DOCSLIB.ORG

THE EFFECTS of FACT-CHECKING THREAT Results from a Field Experiment in the States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE EFFECTS of FACT-CHECKING THREAT Results from a Field Experiment in the States NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION Research Paper THE EFFECTS OF FACT-CHECKING THREAT Results from a field experiment in the states Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler* October 2013 Executive summary Politicians in the United States are coming under increasing scrutiny from fact-checkers like PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and the Washington Post Fact Checker, who examine the accuracy of public statements that are often reported without challenge by traditional news organizations. However, we know little about the effects of this practice, especially on public officials. One possibility is that fact-checking might help to deter the dissemination of misinformation, especially for candidates and legislators at lower levels of government who receive relatively little scrutiny and are sensitive to potential threats to re-election. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a field experiment during the 2012 campaign evaluating the effects of reminding state legislators about the electoral and reputational threat posed by fact-checking. Our experimental sample consisted of nearly 1200 legislators in nine states with state PolitiFact affiliates. We found that legislators who were sent reminders that they are vulnerable to fact-checking were less likely to receive a negative PolitiFact rating or have the accuracy of their statements questioned publicly than legislators who were not sent reminders. These results suggest that the electoral and reputational threat posed by fact-checking can affect the behavior of elected officials. In this way, fact-checking could play an important role in improving political discourse and strengthening democratic accountability. * Brendan Nyhan ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. Jason Reifler ([email protected]) is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Politics at the University of Exeter. They contributed equally to this report, which summarizes the results of a field experiment conducted in fall 2012 with the support of The Democracy Fund and the New America Foundation’s Media Policy Initiative. See the academic working paper for more details on the methodology and statistical results: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fact-checking-elites.pdf. Introduction Previous research suggests that elected officials tend to be risk-averse and In the United States, organizations like concerned about threats to re-election, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, and the including critical media coverage. Washington Post Fact Checker are bringing new scrutiny to the statements To test this hypothesis, we conducted a made by public officials. Too often, field experiment (an experiment conducted traditional news organizations report what in a real-world setting rather than the public officials say without evaluating the laboratory) to evaluate the effects of being accuracy of their statements or attempting reminded about the threat posed by fact- to arbitrate between competing factual checking. Specifically, our study compared claims, which allows elites to make the behavior of a group of state legislators misleading comments in the press without who were sent letters warning of the challenge. By contrast, fact-checkers reputational and electoral threats from carefully scrutinize the claims made by fact-checking with a comparable control candidates and elected officials and weigh group of legislators. This experimental them against the available evidence. design allows us to make credible causal inferences about the effects of these This sort of journalistic fact-checking has reminders on legislators’ behavior. become much more common in recent years, but we know very little about the The results of our experiment indicate that effects of this expansion.1 One possibility is politicians who were sent reminders that that fact-checking helps members of the they are vulnerable to fact-checking were public become better informed, but people less likely to receive a negative PolitiFact often avoid or reject unwelcome rating or have the accuracy of their information about politics. As a result, it is statements questioned publicly. These often difficult to correct misperceptions findings, which we describe further below, about controversial issues.2 suggest that fact-checking can play an important role in improving political Fact-checking might have other benefits, discourse and increasing democratic however. In particular, it might help to accountability. deter the dissemination of misinformation, particularly among candidates and legislators below the presidential level. Methods and measures Politicians may avoid making inaccurate claims that would attract the attention of In our field experiment, a total of 1169 fact-checkers to prevent damage to their state legislators in Florida, New Jersey, electoral prospects or political reputation. Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin were NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION PAGE | 2 randomly assigned to one of three groups. of participants’ awareness that they were The treatment group (n=392) was sent a being studied.3 series of letters between August 23 and Finally, legislators in the control condition October 12, 2012 alerting them to the (n=391) were not sent any mailings or potential consequences of being caught contacted in any way. making incorrect statements by fact- checkers. The treatment mailings to We examined the effects of our letters on legislators had several key elements. First, the behavior of state legislators in our we reminded the legislators that there was sample using two outcome measures for a PolitiFact affiliate in their state to the study period (August 24-November 6, establish the credibility of the threat that 2012). First, did the legislator in question they could be fact-checked. Second, we receive a PolitiFact rating of Half True or highlighted the potential electoral and worse? If our treatment letter was reputational consequences of negative fact- successful in encouraging legislators to be check ratings by asking questions like “Do more careful, then we should expect this election campaigns use ‘false’ or ‘pants of group, on average, to have better ratings fire’ verdicts in their advertising to attack from PolitiFact. Our second outcome their opponents?” and “Will state measure measured whether the accuracy of legislators lose their seats as a result of a claim made by the legislator was fact-checkers revealing that they made a questioned in one or more articles or blog false statement?” Finally, we included two posts appearing in the Lexis/Nexis news examples of PolitiFact “pants on fire” fact- database during the study period. Again, checks from another state as examples. these sorts of questions should be raised less frequently if the treatment letter had Another group of legislators were the intended effect. Finally, we combine randomly assigned to what is known as a these measures into a composite indicator n placebo condition ( =386). These of whether the legislator received a legislators were sent a series of letters negative PolitiFact rating or had the during the same period noting that we accuracy of a claim questioned publicly.4 were conducting a study evaluating the accuracy of politicians’ statements that excluded any language about fact-checking Results or the consequences of inaccurate Before we turn to the results of our statements. We included this additional experiment, it is worth noting just how rare condition to make sure that any effects of it is for state legislators to be fact-checked. the treatment mailing were not the result Among the 1169 legislators in our sample, only 23 received ratings from PolitiFact NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION PAGE | 3 state affiliates (2.0%). In particular, the While it is not possible to examine the distribution of state legislator fact-checks accuracy of the statements that were not varied substantially across states. Figure 1 rated directly, we can examine the presents the number of legislators who distribution of ratings across the 27 received one or more fact-checks by state. PolitiFact fact-checks of state legislators in The states that were the most competitive our sample during the study period (one in the presidential race (Florida, Ohio, and legislator was rated five times). Virginia) did not publish any fact-checks of As Figure 2 indicates, 19 of the 27 state legislators during this period, statements checked were rated Half True suggesting that the ad wars being waged in or worse (70%), suggesting that the ratings the states by the Obama and Romney that were published were relatively campaigns diverted the focus of fact- negative. checkers away from lower-level officials. PolitiFact fact−checks of state legislators Total legislators fact−checked (8/24/12−11/6/12) 10 5 0 FL NJ OH OR RI TN TX VA WI Figure 1: Very few state legislator fact-checks were published during the campaign. NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION PAGE | 4 PolitiFact fact−checks of state legislators Distribution of ratings (8/24/12−11/6/12) 10 5 0 T MT HT MF F POF States: FL, NJ, OH, OR, RI, TX, TN, VA, WI Figure 2: State legislators tended to receive relatively negative ratings. Most notably, however, we find striking who were not assigned to the treatment differences in indicators of accuracy group had the accuracy of their statements between legislators who were sent questioned publicly in content indexed in treatment letters about the electoral and LexisNexis (1.0%) compared with one in the reputational threats from fact-checkers and treatment group (0.3%) — a relative risk those sent placebo letters or no mail at all. reduction of 75%. To maximize statistical As Table 1 shows, thirteen legislators who power, we combine these measures. Figure were not sent reminder letters about fact- 3 illustrates the differences between checking received a negative rating from conditions for the combined measure, PolitiFact (1.7%) compared with only three which are statistically significant (p<.05). legislators in the treatment group (0.8%). The rate of accuracy criticism decreased This difference represents a 55% reduction from 2.7% among those not sent reminder in the relative risk of receiving a negative letters to 1.0% in the treatment group, a PolitiFact rating.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hunt Cover C 5/2/08 2:43 PM Page 1
    Hunt cover C 5/2/08 2:43 PM Page 1 Want towin a week in paradise? Want tohave some good,crazy fun? Joinus today,May18,at noon downtown for an adventure you’ll never forget. TWPMFor details,turn toPage16. MAY 18,2008 Magazine Template 4/28/08 12:38 PM Page 1 -BTU%BZT -FBUIFSEBZT .BZUIUI EBZTPGWFSZBUUSBDUJWFQSJDFT UPEJTDPWFS3PDIF#PCPJTiTBWPJSGBJSFw 8"4)*/(50/ 8JTDPOTJO "WFOVF /8 8BTIJOHUPO %$ 5FM 4"-& )0634 .PO4BU BN QN 0QFO 4VO .BZ UI UI GSPN /PPO QN XXXSPDIFCPCPJTDPN /PU UP CF VTFE JO DPOKVODUJPO XJUI BOZ PUIFS QSPNPUJPOBM PGGFS BOE EPFT OPU BQQMZ UP QSJPS PSEFST 5_18 contents 5/2/08 3:58 PM Page 1 May18, 2008CONTENTS (1) Read the instructions on Page 16. (2) Join us before noon downtown. (3) Solve the Post Hunt Puzzles before anyone else. 10 (4) Spend an expense-paid vacation for four in this little corner of paradise. STORY ON PAGE 16 FIRST THINGS FIRST 2 Editor’s Note 2 Cul de Sac 4 Second Glance 6 Date Lab 8 Then & Again 10 Making It 11 Editor’s Query 12 First Person Singular 14 Dilbert 34 DEPARTMENTS 44 Dining Thai Ki and Ping by Charlie Chiang’s 16 BY TOM SIETSEMA COVER STORY After winning the Hunt, 46 The Puzzle you’ll need five nights ‘It’s Not What It Looks Like’ 16 at a Florida resort. BY MERL REAGLE GO! 47 Significant Others BY DAVE BARRY, GENE WEINGARTEN AND TOM SHRODER Home Invasion BY JEANNE MARIE LASKAS Join the first-ever Post Hunt, and spend an adventure-filled afternoon that you’ll 48 Below the Beltway Teddy Stole need years of therapy to forget.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodicalspov.Pdf
    “Consider the Source” A Resource Guide to Liberal, Conservative and Nonpartisan Periodicals 30 East Lake Street ∙ Chicago, IL 60601 HWC Library – Room 501 312.553.5760 ver heard the saying “consider the source” in response to something that was questioned? Well, the same advice applies to what you read – consider the source. When conducting research, bear in mind that periodicals (journals, magazines, newspapers) may have varying points-of-view, biases, and/or E political leanings. Here are some questions to ask when considering using a periodical source: Is there a bias in the publication or is it non-partisan? Who is the sponsor (publisher or benefactor) of the publication? What is the agenda of the sponsor – to simply share information or to influence social or political change? Some publications have specific political perspectives and outright state what they are, as in Dissent Magazine (self-described as “a magazine of the left”) or National Review’s boost of, “we give you the right view and back it up.” Still, there are other publications that do not clearly state their political leanings; but over time have been deemed as left- or right-leaning based on such factors as the points- of-view of their opinion columnists, the make-up of their editorial staff, and/or their endorsements of politicians. Many newspapers fall into this rather opaque category. A good rule of thumb to use in determining whether a publication is liberal or conservative has been provided by Media Research Center’s L. Brent Bozell III: “if the paper never met a conservative cause it didn’t like, it’s conservative, and if it never met a liberal cause it didn’t like, it’s liberal.” Outlined in the following pages is an annotated listing of publications that have been categorized as conservative, liberal, non-partisan and religious.
    [Show full text]
  • Donald Trump Division and Union EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
    Donald Trump Division and union EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Listen to Presidential at http://wapo.st/presidential This transcript was run through an automated transcription service and then lightly edited for clarity. There may be typos or small discrepancies from the podcast audio. LILLIAN CUNNINGHAM: Nearly a year ago, I started a journey back in time through the American presidency. I left the newsroom and drove down along the dark Potomac River to Mount Vernon, George Washington's home, on a cold winter night. There were crackling fires and reanactors. What I didn't mention back in that very first episode, though, was that there was also pop music piped in over the stereo system, making it really hard to record those little fire sounds. This whole project has kind of been that way. Things haven't gone as planned -- tape recorders have broken, Lyndon Johnson experts have fallen sick with laryngitis right before interviews. But even more than those unexpected twists and turns, is that the present has shown up over and over and over in the past. Fast forward 44 weeks to last night -- election night. And suddenly, all I could see was the past poking its way into the present. I watched the results roll in on the newsroom screens until early into the morning. And I thought about all the elections that have come before. George H.W. Bush sitting alone in his hotel room, mourning his loss to Bill Clinton in 1992. The Chicago Tribune going to press with the wrong headline about Dewey defeating Truman in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics
    GETTY CORUM IMAGES/SAMUEL How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG How White Supremacy Returned to Mainstream Politics By Simon Clark July 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Tracing the origins of white supremacist ideas 13 How did this start, and how can it end? 16 Conclusion 17 About the author and acknowledgments 18 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States is living through a moment of profound and positive change in attitudes toward race, with a large majority of citizens1 coming to grips with the deeply embedded historical legacy of racist structures and ideas. The recent protests and public reaction to George Floyd’s murder are a testament to many individu- als’ deep commitment to renewing the founding ideals of the republic. But there is another, more dangerous, side to this debate—one that seeks to rehabilitate toxic political notions of racial superiority, stokes fear of immigrants and minorities to inflame grievances for political ends, and attempts to build a notion of an embat- tled white majority which has to defend its power by any means necessary. These notions, once the preserve of fringe white nationalist groups, have increasingly infiltrated the mainstream of American political and cultural discussion, with poi- sonous results. For a starting point, one must look no further than President Donald Trump’s senior adviser for policy and chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller. In December 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch published a cache of more than 900 emails2 Miller wrote to his contacts at Breitbart News before the 2016 presidential election.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne
    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change in the Era of Post-Truth
    09_ARBOLEDA_EDITEDPROOF_KS (DO NOT DELETE) 11/8/2018 2:50 PM Climate Change in the Era of Post- Truth INTRODUCTION In The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Destroying our Politics, and Driving us Crazy,1 climate scientist Michael Mann joins with Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Tom Toles to take on climate change denialism. Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at The Pennsylvania State University, augments his prose with cartoons from Toles, who normally draws for the editorial section of the Washington Post.2 Together, Mann and Toles set out to debunk the main arguments that special interest groups use to undermine climate change policy. The book begins with an introduction to the scientific method and its application to climate change science.3 It then describes the current and potential effects of climate change on everyday life.4 In its second half, the book transitions to the politics surrounding climate change in the United States.5 A major focus of the book is the “war on climate science,” the phrase Mann and Toles use to describe how the fossil fuel industry has created misinformation to discourage action on climate change.6 The Madhouse Effect was published in 2016, at a moment when the United States was choosing between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates whose climate change agendas differed wildly. The book’s publication failed to avert the election of President Donald Trump, a climate change denier who has referred to the phenomenon as a “hoax” created by China.7 Still, The Madhouse Effect presents a valuable depiction of the underground currents that influence DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38W669857 Copyright © 2018 Regents of the University of California 1.
    [Show full text]
  • IN AMERICAN POLITICS TODAY, EVEN FACT-CHECKERS ARE VIEWED THROUGH PARTISAN LENSES by David C
    IN AMERICAN POLITICS TODAY, EVEN FACT-CHECKERS ARE VIEWED THROUGH PARTISAN LENSES by David C. Barker, American University What can be done about the “post-truth” era in American politics? Many hope that beefed-up fact-checking by reputable nonpartisan organizations like Fact Checker, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and Snopes can equip citizens with the tools needed to identify lies, thus reducing the incentive politicians have to propagate untruths. Unfortunately, as revealed by research I have done with colleagues, fact-checking organizations have not provided a cure-all to misinformation. Fact-checkers cannot prevent the politicization of facts, because they themselves are evaluated through a partisan lens. Partisan Biases and Trust of Fact Checkers in the 2016 Election In May of 2016, just a couple of weeks before the California Democratic primary, my colleagues and I conducted an experiment that exposed a representative sample of Californians to the statement: “Nonpartisan fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact rate controversial candidate statements for truthfulness.” We also exposed one randomized half of the sample to the following statement and image: “Each presidential candidate's current PolitiFact average truthfulness score is placed on the scale below.” The Politifact image validated the mainstream narrative about Donald Trump’s disdain for facts, and also reinforced Bernie Sanders’s tell-it-like-it-is reputation. But it contradicted conventional wisdom by revealing that Clinton had been the most accurate candidate overall (though the difference between the Clinton and Sanders ratings was not statistically significant). What did we expect to find? Some observers presume that Republicans are the most impervious to professional fact-checking.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking
    Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking Hannah Rashkin† Eunsol Choi† Jin Yea Jang‡ Svitlana Volkova‡ Yejin Choi† †Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington {hrashkin,eunsol,yejin}@cs.washington.edu ‡Data Sciences and Analytics, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory {jinyea.jang,svitlana.volkova}@pnnl.gov Abstract “You cannot get ebola from just riding on a plane or a bus.” We present an analytic study on the lan- guage of news media in the context of po- True Mostly True False litical fact-checking and fake news detec- -Rated Mostly True by PolitiFact, (Oct. 2014) tion. We compare the language of real news with that of satire, hoaxes, and pro- paganda to find linguistic characteristics “Google search spike suggests many people of untrustworthy text. To probe the feasi- don’t know why they voted for Brexit.” bility of automatic political fact-checking, we also present a case study based on True Mostly False False PolitiFact.com using their factuality judg- ments on a 6-point scale. Experiments -Rated Mostly False by PolitiFact, (June 2016) show that while media fact-checking re- Figure 1: Example statements rated by PolitiFact mains to be an open research question, as mostly true and mostly false. Misleading phras- stylistic cues can help determine the truth- ing - bolded in green - was one reason for the in- fulness of text. between ratings. 1 Introduction Words in news media and political discourse have and Google search trends – are presented ambigu- a considerable power in shaping people’s beliefs ously as if they were directly linked.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking
    Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking Hannah Rashkin† Eunsol Choi† Jin Yea Jang‡ Svitlana Volkova‡ Yejin Choi† †Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science &“There Engineering, are already more University American jobs of in Washington the solar industry hrashkin,eunsol,[email protected] in coal mining.” { } ‡Data Sciences and Analytics, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory True False jinyea.jang,svitlana.volkova @pnnl.gov { } -Rated True by PolitiFact, (May 2014) Abstract “You cannot get ebola from just riding on a plane or a bus.” We present an analytic study on the lan- guage of news media in the context of po- True Mostly True False litical fact-checking and fake news detec- -Rated Mostly True by PolitiFact, (Oct. 2014) tion. We compare the language of real news with that of satire, hoaxes, and pro- paganda to find linguistic characteristics “Google search spike suggests many people of untrustworthy text. To probe the feasi- don’t know why they voted for Brexit.” bility of automatic political fact-checking, we also present a case study based on True Mostly False False PolitiFact.com using their factuality judg- ments on a 6-point scale. Experiments -Rated Mostly False by PolitiFact, (June 2016) show that while media fact-checking re- Figure 1: Example statements rated by PolitiFact mains to be an open research question, as“Bymostly declaring true thatand Plutomostly was no longer false. a Misleading planet, the phras- stylistic cues can help determine the truth- (International Astronomical Union) put into place a planetary ingdefinition - bolded that would in green have even - was declassified one reason Earth for as a the in- fulness of text.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Undermining Fake News from the Classroom Adam Rosenzweig1 Beyond 12
    Available online at http://escholarship.org/uc/ucbgse_bre Understanding and Undermining Fake News From the Classroom Adam Rosenzweig1 Beyond 12 Fake News and the Post-Truth Era It’s too soon to know what will define Donald Trump’s presidency, but one of the defining characteristics of his campaign was a near-total disregard for facts. According to PolitiFact (“Donald Trump’s file,” n.d.), about 70% of Trump’s statements have been either mostly false, completely false, or outright lies. Candidate Trump wasn’t the only one dealing in dishonesty, but the ubiquity of falsehood surrounding his election contributed to the Oxford Dictionaries naming post-truth its 2016 Word of the Year. Fake news (Drobnic Holan, 2016) might be the most pernicious form of post-truth. PolitiFact called fake news its Lie of the Year, pointing out that fake news is “the boldest sign of a post-truth society” (para. 12) and that it “found a willing enabler in Trump” (para. 8). Americans should perceive this phenomenon as an existential threat to democracy. What truths remain self-evident if truth itself becomes counterfeit? A post- truth society has no moral center, no basis for conversation, no shared future. If the Trump era is to be the era of post-truth, then schools will have a particularly critical role to play in teaching students to favor reason and evidence over sentiment and preconception. More simply, we need to get better at teaching what Carl Sagan (1995) called “the fine art of baloney detection” (p. 201). Educators must also help students explore and deliberate on political issues.
    [Show full text]
  • ROADTRIP Jeffersonian Thanksgiving Festival
    SOURCE 11-21-04 DC EE M10 CMYK Sunday, November The Washington Post M10 21, 2004 x ROADTRIP Tipsheet WHAT’S ON SALE WHEN Jeffersonian Thanksgiving Festival Everyone knows that the day after Thanksgiving offers some of the biggest bargains of the year, as stores slash prices in an effort to draw early holiday shoppers. But the obnoxious crowds and never-ending lines can be daunting for even the most dedicated bargain-hunter. Want the savings without the stress? Hold out instead for seasonal sales, when items are marked down for a number of reasons: Bathing suits are moved out to make room for fall sweaters, air conditioners are discounted to lure customers in balmy springtime, or cell phones go for a song simply because salespeople are desperate to meet their quotas. It’ll take a little planning, but the money you save will make it well worth your while. Here’s a month-by- month guide to help you on your way. — Sara Cardace NOV DEC JAN Blankets and quilts; Cell phones (thanks Calendars for off-season real to holiday the new year, estate promos), end- holiday of-season decorations, women’s linens, shoes and televisions clothing, WHERE: Charlottesville, Va. baby furniture WHY: Quilts, aboriginal art and a jaunt back in time. HOW FAR: About 115 miles, or 2 hours from the District. FEB MAR APR Furs, Air conditioners, Carpets and If you’ve ever wanted to rub elbows with the likes of bedroom frozen foods rugs, garden Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, now’s your chance: furniture, (March is tools, get-ready- This week, downtown Charlottesville turns back the clock sofas, Frozen Foods for-summer to the days of the American Revolution at the 11th annual winter Month!), house- Jeffersonian Thanksgiving Festival.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2021 The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Williamson Grassle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the American Politics Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Grassle, Williamson, "The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change" (2021). CMC Senior Theses. 2663. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2663 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Submitted to Professor John J. Pitney, Jr. By Williamson Grassle For Senior Thesis Spring 2021 May 3rd 1 Table of Contents TITLE……………………………………………………………………………………..1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….3 ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………4 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...5 CHAPTER 1 – LATE 20TH, EARLY 21ST CENTURY………………………………....12 CHAPTER 2 – RECENT………………………………………………………………...24 CHAPTER 3 – FUTURE………………………………………………………………...39 WORK CITED…………………………………………………………………………...52 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor John J. Pitney for his guidance and support on this thesis. Throughout my time at Claremont McKenna, you have helped foster my passion for politics and define my interest in environmental policy. Without your guidance and expertise, I would not have been able to complete this project. 3 Abstract In the mid to late 20th-century, climate change and other environmental issues were addressed on a bipartisan basis, with Republican politicians like President Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush supporting and advancing measures to combat climate change. However, since the 1990s, climate change has become increasingly polarized, with significant polarization in the last decade.
    [Show full text]