Polls that touch a wide audience should be taken with a grain of salt. When you ask someone who doesn't really know what's going on "do you care?" their response doesn't mean much. This is true of just about everything, and transcends age. I would rather see polls like this come with an intensive questionnaire to correlate knowledge about the recent revelations of an NSA surveillance state with their answers.
For instance:
"Do you think PRISM is a powerful tool to prevent major terrorist attacks?"
48% yes, 52% no
A powerful tool which has yet to provide leads into a potential threat (rather, traditional means have still been significantly more effective), and which failed spectacularly to even hint at the Boston Marathon bombing? There's too much data. People can easily use code words or encrypt their communications. It's horribly and totally unreliable, and warrants are already a thing.
"Is Bradley Manning a hero?"
31% yes, 69% no
"Should Edward Snowden be prosecuted for disclosing classified information?"
56% yes, 44% no
"Do you consider Edward Snowden a hero?"
34% yes, 66% no
But then...
"Are you glad that Edward Snowden revealed the secret surveillance program?"
75% yes, 25% no
That seems like strong cognitive dissonance. Is it possible the people answering this poll are getting their information from a source that bashes the person/act, minimizes the program (or discloses no information about it or how it could be abused), but is happy it's a talking point? Maybe NBC and Fox News?
I'm not sure if this is evidence of cognitive dissonance or the fact that people have a nuanced view of what's going on. For example, I was channeling my inner Thomas Friedman and talking with a cab driver about the spying last night, and he was glad that Snowden revealed the program, but didn't consider him a hero (because Snowden fled to Hong Kong).
I still see that as dissonance. On the one hand, they believe in the US, in our rights, in the freedom of speech, and in the need for us to blow whistles on government actions that violate those rights.
But on the other hand, someone who seeks asylum from a tyrannical government who would illegally violate those rights and possibly torture or indefinitely detain them is clearly a bad person. Even though this is very similar to how our country was founded.
I don't see how those two views are not entirely contradictory.
And that's what the mainstream media has been focusing on in this case: he fled to China. That's the only important thing. Clearly he's guilty. Clearly he's a treasonous anti-American. Is he a Chinese spy? It's all borderline defamation at this point.
Look at the situation from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that the US government is tyrannical, and instead, represents the best, most just system in the world.
From that perspective, why wouldn't Snowden stay in the United States, since he's guaranteed the right to a fair trial? Why not face the music at home, instead of fleeing to HK?
Acknowledgement of the leak demonstrates knowledge that the US government is actively violating the constitutional rights of citizens. Assuming it is the most "just system" in the world where one is "guaranteed the right to a fair trial" contradicts that (an assumption that the government will not violate rights).
Additionally, Obama's approval rating amongst those under 30 has dropped significantly in the past weeks. I would imagine this is a direct result over the NSA leaks.
For instance:
"Do you think PRISM is a powerful tool to prevent major terrorist attacks?" 48% yes, 52% no
A powerful tool which has yet to provide leads into a potential threat (rather, traditional means have still been significantly more effective), and which failed spectacularly to even hint at the Boston Marathon bombing? There's too much data. People can easily use code words or encrypt their communications. It's horribly and totally unreliable, and warrants are already a thing.
"Is Bradley Manning a hero?" 31% yes, 69% no
"Should Edward Snowden be prosecuted for disclosing classified information?" 56% yes, 44% no
"Do you consider Edward Snowden a hero?" 34% yes, 66% no
But then...
"Are you glad that Edward Snowden revealed the secret surveillance program?" 75% yes, 25% no
That seems like strong cognitive dissonance. Is it possible the people answering this poll are getting their information from a source that bashes the person/act, minimizes the program (or discloses no information about it or how it could be abused), but is happy it's a talking point? Maybe NBC and Fox News?