they just couldn’t care less

Rasmussen just polled “likely primary voters” and found them—wait for it … uninformed. (If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you should of course not be at all surprised. My most recent thoughts on the subject are here.)

News from outside the blogospheric cocoon:

Separate survey data shows that political pundits and junkies are likely to overestimate the immediate impact of Clinton’s debate performance. Much of the nation was simply not paying attention. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters nationwide found that just 56% knew that the Democrats were the party with a Presidential debate this week. Thirteen percent (13%) thought it was the GOP’s turn while 31% are not sure.

Just 38% could pick immigration from a list of four issues as the topic that caused Clinton to stumble near the end of the debate. Eleven percent (11%) picked the Iraq war, 5% health care, 4% the economy, 6% “some other topic”, and 36% admitted they didn’t know.

Overall, just 28% of Likely Voters correctly identified the Democrats as the party having a debate and immigration as the issue.

A gentle reminder: these are likely primary voters. It kinda makes you wonder why they bother, doesn’t it?

And I am writing about this because…?

Well, because it underscores my thesis: if infotainment rules, which it does (there is nothing serious about the presentation of “news” on television anymore) it rules precisely because it is effective even with an inattentive audience. It delivers messages in such a bold and loud way—sensationally—that it gets through even to the brain-dead.

Those of us who care about the issues can bemoan this state of affairs all we want, but we are powerless to change it. People don’t mind being informed, I suppose, but they are addicted to being entertained. That is why I’m always calling for better infotainment.