The Polarization of New Media

The power of the internet to connect people is known, but what is not known may be the polarizing effects that it has had on our society, especially in recent years.

We have all seen the beneficial outcomes that the internet and mass communication has had on our global society-take for instance the Arab Spring’s use of social media connections or the organized assemblies arranged through Facebook and Twitter during the Iranian election of 2009, even mostly all the gatherings here in America-from Black Lives Matter to your local hot dog eating contest-uses the internet to reach its audience and participants one way or another.

And the internet is rightly credited for all the good that it does, especially for its power of unification, but what we never seem to acknowledge is our own inclination or negative use of the internet. Specifically, in the ironic ability that the internet gives us-to voice our opinion and on the same stroke invalidate someone else’s.

A system that incorporates all the American values of free and equal speech seems to only create groups of likeminded individuals fighting other likeminded individuals. The process of sharing and liking articles that agree and conform to your personal ideals enables us to make an environment of blissful ignorance.

Factual information undergoes the unnecessary process of opinion editing to better appeal to the audience it has in mind, journalists are now blurring the lines that once clearly divided bias and reporting in order to satisfy a population that believes they are right and that others are most definitely not.

And it all comes from the way we read our information.

George Saunders, author and Professor of Creative Writing in Syracuse University, explores this concept of a polarized nation in his New Yorker article “Who are all these Trump Supporters.” Through his experiences with Donald Trump rallies he describes what he sees-from the thousands in the crowds and in the protest lines, to Donald Trump himself with his red hat, orange complexion, and almost messiah like presence with the crowd.

Saunders writes that absent of any teleprompter Trump invigorates the crowd with his talk of walls and government corruption, shying away from actual, concrete rhetoric that may bore the crowd-as noted by Trump’s aversion towards statistics and the like.

Saunders explains how we have acquired two different languages from the divided “leftland” and “rightland” of America. Both loud in their wants and oblivious to the other’s. He notes that not only do the two groups of both nations speak different ideologies unknown to the other, but also receive their information from different, non-intersecting pools. What Saunders calls our own “custom informational universe” is destroying meaningful dictation in American society and politics. This is seen in our use of media especially, we watch and consume only the information and the ideas that favor our own. And in some instances, Saunders notes, there is already a built in algorithm that that an app uses to determine what articles you would like based on your past likes and shares.

And if we live in a self-made media environment that conforms to our wants and ideals then we ultimately make preconceived assessments of anyone who falls outside of our bubble. A personal agenda forms and any hope of communication to others will fail.

Saunders describes an event he experienced after a certain Trump rally when both groups of supporters and protestors met each other outside the convention. As arguments and fights broke out over the divide, both sides had their cameras ready, shooting the others from across their line, documenting any false mistake or violence that they may get involved in. All in the hopes of discrediting the other and falsifying the opposite ideology.

He then questions how our nation can possibly join together and bring meaningful compromise if we all choose to be ignorant and spiteful to one another, waiting and capitalizing if someone else makes a mistake.

Take for instance the recent events that have occurred in the past week alone. As two African American men were killed by police in what is again being called unnecessary police brutality, protests took place all across the country, and in Dallas, Texas five officers were killed in the aftermath. We as a nation again find ourselves in turmoil, trying to make sense of the violence. In one side there are the Black Lives Matter activists and in the other there are the seemingly called Blue Lives Matter activists, and that is the problem of it all, why should there be sides to a topic or an event that is seemingly universal in its message: to stop unnecessary violence altogether. Can’t we all be against the killing of any innocent life and also condemn a system that marginalizes one racial group over the other?

It’s maddening to me that the idea of a communicative society that can comfortably voice their beliefs while also respecting the ideas of others seems like a fantasy novel.

But what should we do to solve our polarized nation?

Well we can change how we see each other, no longer should we adhere to our preconceived ideas of what is conservative and what is liberal, or what is black and what is white, but we can see each other as people who may have different beliefs but share a common foundation in which we build from. The foundation of trust, safety, and our personal pursuits of happiness. Contrary to the liberal belief not all conservatives are Ayn Rand loyalists who only care about themselves, and contrary to the conservative belief liberals are not trying to destroy the foundation America was built in, but make it more welcoming for people who don’t feel like they belong. Of course I know these are simple generalizations to a massively complex system of politics and morals, but big things have small beginnings, and I believe that the first step towards meaningful conversation with one another is seeing in each other ourselves.