20200
P
1
20100
R  E
2
2070
D   I   C
3
2050
T   I   O   N
4
2040
S   F   O   R   J
5
2030
O  U  R  N  A  L
6
2020
I  S  M  2  0  2  0
7

Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart

“Although people today hate ‘the other side,’ I remain convinced that once they catch on to the game, they’ll hate being pawns even more.”

Over the past few years, my work has taken me down a political psychology rabbit hole — where the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are no longer reserved for descriptions of policy positions, but now can extend to things like child-rearing styles and even artistic preferences. The verdict is in: Psychological traits are correlated with political ideology, and they also shape how we interact with the world around us. As a result, liberals and conservatives not only hold different political beliefs — they also prefer to create and consume very different kinds of political information (and entertainment).

While this has likely been true for…well…ever, the characteristics, affordances, and economics of our current media environment make this a particularly lucrative situation for industry executives and a particularly devastating proposition for democratic health.

Our media landscape is fragmented in ways that favors the cultivation of tiny, unique, homogenous audiences. And as Lilliana Mason’s work shows, our racial, cultural, and religious identities have come to overlap with our political identities to such a huge extent, that polarization operates on a social — and even primal — level.

This means that media executives can now create programming and content that really efficiently checks all the boxes in one fell swoop: political, psychological, racial, cultural, and even aesthetic. (See Exhibit A: Fox News’ Sean Hannity.)

Meanwhile, our digital media landscape relies on an economic model that rewards and fuels the magnification of these pre-existing differences. Facebook’s algorithms tap into these discrepancies, then use user behaviors to fuel the very machinery that drives us farther apart. And the microtargeting made possible by Facebook ads opens this up to a whole other level of exploitation. (See Exhibits B–Z: Russia.)

As I see it, there are two paths that the American public might take in the context of this political information environment.

Path No. 1: We stay in our silos, passively allowing media moguls and tech platforms to drag us deeper into our corners based our political, psychological, racial, and cultural distinctions. We let the algorithms and micro-targeting mechanisms deliver us belief-confirming disinformation and culturally-divisive tropes, all delivered in the kind of language and packaging that we like best. Then, as our political party preferences increasingly overlap with other less “political” dimensions of our identities, we find ourselves rage-fueled, our fate firmly tied to a war between a socially constructed us that hates the also-socially constructed them. And at that point, we will be…ungovernable.

Or perhaps we choose Path No. 2: We actively work to disrupt the infrastructure, logic, and economic model that are driving the American public apart. Because although many of us (early 2000s “us”) had imagined that digital technologies would empower citizens by facilitating collective action and eroding the control of elite gatekeepers, many of us have had to accept that, without those gatekeepers and with horizontal networks, users become readily exploitable by algorithms and bad actors. The tech platforms once expected to empower and fuel healthy forms of activism, have instead fueled disinformation, taken advantage of susceptible populations, and rewarded hate groups.

Fortunately, human beings have always resisted dominant narratives constructed by the powerful. Even in the most oppressive contexts, with the most centrally controlled media industries, individuals have always found ways to undermine the machinery that constrains them — economically, culturally, politically, socially. And we have this same opportunity today: to deliberately confuse the algorithms and complicate the predictability of our appetites for certain media genres or journalistic story types. We can use the affordances of social media to block certain features, limit aspects of data collection and personalization, and report exploitative and fraudulent content.

And finally, we can recognize that these platforms rely on our quick, emotional, heuristic responses. And so, to mitigate their influence, in the words of Vin Arceneaux and Ryan Vander Wielen, we can “tame our intuition,” perhaps by asking ourselves challenging questions as we engage with content and programming. Questions designed to reduce the role that such curated content is intended to play in our minds and our lives. Questions like:

  • Who created this?
  • How do they want me to react? Why?
  • What do they want me to do? Like, share, react? Why?
  • How are they benefiting from my emotional response?
  • Am I willing to let myself be used by this entity in this way?

Muddying the ever-widening cultural and political chasm is possible, even within the existing logic of our media infrastructure. But will people be adequately motivated to disrupt these categories? Or to exercise restraint in their engagement with political media? Or to challenge their own reflexive emotional responses?

I say yes. Because although people today hate “the other side,” I remain convinced that once they catch on to the game, they’ll hate being pawns even more. I sure hope we choose Path No. 2.

Danna Young is associate professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware.

Over the past few years, my work has taken me down a political psychology rabbit hole — where the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are no longer reserved for descriptions of policy positions, but now can extend to things like child-rearing styles and even artistic preferences. The verdict is in: Psychological traits are correlated with political ideology, and they also shape how we interact with the world around us. As a result, liberals and conservatives not only hold different political beliefs — they also prefer to create and consume very different kinds of political information (and entertainment).

While this has likely been true for…well…ever, the characteristics, affordances, and economics of our current media environment make this a particularly lucrative situation for industry executives and a particularly devastating proposition for democratic health.

Our media landscape is fragmented in ways that favors the cultivation of tiny, unique, homogenous audiences. And as Lilliana Mason’s work shows, our racial, cultural, and religious identities have come to overlap with our political identities to such a huge extent, that polarization operates on a social — and even primal — level.

This means that media executives can now create programming and content that really efficiently checks all the boxes in one fell swoop: political, psychological, racial, cultural, and even aesthetic. (See Exhibit A: Fox News’ Sean Hannity.)

Meanwhile, our digital media landscape relies on an economic model that rewards and fuels the magnification of these pre-existing differences. Facebook’s algorithms tap into these discrepancies, then use user behaviors to fuel the very machinery that drives us farther apart. And the microtargeting made possible by Facebook ads opens this up to a whole other level of exploitation. (See Exhibits B–Z: Russia.)

As I see it, there are two paths that the American public might take in the context of this political information environment.

Path No. 1: We stay in our silos, passively allowing media moguls and tech platforms to drag us deeper into our corners based our political, psychological, racial, and cultural distinctions. We let the algorithms and micro-targeting mechanisms deliver us belief-confirming disinformation and culturally-divisive tropes, all delivered in the kind of language and packaging that we like best. Then, as our political party preferences increasingly overlap with other less “political” dimensions of our identities, we find ourselves rage-fueled, our fate firmly tied to a war between a socially constructed us that hates the also-socially constructed them. And at that point, we will be…ungovernable.

Or perhaps we choose Path No. 2: We actively work to disrupt the infrastructure, logic, and economic model that are driving the American public apart. Because although many of us (early 2000s “us”) had imagined that digital technologies would empower citizens by facilitating collective action and eroding the control of elite gatekeepers, many of us have had to accept that, without those gatekeepers and with horizontal networks, users become readily exploitable by algorithms and bad actors. The tech platforms once expected to empower and fuel healthy forms of activism, have instead fueled disinformation, taken advantage of susceptible populations, and rewarded hate groups.

Fortunately, human beings have always resisted dominant narratives constructed by the powerful. Even in the most oppressive contexts, with the most centrally controlled media industries, individuals have always found ways to undermine the machinery that constrains them — economically, culturally, politically, socially. And we have this same opportunity today: to deliberately confuse the algorithms and complicate the predictability of our appetites for certain media genres or journalistic story types. We can use the affordances of social media to block certain features, limit aspects of data collection and personalization, and report exploitative and fraudulent content.

And finally, we can recognize that these platforms rely on our quick, emotional, heuristic responses. And so, to mitigate their influence, in the words of Vin Arceneaux and Ryan Vander Wielen, we can “tame our intuition,” perhaps by asking ourselves challenging questions as we engage with content and programming. Questions designed to reduce the role that such curated content is intended to play in our minds and our lives. Questions like:

  • Who created this?
  • How do they want me to react? Why?
  • What do they want me to do? Like, share, react? Why?
  • How are they benefiting from my emotional response?
  • Am I willing to let myself be used by this entity in this way?

Muddying the ever-widening cultural and political chasm is possible, even within the existing logic of our media infrastructure. But will people be adequately motivated to disrupt these categories? Or to exercise restraint in their engagement with political media? Or to challenge their own reflexive emotional responses?

I say yes. Because although people today hate “the other side,” I remain convinced that once they catch on to the game, they’ll hate being pawns even more. I sure hope we choose Path No. 2.

Danna Young is associate professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware.

Jennifer Brandel   A love letter from the year 2073

Monica Drake   A renewed focus on misinformation

james Wahutu   Western journalists, learn from your African peers

Beena Raghavendran   The year of the local engagement reporter

Doris Truong   The year of radical salary transparency

Kristen Muller   The year we operationalize community engagement

S. Mitra Kalita   The race to 2021

Jeff Kofman   Speed through technology

Tonya Mosley   The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends

Nathalie Malinarich   Betting on loyalty

Cindy Royal   Prepare media students for skills, not job titles

Ben Werdmuller   Use the tools of journalism to save it

Raney Aronson-Rath   News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions

Bill Adair   A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song

Tamar Charney   From broadcast to bespoke

Meg Marco   Everything happens somewhere

Simon Galperin   Journalism becomes more democratic

Bill Grueskin   Our ethics codes get an overhaul

Adam Thomas   The silver bullet

Richard J. Tofel   A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges

Pablo Boczkowski   The day after November 4

Don Day   Respect the non-paying audience

Heidi Tworek   The year of positive pushback

John Garrett   It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization

Jakob Moll   A slow-moving tech backlash among young people

Alice Antheaume   Trade “politics” for “power”

Masuma Ahuja   Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful

Alana Levinson   Brand-backed media gets another look

Zizi Papacharissi   A president leads, the press follows, reality fades

Tom Glaisyer   Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful

Dan Shanoff   Sports media enters the Bronny era

Nicholas Jackson   What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support

Logan Jaffe   You don’t need fancy tools to listen

Monique Judge   The year to organize, unionize, and fight

Emily Withrow   The year we kill the news article

Hossein Derakhshan   AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris

Kourtney Bitterly   Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation

Irving Washington   Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job

Peter Bale   Lies get further normalized

L. Gordon Crovitz   Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms

Jeremy Olshan   All journalism should be service journalism

Sarah Stonbely   More people start caring about news inequality

Craig Newmark   Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation

Nikki Usher   All systems down

Brenda P. Salinas   Treating MP3 files like text

Francesco Zaffarano   TikTok without generational prejudice

John Keefe   Journalism gets hacked

Kerri Hoffman   Opening closed systems

Tanya Cordrey   Saying no to more good ideas

Lauren Duca   The rise of the journalistic influencer

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show

Imaeyen Ibanga   Let’s take it slow

Dannagal G. Young   Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart

Jim Brady   We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own

Heather Bryant   Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving

Sarah Marshall   The year to learn about news moments

Christa Scharfenberg   It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women

Sue Robinson   Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments

Elizabeth Dunbar   Frank talk, and then action

Meredith Artley   Stronger solidarity among news organizations

Talia Stroud   The work of reconnecting starts November 4

Rachel Davis Mersey   The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide

Stefanie Murray   Charitable giving goes collaborative

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks

Michael W. Wagner   Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative

Mike Caulfield   Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd

Victor Pickard   We reclaim a public good

Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor   Think twice before turning to Twitter

Kevin Douglas Grant   The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth

A.J. Bauer   A fork in the road for conservative media

Carl Bialik   Journalists will try running the whole shop

Marie Gilot   This is fine

Nushin Rashidian   Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?

Greg Emerson   News apps fall further behind

Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper   Power to the people (on your audience team)

Whitney Phillips   A time to question core beliefs

Candis Callison   Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change

Cristina Kim   Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”

Joanne McNeil   A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)

Mario García   Think small (screen)

Felix Salmon   Spotify launches a news channel

Laura E. Davis   Know the context your journalism is operating within

Catalina Albeanu   Rebuilding journalism, together

Rick Berke   Incoming fire from both left and right

Millie Tran   Wicked

Joe Amditis   Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table

Knight Foundation   Five generations of journalists, learning from each other

Errin Haines   Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story

Joni Deutsch   Podcasting unsilences the silent

Kathleen Searles   Pay more attention to attention

Colleen Shalby   Journalists become media literacy teachers

M. Scott Havens   First-party data becomes media’s most important currency

Josh Schwartz   Publishers move beyond the metered paywall

Brian Moritz   The end of “stick to sports”

Margarita Noriega   The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms

Ståle Grut   OSINT journalism goes mainstream

Mira Lowe   The year of student-powered journalism

Jonas Kaiser   Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists

Barbara Gray   Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement

Geneva Overholser   Death to bothsidesism

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   The business we want, not the business we had

An Xiao Mina   The Forum we wanted, the forum we got

Seth C. Lewis   20 questions for 2020

Jasmine McNealy   A call for context

Sarah Schmalbach   Journalist, quantify thyself

Lucas Graves   A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters

Joshua Darr   All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse

Helen Havlak   Platforms shine a light on original reporting

Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb   Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage

Steve Henn   The dawning audio web

Linda Solomon Wood   Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline

Mariana Moura Santos   The future of journalism is collaborative

Alexandra Borchardt   Get out of the office and talk to people

Rachel Schallom   The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates

Sarah Alvarez   I’m ready for post-news

Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz   News coverage gets geo-fragmented

Jake Shapiro   Podcasting gets listener relationship management

Julia B. Chan   We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏

Annie Rudd   The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph

Juleyka Lantigua-Williams   A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions

Carrie Brown-Smith   Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young   The promise of nonprofit journalism

Fiona Spruill   The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves

Matthew Pressman   News consumers divide into haves and have-nots

Sonali Prasad   Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional

Anthony Nadler   Clash of Clans: Election Edition

Sara K. Baranowski   A big year for little newspapers

Nico Gendron   Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z

Cory Haik   We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it

Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker   A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech

Ernie Smith   The death of the industry fad

Matt DeRienzo   Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers