Politics Has Taught Us to Seek Affirmation Instead of Information in Media
Listen to this article:
TL;DR. One of Nevada’s most respected former Members of Congress talks about his worries that people are only seeking news that supports their personal narrative and not the truth. If you have to Google some of the words he uses, you’re not alone.
During my time as Nevada’s congressional representative for District 3, I did not seek out national media opportunities: like former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, I believe all politics is local. One day, I was asked by the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to appear on Fox News to discuss an intelligence program that recently made the press; I was chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the program and had a full understanding of what it did and, more importantly, didn’t do. As I spoke with the “booker” to review the details, I was told I would be on for a ten-minute “hit” with a well-known host who would ask me a few questions about the topic. As we went live from the rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building, where all the major networks had broadcast outposts, I quickly learned that a ten-minute “hit” meant the host would give his opinion for nine minutes then allow me one to two minutes to respond. For eight minutes I listened through my earpiece as the host misrepresented the program in question, very obviously trying to create a narrative that would reinforce his Libertarian persona. When he finally said, “What are your thoughts, Congressman?” I responded with, “Well that’s not entirely correct,” and I went on to, quickly in my allotted time, explain how the program actually worked. I…was never invited back. It was very clear to both of us that I didn’t corroborate his pre-determined narrative!
It was this first national news media encounter that made me wonder, just what is the actual role of the media in political discourse? Certainly, we have come a long way from the days of a 30 to 60-minute evening news broadcast hosted by the likes of Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley to the 24/7 cable news cycle and internet-driven, anyone-can-be-a-“journalist” system we have today.
It is clear that consumers of news go to sources that provide a diet rich in their ideological perspectives. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, “When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust. And whether discussing politics online or with friends, they are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals” (see Figures 1 and 2). [1]
Figure 1. Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group
Figure 2. Ideological Profile of Each Source’s Audience
Click to Zoom
As an avid consumer of news across the spectrum, it appears to me that more and more, other than local broadcasts, national broadcast, print, and internet news sources aren’t concerned about providing information with which the viewer/reader can make an informed decision.
Quite frankly, it seems that they are becoming nothing more than another form of entertainment, keeping us riveted to our seats as we digest their prix fixe menu of offerings. This raises the question: are these media conglomerates, whether publicly-traded or privately-held, focused on presenting an unbiased account of the day’s events or on their bottom line? And if the latter, are they abdicating their responsibility as the “fourth estate,” serving as guardians of government accountability and transparency and an essential bulwark against government for the securing of individual rights?
If the motivation is profit, then the goal must be to sell advertising. To sell advertising you need to demonstrate viewership. To get viewers, you need to generate controversy. Controversy is the hallmark of the journalistic adages, “bad news is good news” and “if it bleeds, it leads” because bad news is more likely to attract a casual reader's eye than good news. This is not just schadenfreude, but evidence of a so-called "negativity bias," psychologists' term for our collective hunger to hear, and remember bad news. [2]
A prime example of the increasing negativity of political news offerings is the tenor of the coverage of presidential elections, where the last time positive coverage of the nominees outpaced negative coverage was 32 years ago (see Figure 3). This has caused some to claim that the real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal, but a decided preference for the negative. [3]
Figure 3. Tone of Presidential Nominees’ Coverage, 1960-2016
Click to Zoom
So, if we are driven to news sources that satiate our ideological hunger pangs and have a predilection for negative news, are we seeking information – knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; or affirmation – confirmation or ratification of the truth or validity of a prior judgment or decision?
Former Fox News political analyst and election forecaster, Chris Stirewalt, who was recently fired for being right when he was the first to call the Arizona 2020 presidential result and the target of murderous rage from consumers who were furious at not having their views confirmed when he defended the call for Biden, writes we are now a “nation of news consumers both overfed and malnourished. Americans gorge themselves daily on empty informational calories, indulging their sugar fixes of self-affirming half-truths and even outright lies.” [4]
Perhaps, for the sake of the Republic, it is time we all go on a more well-balanced news diet, consuming news from all across the ideological food pyramid. A little intellectual broccoli might do us some good… or even prevent another riot in the nation’s Capitol.
[1] Pew Research Center, October 2014, “Political Polarization and Media Habits”
[2] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140728-why-is-all-the-news-bad. Accessed February 1, 2021.
[3] Patterson, Thomas E. (December 2016). News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
[4] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-01-28/fox-news-chris-stirewalt-firing-arizona. Accessed February 1, 2021.
