5 Unexpected Ways We Foster Trust in an Untrusting World
Nurturing empathy in digitally polarized times.
In every corner of our planet, we find deep-seated divisions that have permeated our society. Regardless of the country we call home, we all face the same struggle to bridge the gaps that tear us apart. From my journeys across Israel, Pakistan, and South Africa, I have observed relentless endeavors to heal fragmented communities grappling with ethnic, religious, and economic differences.
The deep-rooted problems have persisted for a long time. They are additionally complicated by shifts in global politics. The fear of job loss is fueled by the prevalence of open markets and borderless capitalism. The increase in immigration is seen as a disturbance to culture and religion. And indeed, these difficulties have been intensified by the seamless methods of communication facilitated by the Internet.
The dissatisfaction regarding the perceived importance of democracy becomes apparent, resulting in a decline in the eagerness to partake in constructive discourse. Once the drive to reach a compromise or consensus fades away, democracies disintegrate.
The global community is currently experiencing unprecedented levels of polarization, and historical evidence cautions us against allowing this division to reach its breaking point. This recurring pattern of conflict spans across centuries, with the only notable change being the rapidity at which communication technology facilitates this divide.
The progression of media technologies, spanning from the printing press to radio and television, facilitated the consumption of a greater volume of information by individuals. However, only a privileged minority possessed the ability to effectively communicate with and impact large numbers of people. This lack of inclusivity resulted in limited participation and inadequate representation for minority voices.
The Internet completely transformed this landscape by providing a platform for universal expression. Suddenly, every person possessed the ability to disseminate their thoughts and opinions on a global scale, ensuring that a multitude of diverse voices could be heard by anyone willing to lend an ear.
In a society that embraces unrestricted freedom of speech, the dynamics of public conversations and political involvement undergo a transformation. While the Internet has the power to amplify virtuous discourse that resonates with our higher values and facilitates consensus-building, it also empowers malicious speech driven by anger, indignation, and moral superiority, fostering animosity towards others.
As a species, we are inherently more responsive to emotional expression rather than rational, intricate analysis. We have a natural inclination to seek confirmation of our biases and find satisfaction in affirmation rather than acquiring new information. This preference has persisted throughout history and will continue to do so. The politics of fear has always wielded significant influence, serving as a potent tool that incites action, distorts our perception of reality, suppresses dissent, and drives nations towards authoritarianism. It was an insightful Greek philosopher who warned that the very freedoms we cherish in our open societies and democracies could ultimately lead to their demise. These words are both wise and deeply unsettling.
In the last decade, I have encountered several moments that jolted me into intellectual awareness. Post the 2016 US election, I advocated for bridging societal divides by appealing to our natural ability to reason. It felt like the right thing to do at that point in time.
It has become evident to me that we are not naturally inclined towards rational thinking. Instead, our primary inclination is towards tribalism. Our thought processes are heavily influenced by what our friends and tribes expect us to believe, as emphasized by Daniel Goleman’s insights on social constructs. When the leader of our tribe asserts that the moon possesses a green hue, we tend to conform in order to avoid being excluded from communal benefits or rewards — such as missing out on a portion of roasted calf meat. This behavioral pattern is neither novel nor exclusive to any particular ideology; it simply reflects an inherent aspect of human nature.
The introduction of the Internet revolutionized the mathematics behind media and information. As people gained greater access to and engagement with media, the information space naturally became more varied and mathematically polarizing. The Internet shattered the information space into countless fragments, expanding from a limited number of TV channels to over a billion websites. We have the freedom to select and favor voices that align with our own perspectives, whether they reinforce our biases positively, negatively, or indifferently.
This forces us to question our fundamental comprehension of freedom of speech, acknowledging that defending freedom of speech entails tolerating the presence of speech that we may find distressing or repugnant. How can we confront these obstacles in our communities? To combat disinformation and misinformation, there is a call for regulations and for governments to establish systems that safeguard our societies by limiting or diminishing the dissemination of potentially harmful expressions.
Finding effective regulatory solutions is a delicate matter. What constitutes unacceptable expression and how can we ascertain the truth in contexts where multiple perspectives exist and objective facts are scarce? Who holds the power to make these decisions? And who decides who holds that power? In societies that cherish free speech, how do legal mechanisms handle such complexities? How can we address contentious disputes regarding library content or history education amidst societal divisions?
As legal mechanisms are developed to tackle misinformation, can we ensure the preservation of press freedom? In a divisive political landscape rife with extreme parody and threatening outrage, how do we distinguish between what is morally wrong and legally permissible? Is it possible for regulations targeting knowingly false information to be effective if politicians are granted exceptions? Does the United States’ current climate, where politicians attack disinformation researchers, serve as further proof of this intricate and contradictory predicament? Could these mechanisms potentially be exploited by less well-intentioned leaders to suppress freedom of the press? Will blocking, banning, or de-amplifying specific expressions help bridge our differences or merely reinforce our existing echo chambers of segregated beliefs?
The perpetual clash between Us versus Them persists. The eternal struggle of We versus They endures. Is it ever possible to emerge victorious in a debate by covering another person’s mouth with our hand? In what ways can we address the hostile environment filled with suspicion and mistrust that surrounds us? How might journalism, technology, or any other establishment contribute towards reestablishing a sense of significance, value, and faith in evidence-based knowledge? How do we individually appraise our endeavors to counteract the erosion of understanding, trustworthiness, and communal concern for the greater good?
Doubt and mistrust pervade our society, extending to institutions, media, journalism, science, and technology.
Journalism has never been limited to presenting only facts; it encompasses a range of partisanship, perspectives, and opinions. The left-leaning media source faces disdain from those on the right, while the right-leaning media source encounters animosity from those on the left. Both tend to prioritize reinforcing existing beliefs rather than providing unbiased information. Regrettably, amidst an overflow of subjective viewpoints, factual reporting often gets lost in translation. What could be considered as a potential solution to this predicament?
In the pre-Internet era, traditional newspapers in the United States had minimal opinion content. It was usually confined to the editorial page, where the newspaper expressed its own viewpoints. Over time, this expanded to include the OpEd page, which featured curated opinions from external sources. However, in today’s digital age, news websites have an abundance of space and therefore provide a much larger amount of opinion content compared to earlier times. Consequently, we now have a greater number of biased news sources than before. Unfortunately, we make the assumption that readers can differentiate between objective news coverage and subjective partisan opinions. Regrettably, this is not always the case.
The juxtaposition of opinion and fact-based reporting on a news platform casts doubt on the credibility of the latter. Readers who share similar opinions are inclined to place trust in the factual coverage, while those with opposing views are likely to reject it entirely. Does the overwhelming presence of various perspectives drown out readers’ efforts to cultivate independent thinking?
How can we prevent unnecessarily magnifying societal anxieties? In the United States, the likelihood of dying from cancer or heart disease is 35 times greater than dying from violent crime. However, our societies perceive these fears in the opposite way — we fear violent crime much more intensely than we fear dying in car accidents or from severe illnesses.
The media bombards us with sensationalized stories of violence and crime, creating a distorted view of the risks in our society. It is crucial for journalism to cover these shocking but rare events. However, we must be cautious that these stories do not warp our perception of reality and contradict the actual truth. When considering the prevalence of violent crime in my community, I question whether it is truly increasing or merely an isolated occurrence. Moreover, if I enter a voting booth with a skewed understanding of societal risk, how will it not affect my judgment on different issues and candidates?
Is it possible to close the gap between irrational and rational fear by giving context? Several years back, Google launched a project to address this problem. They developed an extensive database that compiled statistical data from various trustworthy sources. Could these resources make it easier for journalists to provide appropriate context? With the rise of new Generative AI tools in newsrooms, could these tools assist reporters in presenting relevant data to improve the context?
Is it feasible for us to reconsider the models and formats used in journalistic work? The Constructive Journalism Institute explores a unique path by presenting news coverage from a constructive perspective. The term constructive is vital. It does not aim to provide feel-good news; instead, constructive journalism goes beyond the traditional approach to coverage. Its goal is to offer clear indications and intentions by showcasing the necessary context, the hows and whys of a disastrous event, and most importantly, objectively reporting on various perspectives on how the event could have been prevented. Can journalism effectively convey unbiased fact-based reporting through its structure? Can these models facilitate critical thinking and assist readers in forming their own evaluations and final judgments?
Is it possible for us to avoid using words and phrases that emphasize separation and choose ones that promote constructive dialogue instead? If we value the idea of finding common ground, maybe the political talk show could consider changing its name from Crossfire. Ulrik Haagerup’s time at Danish television showed us the power of creating a framework for productive conversation.
Janet Coats, a linguistics researcher and managing director of the Consortium on Trust in Media and Technology at the University of Florida, crossed paths with me recently. Our discussion revolved around her fascinating work centered on dissecting how racial justice protests were portrayed in media following George Floyd’s untimely death last year. One striking observation made by Coats was that these accounts were filled with vivid imagery likening protest actions to fire or destruction — words like spark, fuel, erupt, trigger, and ignite were recurrently employed.
Coats raises the issue of whether journalists deliberately choose inflammatory language over and over again, or if it unconsciously becomes a repetitive pattern when reporting on such stories. What impact does this have on how the public views political protests and the people involved? How might it worsen political divisions even more? The significance of language cannot be emphasized enough. Linguistics plays a vital role in this matter. Politicians are well aware of this fact and dedicate substantial resources to study and experiment with messages to accurately determine which words and phrases will evoke the intended reaction, whether that is inspiring optimism or fear.
Can journalism integrate linguistics and examine the impact of language? Can it assess the repercussions of politicians disseminating false information and political spin?
What approaches can we adopt to confront the issue of encountering unfamiliar viewpoints without appearing alienated? Recently, I came across an impactful piece of literature by Mónica Guzmán, an insightful journalist of Mexican-American descent. In her exploration of this topic through her own complex family dynamics, she presents a book titled “I Never Imagined it that Way: Embracing Fearless Dialogue in Divided Eras”. The book underscores the importance of active listening as a prerequisite for discovering shared understanding.
The primary reason for the existing division among us stems from our apprehension towards individuals who differ from us. It is of utmost importance that we avoid reducing those with opposing perspectives to mere objects, as this dehumanization perpetuates the problem. Each and every one of us bears a responsibility in addressing this matter. Instead of oversimplifying others through memes, let us choose not to succumb to the temptation of transforming them into villains. By vilifying others, we inadvertently strengthen our own prejudices and exacerbate the divide between us.
In an effort to address political polarization, Stanford University initiated a comprehensive mega-study that aimed to find effective interventions. Among the many strategies examined, leveraging empathy and perceived similarity emerged as the most impactful methods. These approaches are highly relevant within the information ecosystem. To fully tap into the potential of empathy, it is recommended to showcase relatable and compassionate role models who embody diverse political ideologies rather than focusing on divisive figures commonly found in politics and media. While easier said than done, this suggestion deserves careful consideration.
Highlighting common ground among political parties can harness the influence of perceived likeness. Is the media platform featuring material that centers on non-controversial topics that resonate with a broad range of people? This strategy has consistently produced favorable outcomes in regional news, as delivering valuable updates on local sports, community happenings, and the different aspects of life from birth to death can encourage participation, foster solidarity within a community, and according to research, build trust when addressing more divisive matters.
These inquiries transcend the boundaries of media and journalism circles. How can other organizations contribute? What role does Google play? How can algorithms and machine learning be in harmony with society’s values and convictions, ensuring accurate search outcomes and developing AI applications that address social problems while mitigating potential harm?
What are the fundamental principles that are being sought after? In what ways can we improve the importance of public welfare? How can we reach an agreement on what defines the collective benefit? How can we adeptly address the dilemma of managing freedom of expression in the modern digital age?
It is up to us and our communities to find solutions, using either our legal systems, ethical values, or personal introspection.
