In the summer of 1916, Senator James Wadsworth suggested what was a somewhat radical idea at the time. In light of the growing conflicts engulfing Europe in the form of World War I and the ongoing spread of socialism, the senator proposed that all males of age should be subject to compulsory military training. The senator stated, “We must let our young men know that they owe some responsibility to this country.” At the time of course, the Senator feared the division of the state by class and the growing spread of violence.

While the idea of compulsory military training represents a rather controversial idea, the sentiment behind Senator Wadsworth’s statement rings true roughly a century later. The American people must feel some sort of responsibility to their country. The question then remains, if not strapping on an M9 pistol, and shouldering an M4A1 rifle, what are Americans to do in order to fulfill this responsibility?

Who better to answer the question than one of the fathers of our country?

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy. Unfortunately, I believe that we let down one of our founding fathers. Dad wouldn't be mad; he’d just be disappointed.

A survey revealed that 94 percent of Americans are uninformed voters. This is an appalling number. Actually, that last statistic was a lie.

The real survey done by Raussaman Reports in May of 2014 showed that 83 percent of voters believe that Americans are not informed voters. The survey done by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC surveyed 1,000 voters, and reported a +/- 3 percentage of margin sampling error, and had a 95 percent level of confidence.

If you did not question the first statistic, or you are completely unaware of what most of the previous sentence means, you are part of the problem.

So who informs the voters? And why are they dropping the ball? Aaron Sorkin’s 2012-2014 show “The Newsroom” has an idea. You might be familiar with the memorable opening to the HBO series, which has circled Facebook newsfeeds and generated a lot of enthusiasm for pointing out how much America currently sucks.

Unfortunately, much like a lot of news stories, the clip was taken out of context from the rest of the show. I have provided the link below. If the clip interests you, I suggest watching the full show. It is quite amazing.

The central theme of the show, written by Aaron Sorkin (also known for writing "Moneyball," "The Social Network," "The West Wing" and "The American President"), proposes the crux of the issue of an uninformed electorate; the news is entertainment. If one thinks about the fact that because all television news is (much like everything else on TV) advertiser-paid media, then in order to keep the news show going, which would be the goal of any network manager or executive producer, a show must attract viewers—thus generating more revenue.

How does a news show attract viewers? The same way any other show does. "Keeping Up with the Kardashians," "American Idol," and "The Bachelor" are all shows which are famous for advertising the most dramatic parts of the episode in order to interest viewers, often to the point of exaggerating the truth of what actually occurred on the show. News programs are often no different. Have you ever watched "Jeopardy" and seen those brief 10-second previews of the news? Do they ever involve something uninteresting?

Furthermore, if a news show is willing to exaggerate parts of their program in an advertisement to draw viewers to watch their show, would it be a stretch to imagine that the same news shows could be choosing only the most interesting stories to report? Meanwhile avoiding news that still affects America and the geo-political landscape but may not be as interesting to a generation with a short attention span? By the same logic, would a news show go so far as to report incorrect information to stimulate lively, emotional yet ultimately un-grounded debate?

Consider how regular reporters distort data or report half-truths in order to boost viewership or create exciting headlines. The easy and apparently widely popular target is Fox News (just an example but this does happen in other news shows).

Sean Hannity provided a classic example of fact distortion recently in October 2015, when speaking about Syrian refugees. Hannity stated that the U.S would accept 250,000 refugees into the country. When attacked for the validity of this statement, Hannity provided the source of his data publicly. All is good right?

The article actually stated that “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would accept up to 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2016 and up to 100,000 in Fiscal Year 2017. In Fiscal Year 2015, the United States accepted nearly 70,000 refugees.”

While all those numbers add up to about 250,000, the stated fact remains untrue. Hannity’s addition magic allowed for weeks of debate fuel, all centering around the idea that Obama was going to let a quarter of a million refugees into the country, who according to Donald Trump, no one knows who they are or where they are coming from.

Clearly this is an example of dramatization of facts for the purpose of entertainment. With this in mind, how much of the news that we watch is really just entertainment? Executive producers will dance around the facts, show exciting footage of the same thing happening over and over again, and possibly even go so far as to script their own interviews with guests on their shows.

I encourage you to watch this clip from “The Newsroom” in which the news team analyzes how a mainstream news network sets up a broadcast (in this case, the Casey Anthony trial) in order to entertain, and not educate, its viewers.

The most important parts of the video take place between 0:35 and 3:18.

Next time you watch the news, ask yourself if you are being entertained or informed.

I would encourage all those who feel just as alarmed and frightened by these issues as I do to challenge yourself to seek out the real stories that affect our nation and our everyday lives. The Internet is one powerful tool. Use it well.

The resolution remains—either question how much of what you are being reported is true, challenge our government and media to change radically in order to promote a more informed and intelligent electorate that is not treated as if the wide majority is ultimately stupid and unable to tell the difference between urine and rain, or… strap on an M9 and pick up an M4A1, as Senator Wadsworth would have it.