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:
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:
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.
Sarah Stonbely More people start caring about news inequality
Raney Aronson-Rath News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions
Rachel Davis Mersey The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide
Kristen Muller The year we operationalize community engagement
A.J. Bauer A fork in the road for conservative media
Helen Havlak Platforms shine a light on original reporting
Talia Stroud The work of reconnecting starts November 4
Victor Pickard We reclaim a public good
Nushin Rashidian Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?
Sonali Prasad Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional
John Garrett It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization
An Xiao Mina The Forum we wanted, the forum we got
Candis Callison Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change
Richard Tofel A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges
Brian Moritz The end of “stick to sports”
Irving Washington Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job
Bill Grueskin Our ethics codes get an overhaul
John Keefe Journalism gets hacked
Monica Drake A renewed focus on misinformation
Meg Marco Everything happens somewhere
Alexandra Borchardt Get out of the office and talk to people
Jasmine McNealy A call for context
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks
Linda Solomon Wood Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal
Whitney Phillips A time to question core beliefs
Joanne McNeil A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)
Mike Caulfield Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd
Mariana Moura Santos The future of journalism is collaborative
Jakob Moll A slow-moving tech backlash among young people
Tom Glaisyer Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful
Tonya Mosley The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends
Pablo Boczkowski The day after November 4
J. Siguru Wahutu Western journalists, learn from your African peers
Jeff Kofman Speed through technology
Eric Nuzum Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show
Barbara Gray Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement
Rachel Schallom The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates
Doris Truong The year of radical salary transparency
Craig Newmark Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation
Beena Raghavendran The year of the local engagement reporter
Catalina Albeanu Rebuilding journalism, together
Juleyka Lantigua A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions
Julia B. Chan We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏
Don Day Respect the non-paying audience
Kerri Hoffman Opening closed systems
Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech
Knight Foundation Five generations of journalists, learning from each other
Sara K. Baranowski A big year for little newspapers
Jake Shapiro Podcasting gets listener relationship management
Mira Lowe The year of student-powered journalism
Annie Rudd The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph
Nicholas Jackson What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Power to the people (on your audience team)
Alana Levinson Brand-backed media gets another look
Joni Deutsch Podcasting unsilences the silent
Masuma Ahuja Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful
Fiona Spruill The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves
Imaeyen Ibanga Let’s take it slow
Josh Schwartz Publishers move beyond the metered paywall
Geneva Overholser Death to bothsidesism
Lucas Graves A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters
Cory Haik We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it
Carl Bialik Journalists will try running the whole shop
Joe Amditis Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table
Jeremy Olshan All journalism should be service journalism
S. Mitra Kalita The race to 2021
Jonas Kaiser Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists
Margarita Noriega The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms
Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor Think twice before turning to Twitter
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen The business we want, not the business we had
Monique Judge The year to organize, unionize, and fight
Ernie Smith The death of the industry fad
Bill Adair A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song
Ståle Grut OSINT journalism goes mainstream
Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young The promise of nonprofit journalism
Carrie Brown-Smith Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening
Rick Berke Incoming fire from both left and right
Heather Bryant Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving
Greg Emerson News apps fall further behind
Seth C. Lewis 20 questions for 2020
Matthew Pressman News consumers divide into haves and have-nots
Nathalie Malinarich Betting on loyalty
Simon Galperin Journalism becomes more democratic
Colleen Shalby Journalists become media literacy teachers
Cindy Royal Prepare media students for skills, not job titles
Dan Shanoff Sports media enters the Bronny era
Laura E. Davis Know the context your journalism is operating within
Lauren Duca The rise of the journalistic influencer
Emily Withrow The year we kill the news article
Christa Scharfenberg It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women
Matt DeRienzo Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers
Meredith Artley Stronger solidarity among news organizations
Peter Bale Lies get further normalized
Gordon Crovitz Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms
Joshua P. Darr All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse
Anthony Nadler Clash of Clans: Election Edition
Hossein Derakhshan AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris
Elizabeth Dunbar Frank talk, and then action
Tamar Charney From broadcast to bespoke
Felix Salmon Spotify launches a news channel
Kourtney Bitterly Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline
Stefanie Murray Charitable giving goes collaborative
Kevin D. Grant The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth
Errin Haines Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story
Nico Gendron Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z
Alice Antheaume Trade “politics” for “power”
Dannagal G. Young Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart
Brenda P. Salinas Treating MP3 files like text
Jennifer Brandel A love letter from the year 2073
Logan Jaffe You don’t need fancy tools to listen
Michael W. Wagner Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative
Sarah Marshall The year to learn about news moments
Sarah Alvarez I’m ready for post-news
Mario García Think small (screen)
Zizi Papacharissi A president leads, the press follows, reality fades
M. Scott Havens First-party data becomes media’s most important currency
Heidi Tworek The year of positive pushback
Sarah Schmalbach Journalist, quantify thyself
Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage
Jim Brady We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own
Kathleen Searles Pay more attention to attention
Cristina Kim Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”
Steve Henn The dawning audio web
Ben Werdmuller Use the tools of journalism to save it
Sue Robinson Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments
Francesco Zaffarano TikTok without generational prejudice
Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz News coverage gets geo-fragmented