It has oft been stated that the source of our news shapes our views and beliefs about politics and the world. However, there is an equally, less recognized flip side to that coin. That is that our views and beliefs shape the source of our news. This principle is not surprising and is easy to recognize and explain.
Your blue-hearted liberal is apt to start their day with the NY Times and wind it down with Keith Olberman or the like in the evening. Conversely, the red-bloods may look to Fox News after dinner.
The effect of this principle is also not surprising. It is little more than an affirmation loop that recycles and instills a particular set of beliefs. This is not to be so demeaning as to say people believe everything they are given or that they do not think for themselves. Rather, it only states that if I believe in low taxes and I like to read the WSJ, these two are not wholly independent from each other. The more I like low taxes, the more I read the WSJ and vice versa.
My examples so far have greatly simplified the equation. A greater problem now is the diversity of sources that line up ideologically on either side. Now there are so many that a conservative could realistically get his news from six different sources, but still be getting only one opinion. This can lead someone into thinking they are exposing themselves to a variety of points of view when in fact that is not the case.
The ultimate product of this cycle is individuals (quite intelligent ones at that) that have entrenched themselves so far into one side of the spectrum that opposing views become hostile, dangerous, and unwelcome. And why shouldn’t they be since they are contrary to what is in my news and in my beliefs.
I believe that this choice is natural. Many of the issues out there are tough issues and the answers are not cut and dry. It is easier to take a hard line with one side and allow that decision to be continually reaffirmed instead of being open to questioning it.
Take taxes or the stimulus bill or whether banks are too big to fail for instance. These subjects are incredibly complex with amazingly intelligent people holding strongly differing views. What is amazing to me is the confidence the average person maintains with respect to their personal views on the subject (especially people with no economic or financial background). The bank issue cannot even be discussed without understanding the derivative swap and counterparty positions that have entangled our financial system. Yet, 30 minutes with a cable news show and a morning or two with a newspaper and it becomes so simple?
I do not propose that everyone must follow up O’Reilly with Olberman or be fully informed on every issue. I simply suggest that maybe everything is not as simple as our favorite news source suggests and before expressing a firm opinion on a subject or indignation towards the opinion of another, we might take a step backward and consider other possibilities.
qe2
13 years ago