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.
Colleen Shalby Journalists become media literacy teachers
Imaeyen Ibanga Let’s take it slow
Sonali Prasad Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional
Juleyka Lantigua A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions
Heidi Tworek The year of positive pushback
Helen Havlak Platforms shine a light on original reporting
Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech
Margarita Noriega The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms
Ernie Smith The death of the industry fad
Jake Shapiro Podcasting gets listener relationship management
Monique Judge The year to organize, unionize, and fight
Joe Amditis Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table
Peter Bale Lies get further normalized
Sarah Schmalbach Journalist, quantify thyself
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Power to the people (on your audience team)
Dannagal G. Young Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart
Julia B. Chan We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏
Mario García Think small (screen)
Carl Bialik Journalists will try running the whole shop
Jakob Moll A slow-moving tech backlash among young people
Pablo Boczkowski The day after November 4
Steve Henn The dawning audio web
Joni Deutsch Podcasting unsilences the silent
Alana Levinson Brand-backed media gets another look
Nushin Rashidian Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?
Nico Gendron Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z
Seth C. Lewis 20 questions for 2020
Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz News coverage gets geo-fragmented
Irving Washington Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job
Geneva Overholser Death to bothsidesism
Laura E. Davis Know the context your journalism is operating within
Beena Raghavendran The year of the local engagement reporter
Mariana Moura Santos The future of journalism is collaborative
Bill Grueskin Our ethics codes get an overhaul
Talia Stroud The work of reconnecting starts November 4
Emily Withrow The year we kill the news article
Matthew Pressman News consumers divide into haves and have-nots
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks
Linda Solomon Wood Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal
Sarah Stonbely More people start caring about news inequality
Cindy Royal Prepare media students for skills, not job titles
Catalina Albeanu Rebuilding journalism, together
Barbara Gray Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement
Felix Salmon Spotify launches a news channel
Gordon Crovitz Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms
Kerri Hoffman Opening closed systems
Victor Pickard We reclaim a public good
Sue Robinson Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments
Kevin D. Grant The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth
Elizabeth Dunbar Frank talk, and then action
Jeff Kofman Speed through technology
Zizi Papacharissi A president leads, the press follows, reality fades
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen The business we want, not the business we had
Rachel Davis Mersey The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide
An Xiao Mina The Forum we wanted, the forum we got
Nicholas Jackson What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support
Richard Tofel A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges
Rick Berke Incoming fire from both left and right
Raney Aronson-Rath News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions
Stefanie Murray Charitable giving goes collaborative
Jasmine McNealy A call for context
A.J. Bauer A fork in the road for conservative media
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline
Kathleen Searles Pay more attention to attention
Mike Caulfield Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd
M. Scott Havens First-party data becomes media’s most important currency
Lucas Graves A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters
Eric Nuzum Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show
Brian Moritz The end of “stick to sports”
Kristen Muller The year we operationalize community engagement
Simon Galperin Journalism becomes more democratic
Ståle Grut OSINT journalism goes mainstream
Kourtney Bitterly Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation
Jennifer Brandel A love letter from the year 2073
Sarah Alvarez I’m ready for post-news
Tamar Charney From broadcast to bespoke
Alexandra Borchardt Get out of the office and talk to people
Masuma Ahuja Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful
Francesco Zaffarano TikTok without generational prejudice
Logan Jaffe You don’t need fancy tools to listen
Joanne McNeil A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)
Doris Truong The year of radical salary transparency
Cristina Kim Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”
Josh Schwartz Publishers move beyond the metered paywall
Jeremy Olshan All journalism should be service journalism
Tom Glaisyer Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful
Monica Drake A renewed focus on misinformation
Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage
Lauren Duca The rise of the journalistic influencer
Christa Scharfenberg It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women
Annie Rudd The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph
Bill Adair A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song
Ben Werdmuller Use the tools of journalism to save it
Jonas Kaiser Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists
Don Day Respect the non-paying audience
Matt DeRienzo Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers
Nathalie Malinarich Betting on loyalty
Heather Bryant Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving
S. Mitra Kalita The race to 2021
Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young The promise of nonprofit journalism
Brenda P. Salinas Treating MP3 files like text
Candis Callison Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change
Alice Antheaume Trade “politics” for “power”
Whitney Phillips A time to question core beliefs
Jim Brady We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own
Greg Emerson News apps fall further behind
Sara K. Baranowski A big year for little newspapers
Cory Haik We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it
Tanya Cordrey Saying no to more good ideas
Joshua P. Darr All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse
John Garrett It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization
Tonya Mosley The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends
Anthony Nadler Clash of Clans: Election Edition
Sarah Marshall The year to learn about news moments
Meredith Artley Stronger solidarity among news organizations
Hossein Derakhshan AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris
Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor Think twice before turning to Twitter
Errin Haines Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story
Knight Foundation Five generations of journalists, learning from each other
Fiona Spruill The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves
Dan Shanoff Sports media enters the Bronny era
John Keefe Journalism gets hacked
Rachel Schallom The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates
J. Siguru Wahutu Western journalists, learn from your African peers
Carrie Brown-Smith Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening
Craig Newmark Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation
Mira Lowe The year of student-powered journalism
Michael W. Wagner Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative