Contemplating Reasons for the Rise in Polarization

Prior to this module, I would have said that the media is a primary source of polarization. Now, I would say that they are a primary promoter of polarization. It’s a small yet meaningful distinction. Essentially, they are giving the people what they want rather than telling them what they want. As I asserted in the past, there is a huge benefit in promoting things of interest, but I think it goes a little deeper than the promotion of topics of interest for the benefit of the network. There seem to be actual structural issues with traditional mainstream media outlets as well as with social media platforms. That being said, there might be too much blame placed on the media for a rise in polarization. 

While the biggest issue with things like the 24-hour news networks seems to be that there is a fundamental business structure that is not conducive to good journalism, there is also the issue of the fact that those who are hired seem to be the exact political elite that is most prone to elements of polarization or to participate in the culture war type mindset. One of the greatest examples of business being placed above journalism is the idea that opinion hosts often hold the most coveted spots when it comes to news networks. Consider how many individuals move between being network pundits and working as staff in presidential administrations or holding noteworthy positions in their respective political parties. This is true of both conservative and liberal news outlets. 

There is a rather compelling argument to be made for the idea that the media doesn’t create partisans; it simply solidifies partisan leaning. I’m inclined to agree with this, not just because of personal experiences but also because it fits with what we know about group dynamics and the desire individuals have to fit in and be accepted by their particular in-group. Moderate viewers don’t become less moderate, but those who are already in the bubble or those who find tribalism appealing become more extreme. This hypothesis seems to be the best for what we see with the media as it accounts for everything we witness with engagement, or lack thereof, partisan leanings, and potential engagement in culture war-type issues despite a lack of interest from the general public. 

This idea plays into some preconceived notions that I have about a lack of interest and engagement with the news media. It’s worth highlighting how media can’t both be responsible for polarization and be responsible for a rise in polarization and be something that the average citizen refuses to align with unless polarization is something that exclusively exists among a particular subset of people and is not a widespread phenomenon. 

During this week’s discussion, the topic of advertisements was of the most interest to me because it is the exact and most prevalent example of business interests influencing media. Media’s influence, on the other hand, seems a little more difficult to understand or estimate for the reasons that I’ve already mentioned. While it seems clear that there is responsibility for increasing polarization, the media doesn’t seem to be causing polarization, at least not in any extreme ways. One possible exception might be social media, and I say that due to the ages that engage with certain platforms and the ways they engage. Social media seems to appeal to those who may not engage with more mainstream media outlets. 

It’s rather easy to blame the media for dividing the country, and the reality is that they do share some of the blame. The need to generate revenue and provide income certainly creates a market for bad actors. Additionally, there is a benefit in being the most provocative either on television or on social media, as this will garner attention that either results in engagement and money from advertisers or it results in ratings and money from advertisers. This business aspect is why I’ve always felt that the media had an incentive to prompt polarizing ideas. Perhaps there is some truth to my concerns, but the notion that any media source has created a polarized nation doesn’t hold with the reality that most people just aren’t interested in some of the most polarizing topics. As I’ve mentioned before, I believe that could change and that it is changing, although this may be my own bias talking. Younger generations seem more drawn to polarizing topics and political activism; again, this might just be my own bias as I see the younger generation as more engaged in social media, and I see social media as a larger issue when it comes to polarization. Overall, I’ve come to think that there are many factors in place and many issues surrounding the media, but perhaps they are too easy to vilify.