Does Propaganda Work?

First of all, before you read any further, you have to take this pop quiz on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) written by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Finished yet? O.K., now you can read Kaiser's analysis of the results. You'll find that less than 1% of respondents got all ten items correct. I was one of them, which is why you people should listen to me when I'm talking!  ;)  You'll also find that people who got fewer correct answers were (among other things) more likely to be Republicans, watchers of Fox News, and in favor of repealing the law.

Kevin Drum has constructed the following chart. He points out that there has been more conservative disinformation regarding the five items that more people answered incorrectly than the other five. This suggests that the right wing and their media enablers have been effective in misleading the public about the ACA.

I'm not sure I buy Drum's argument, since he has no data on how frequently false claims were made. I don't recall hearing that much about the nonexistent mandate that small businesses offer coverage to their employees, for example. Of course, there have been more complaints about the individual mandate than any other provision of the ACA, but in this case, the conservatives have not lied about it. There really is an individual mandate, although they have neglected to point out how small a percentage of Americans will be affected by it.

In order to get these results, you need more than just conservative propaganda. You also need corporate news media that fail to correct it, media that present these false claims as a he-said-she-said “controversy,” without explaining who is right and who is wrong.

Update

Thanks to Paul Ricci for pointing out that paid advertisements have almost certainly been a major factor in spreading public misinformation about the ACA. On June 20, The New York Times added up the expenditures to that date.

The amount spent attacking the ACA ($235 million) was 3.4 times the amount spent defending it ($69 million). Almost all the pro-ACA ads were from the Department of Health and Human Service ($47 million)--ads which the Times describes as “bland, explaining aspects of the law.” The anti-ACA ads come largely from the usual cast of Elephants who have emerged as major players in the post-Citizens United ad wars—the U. S. Chamber of Commerce ($27 million), Karl Rove's Crossroads USA ($18 million), etc. As part of the captive audience for these ads, I would not describe them as bland. The anti-ACA ads play to people's fears about government takeovers (“socialism”), rising deficits, and the rationing of care.

The anti-ACA ads have played primarily in swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, suggesting that they are, in part, an early start to the presidential campaign. I live in Pittsburgh, the fourth largest market for these ads ($7.6 million). Philadelphia, at $7.9 million, is the second largest market.