Do columnists ever change readers' minds?
And, if not, why do we write?
Are we just deluding ourselves?
I began mulling these questions after a recent reading of Elizabeth Kolbert's “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds: New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason." It was published in The New Yorker, Feb. 27, 2017. (See https://www.are.na/block/1285495.)
As you see, I’m a bit behind in my reading.
Kolbert cited the famous 1975, Stanford University study reported as “Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds.”
It revealed not only that providing correct information in refuting incorrect information is not only marginally effective, but it actually can reinforce false claims!
Founding Father John Adams wrote his wife, “Facts are stubborn things, but our minds are even more stubborn.”
One wonders what was the backstory of that communication, but it encapsulates what scientists have discovered through research.
Scientists, authors, politicians and pundits have voiced the futility of trying to change minds.
Sir Winston Churchill (British prime minister during World War II) said, “A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”
Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt advises, “You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments.”
Well, fortunately, minds do change. The question is whether columnists are instrumental in the changing process.
There are academic studies of both that affirm that they do change minds.
Cambridge University Press’ Cambridge Core reports two studies that found that when print media reports social media misinformation it makes people less trusting of social media, and increases people’s trust in print media.
Another Cambridge Core report (How Local Newspapers Can Slow Polarization) found that “Local newspapers can hold back the rising tide of political division in America by turning away from the partisan battles in Washington and focusing their opinion page on local issues.”
Some local newspapers have experimented with running opinion pieces only on local issues.
A Washington State University journalism student looking for a master’s thesis project would well serve Pullman and Moscow by studying the Moscow-Pullman Daily News opinion pages to see how well local interests are being served.
Just off the top of my head, I would say that our Daily News opinion fare has significant local opinion, but is skewed toward state and national politics.
Unfortunately, the top of my head isn’t where memory is stored, so a scientific analysis is in order.
However, my hurried research seems to support the concept that locally written opinion is valuable, perhaps because in the Daily News case we local opinionators aren’t paid. We earn our bread and keep by other means or are retired.
We write from the goodness of our hearts, our dedication to community, and patriotic zeal. If we are otherwise motivated, perhaps the WSU or University of Idaho psychology department should weigh in.
Day and wife, Ruth, have lived in Pullman since 1972. In 2004, he retired after 32 years as a science communicator on the Washington State University faculty. His interests and reading are catholic (small c) and peripatetic. He welcomes email (pro and con) at terence@moscow.com. Give him a piece of your mind.
