Go To on Fear versus Fact

Kelly Corrigan (0:08)

Hey, everybody, this short segment is called a go-to. It refers back to this crazy thing we used to do at the end of our sorority meetings in college, if you can believe that, it was called For the Good of the Order, and it was a way to share something that had emerged over the course of the week, which really was a bit of learning or thinking or feeling that was to everyone's benefit to share. And so that's all we'll do here. Every Friday, we release a go-to, and we encourage you to share it with friends around the country. We know that people use it as a way to stay in touch with their best friends across the country, and of course, far-flung family members wherever they might be. And as for your local nearest and dearest, consider it fodder for discussion over the course of the weekend. This is Kelly Corrigan Wonders, and our weekly segment called Go To.

Today's Go To is borrowed from Amanda Ripley's fantastic Substack. It's called Unraveled, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. If you're a long-time listener, you know that I have done podcasts with Amanda in the past. I think she is as wise as anybody in the United States of America about how to manage this moment in our history. So here are some thoughts based on a recent Substack post of hers, What You're Missing. Again, this is Amanda Ripley from Unraveled. She starts with a Mark Twain quote, You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. And the first point she makes is that the United States is on track to have the lowest recorded murder rate since, wait for it, the Flintstones premiered on TV.

Let me say it again. Next year, when the FBI releases data for 2025, it's likely to announce the lowest murder rate ever recorded since estimates began back in 1960 And Amanda is asking that we take a deep breath and feel good about this fact for a minute. As she says, quote, this is big, like ticker tape parade and free hot dogs and dancing in the streets big. Of course, Americans don't even know about this milestone. And in fact, they think it's much worse. So in a July YouGov poll, Americans were asked if murder rates in the US cities have increased since 1990 Now, just to state, murder rates in those days were almost twice what they are now. But over half of those surveyed said, yes, murder rates are higher. As Amanda says, that is a stunning error about a very basic reality. This misperception is partly rampant among Republicans and older Americans. And you might say, well, of course, that's because Fox News and the National Network News tend to overemphasize frightening, high salient crime stories without regard to their frequency. But Amanda goes on, almost half of Democrats made the same mistake, believing the literal opposite of what is true about homicide rates. That's partly because exaggerations about lawlessness and danger extend well beyond TV news to social media and politics. Conflict entrepreneurs, which is this phenomenal idea that Amanda Ripley has put out into the world, are richly rewarded these days for convincing Americans that we are our own worst enemies. Now, you might say there's nothing we can do to stop this sensationalism. But in some industries where there is a known and predictable error in human perception, the most innovative entrepreneurs try to correct for it. They invent glasses so people can see better, rear view cameras so people can drive better, and spell check so people can write better. So Amanda wants to know, couldn't a media outlet offer to help reduce our biases rather than make them worse? For example, what if in the aftermath of the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, more journalists had tried to help the public understand political violence and how to prevent it, rather than adding to the fear and speculation? There's so much apocalyptic language, there's so much ramping up of the threat level, and all that makes violence more likely.

And then she calls out somebody who's doing media right, who is using the opportunity, which is a terrific interest in political violence, to educate and inform. So in this case, it's Sean Westwood. He's the director of the Polarization Research Lab, and he wrote a short clarifying Politico piece. And I quote, To be clear, a mass movement of political violence is not happening. For the past three years, I have tracked public support for political violence, and the data are unequivocal. Fewer than 2% of Americans believe political murder is acceptable. The core problem is not a widespread desire for violence, but a profound misperception of the other side. He goes on, My data also showed that Americans estimate nearly a third of their political opponents support partisan murder. This belief, that one is facing a vast murderous faction, rather than a few isolated extremists, creates a phantom enemy that makes the country feel far more dangerous than it actually is. Now, Westwood, interestingly, is not a journalist. He's a researcher, and his lab is working week in and week out to understand how Americans feel about political violence. He's also tracking other key metrics, such as the level of contempt or disdain in elite politician speech. Another researcher, Jonathan Stray, found that only 1.5% of Twitter and Blue Sky posts about Kirk's death called for more violence.