Our Take: High-information voters are crucial to good governance, democracy’s survival

By Kim McDarison

Fort Atkinson Online publisher/editor

The term “low-information voter” was coined in the 1990s to describe voters who generally were poorly informed about issues. 

Now more than ever, we need high-information voters, because, in truth, our democracy depends upon it. 

Freedom of the press is legally protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If we agree about the necessity of the First Amendment and role of journalism as an extension of freedom of speech and an informed electorate, one that is aware through transparency of what is done in its name, then we must next ask the more modern and timely question: How does one become a high-information, well-informed voter? Or, stated another way: Does it matter from whence we get our news? 

I’d like to make the case that it does. 

From whence should we get our news? 

The simple answer is everywhere; from as many sources as we can find. But I say that with an important caveat: as consumers of information and news, we must be able to discern what it is we are reading.

Information made available to the public, and even on this news site, comes in several forms. We have journalistic news stories; opinion pieces, like this one that you are reading; press releases, which largely are produced as public relations pieces, and advertisements. 

The first broad distinction that must be made between pieces offered for public consumption here, and indeed, across the Internet, is their purpose: What do they seek to do? 

If a piece seeks for its reader to act in some way — buy this, agree with this, support this, attend this — then it is not a journalistic piece. These types of pieces fall under the umbrella of public relations/press releases or editorial/opinions. They differ from journalistic pieces in that the objective of journalism is to inform, nothing more.

At the end of a journalistic piece, there will be no “ask.” Why? Because an informed electorate must digest information without slant, spin or opinion, but instead with an accurate and observable accounting, obtained from those who are holding themselves up as accountable for their actions. In journalism, we call this “truth to power.”

To qualify as journalism, the information must be observable, meaning a reporter can tangibly see, taste, smell, hear or touch it and gain understanding through the senses; must be presented in an objective fashion, meaning presented by someone who is not motivated to obtain a certain outcome; and/or the information can be attributed, meaning that a source of the information can be cited. That source can be a person or a document.

A credible journalist will report events as they unfold if at a meeting or activity, and, when looking for topical authorities, vet his or her sources to make sure that the source is in some way knowledgeable or able to speak to the topic at hand. 

This does not prevent everyday people from being represented in the press. The public discussion includes the public. Individuals should be labeled as authority or citizen so the reader is aware of an interviewee’s level of interest and expertise. 

From a journalistic standpoint, the most important word here is objective, meaning the reporter is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Reporters look for conflicts of interest, meaning full disclosure if a person offering information or expertise is in a position to benefit from an outcome personally. Truth to power means championing questions that will elicit from lawmakers how their policies and actions will affect the public’s best interest. 

I began my career as a journalist in the mid-1980s. I’ve seen a lot of changes in journalism and not all of them good. 

As a traditionalist, I believe the most basic form of journalism, as I’ve outlined it, is the best practice and in the best interest of the public, the group we traditional journalists are working to inform.  

Commentary-based information, which often is confused with journalism, gained popularity with the inception of networks like MSNBC and Fox News, both of which were launched in 1996. These agencies profited from viewers’ tendencies to conflate political commentary, which is opinion, with news.

In the profession of journalism, those of us who were educated in our profession and hold ourselves to a traditional journalistic standard know that there is room within the discussion for opinion and commentary, but it must be clearly marked and handled as such. To do otherwise is propaganda, which is by definition, “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view,” and history has taught us that propaganda is no friend of democracy.

So what’s a reader seeking high-information values to do? 

My advice is to seek out information on all platforms and fronts — news sites, videos, elected officials, informed and even uncomfortable discussions, and, yes, viewpoints with which you might not agree — but always know what it is you are reading so you can digest the information and weigh it appropriately. 

If someone is advising you to seek information from a single source, for my money, you are being misguided. And speaking of money, follow the money, which means look for the organization that is paying for the public relations work and ask yourself: “What are they asking me to do?”

If you are being asked to do something, the objective is opinion-based; you are being asked for an outcome.  

My education taught me that a journalist’s job is to bring to the people he or she serves the most complete information available, collected through observation and credible, attributable sources from as many perspectives as possible.

One follows the public record and asks questions. As a news source of record, one does not embellish or sanitize the news. One records it as accurately as possible and admits quickly and with regret to errors. One recognizes the importance of contributing to the creation of an electorate of high-information voters, so that they, both individually and as a collective, can determine what, in their own opinion, is in the best interest of themselves, their families and their communities. 

Today, papers such as The Washington Post remind us that “democracy dies in darkness.” It’s well-informed and engaged constituents who light the way to keeping democracy alive. 

This is an opinion piece, so here’s my “ask”: please make time to stay informed. Seek out information through a host of sources, pay attention to the types of materials you’re viewing, always asking the questions: What is this for? Is there an ask? And from where comes its funding? Engage in discussions that might challenge your ideals and concepts, go to community meetings, and step up to the podium and ask your questions. Converse with your fellow citizens, and vote. 

In the end, to find communal solutions, the electorate must act; the information you consume will influence your opinions. 

Good governance on any level comes from an engaged electorate that knows, from as many perspectives as possible, what’s at stake.  

As always, 

Thanks for reading!