President's Column

Summer 2008

Reporting in a climate of cognitive dissonance

By Jodi Cleesattle

In late June, The Washington Post ran an article about a town in Ohio where more people believe the Internet rumors about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama than believe the truth. In Findlay, a suburb-sized town in northwest Ohio, residents are convinced that Obama – who was born in Hawaii and is a longtime member of the United Church of Christ – is Muslim, was born in Africa, and refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

It so happened that, just before reading that article, I had talked on the phone with my dad in Columbus, Ohio, who told me about friends in the southern part of the state who share the same distorted beliefs about Obama. Some people, he said, don’t even bother to hide the root of their feelings about the candidate, saying openly that they won’t vote for him because he’s African American – except these folks use the n-word.

Now, I understand that people can have different opinions about subjective issues – such as whether a political candidate is sufficiently experienced or whether he or she is the right person for the job. But, when it comes to objectively verifiable facts – like where your birth certificate says you were born – how can there be any debate?

The answer, in my dad’s words:  “Some people just refuse to listen to the truth.”

The answer, in technical terms:  cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological term that refers to the discomfort a person feels when faced with a discrepancy between what he already knows or believes and new information or interpretation. Cognitive dissonance theory refers to the tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their beliefs and to eliminate dissonance – which can include ignoring information that would require them to question or change their beliefs.

This theory came up at SPJ’s recent “Blogapalooza” panel discussion about ethical issues online. Union-Tribune editorial board member and blogger Chris Reed referred to it when discussing the popularity of blogs.

“Blogs arose as a way for people to get in touch with people with like points of view, so they don’t have cognitive dissonance,” Reed said. “Cognitive dissonance theory is the pushing away of views with which you disagree. The downside is that it allows people to believe they’re incapable of error.”

That’s clearly what’s going on in Findlay, Ohio, and probably in plenty of other towns and cities across America. People hold certain beliefs – including some that are sadly based in prejudice and fear – and are pushing away all facts to the contrary.

This creates an interesting dilemma for journalists. Should they report on Internet rumors, debunk the myths, ignore the whole thing?

The first tenet of the SPJ Code of Ethics says, “Seek Truth and Report It.” I’d say that’s a pretty good guideline for how to report in today’s political climate of Swift-boating and rumor-mongering. Journalists have an ethical obligation to find and report the truth – aggressively and relentlessly.

As North County Times reporter and blogger Bradley Fikes aptly noted at the “Blogapalooza” forum:  “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.”