Our nation relies on an informed and rational public in order to function properly. Yet, our opinions and discourse are all too easily manipulated.
We are often less informed by truth. Rather, we are bombarded by overly polarized media messages.
Washington State U. Associate Professor Douglas Hindman recently published a research paper that looks into how personal beliefs color people’s understanding of a subject.
Hindman’s paper, titled “Knowledge Gaps, Belief Gaps, and Public Opinion about Health Care Reform,” explains that, instead of reflecting facts, knowledge comes more from personal opinions and identities, leading inevitably to broken discussion and a lack of cooperation at all levels of society.
Facts cannot be merely ammunition used to reinforce personal identities, but a means of finding a common ground and fostering cooperation. We cannot continue to frame all our issues as choices between political ideologies.
This is a problem within the very apparatus of how we receive information and something each citizen must consciously strive against while choosing their sources and forming their opinions.
According to Hindman’s paper, self-identification with a side of the political spectrum presents a “better predictor of knowledge and beliefs about politically contested issues than one’s level of education or understanding of a subject.”
Hindman thinks part of the reason for this “belief gap” lies at the heart of the media’s structure in its insistence to equally portray both sides of any issue.
This tendency to try and show balance has been used to portray choices as Republicans versus Democrats to advance the short term political gain of these parties without resolving the issue itself, Hindman said.
When an issue is not politically contested, the main gap between people’s perceptions is based on knowledge. However, once these issues enter into the political fray, “the education levels either become insignificant or secondary to belief,” and the media’s insistence on equal portrayal of every issue legitimizes this divide and reinforces these beliefs.
Perhaps worse, this fairness doctrine helps those in power subvert rational discourse. For example, when tobacco companies disputed the link between smoking and cancer, the media reported ‘both sides’ of the issue as if equally backed by science, “sowing seeds of doubt” amongst the public, said Hindman.
Those who believe that democracy depends on a rational discussion of important issues can see how this is troubling.
One way to solve this is to call upon the media to look for nonpartisan sources, as well as refrain from portraying an artificial rift when none necessarily exists.
However, Americans cannot simply hope the media will begin to hold itself to a higher standard.
Instead, citizens of this republic must take it upon themselves to check their biases and form their opinions with facts, not politics.