generalization might be to say that they have short attention spans and had lost interest by the time the erroneous information was corrected.
Anyway, in one of the experiments they presented the test subjects with information supposedly supplied by the Bush administration prior to the Iraq invasion about the presence of WMD in Iraq. So right there we've got a contentious issue sure to put Bush supporters on the defense. Then some of the test subjects were presented with portions of the Duelfer Report which is supposed to be the last word on Iraqi WMD and which basically dispels the notion that Saddam had WMD at his disposal. And from the subsequent responses the testers drew their conclusions.
Many of us heard President Bush's speech and wondered why he put so much emphasis on WMD given that there wasn't a lot of evidence. But we supported the war anyway for a number of other reasons. So when people started squealing that Bush lied we knew that in reality there was no lie but only a mistaken emphasis on something everyone believed at the time but that couldn't be proved. It turned out to be wrong. But we don't live in a science fiction movie in which we can freeze time and change the future so that had Saddam stayed in power he would never reactivate the WMD program, Russia and the Europeans wouldn't prevail and the sanctions wouldn't be lifted, Saddam would quit cheating on the sanctions even if they stayed in place, Saddam would stop taking pot shots at our jets, and Saddam would abandon the oil for food scam on his own.
Sure enough, the Duelfer Report reports that at least one of Saddam's physicists said that Saddam had told them to keep the WMD program active (see appendix).
So a simple experiment in which the subjects were told "Bush said this" about WMD and then shown repudiating documents isn't really enough. The Duelfer Report was too long to have been shown to them in its entirety. And anyone with a lick of common sense and a smidgen of knowledge about the U.S. history with Saddam would logically assume that if Saddam didn't have WMD he would get them as soon as he knew it was safe.
Anyway, whenever I read about a college professor's study which he/she says proves that liberals are smarter, more intuitive, more sane, process information better, etc., than conservatives then a hurdle gets erected, and that college professor needs to overcome the presumption that he/she is merely using flawed science to validate his/her own predisposition toward political opponents.
It's not that conservatives can't accept the truth when they see it, it's that they've been exposed to so much bias that they're conditioned to be skeptical.
Okay, we're almost done here. I believe but can't confirm that the line "Tell me a lie I can believe" is from the movie A Face in the Crowd, the prescient 1957 movie about a smart Arkansas hillbilly who charms and lies his way to becoming a powerful political figure.