The profusion of media doesn’t mean people are better informed. That’s the sobering conclusion reached by the Pew Research Center, which conducted a current-events survey and found that people aren’t any more knowledgeable now than they were before the rapid expansion of cable news and online sites.

Alternative sources have been touted for years as the key to getting people who had checked out of public life to check back in. The argument was that traditional media couldn’t be trusted or were too arrogant or weren’t responsive to what people really wanted to know.

If that’s the case, then most people aren’t interested in some pretty basic information. For instance, only 21 percent could identify Robert Gates as the secretary of defense. When given a choice among three labels for Supreme Court Justice John Roberts – liberal, moderate, conservative – only 37 percent correctly picked “conservative.” Mere guessing would net a 33 percent success rate.

A ridiculously low 15 percent of respondents knew who Harry Reid was. (Psst, majority leader of the U.S. Senate.) If you can’t name the president of Russia (Vladimir Putin), join the crowd. Neither could 64 percent of those asked.

It seems the explosion of new media has merely resulted in an increased awareness in entertainment news, and traditional media have taken notice by offering more of that.

In Pew’s 1989 poll, it found that 74 percent of people could name the vice president. Now, it’s 69 percent. Back then, 74 percent could name their governors; now, it’s 66 percent. But 49 percent of respondents today can identify Nancy Pelosi. Poor Tom Foley – only 14 percent back then knew he was the House speaker.

So, how can today’s leaders become better known? Well, it helps to be in the movies first. Ninety-three percent of respondents could identify Arnold Schwarzenegger, but only 61 percent could name Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

It would be self-serving of us to say what sources of information produce the best-informed people, so we’ll let Pew say it: traditional media. Regular readers of newspapers and magazines rate high; so do regular watchers of network and cable news.

But there is one surprise. The highest scorers were regular watchers of fake news, such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” Then again, to get the jokes, you have to first know what’s going on in the world.

No doubt, the media could do a better job of informing people and differentiating between important news and fluff, but this survey also shows that the old excuses were pretty empty.

Today, it’s harder than ever to be uninformed, and yet similar percentages have refused to plug into current events. This doesn’t bode well for developing informed voters, which hinders good public policy.

A disturbing percentage of people will continue to blame the media or public officials for their decision to remain uninformed. Chances are they aren’t reading this editorial. It’s too bad for all of us that they can’t see that their lack of participation is part of the problem.