Who says voters are ‘polarized’?

A study of voters who read news articles about political polarization finds they tend to soften their views. Democracy relies less on division than a respect among fellow citizens.

AP Photo
A sign explains an exhibit on political campaign ads at the Toledo Museum in Toledo, Ohio. The exhibit, which runs through Election Day, looks at how campaigns use emotions such as hope and fear to influence voters through advertising.

Before the close election for president in 2000, the American news media mostly used “polarization” to refer to sunglasses or camera lenses. Not anymore. Journalists have increasingly used the word to describe the state of partisan politics – with few people challenging this perception.

Now, however, the intense media focus on what divides Americans – rather than what unites them – has itself come under scrutiny.

A new study of American voters by Matthew Levendusky of the University of Pennsylvania and Neil Malhotra of Stanford University finds that media depiction of a divided political scene can have two effects. One, it increases a belief that the electorate is polarized, perhaps beyond the reality in Washington or other levels of government. And two, in a hopeful twist, this belief also helps drive voters to moderate their views away from the extremes within both political parties.

This is a welcome corrective to media overuse of “political polarization.” Rather than accept polarization as a stonecold fact, voters are falling back on the norms of independent thinking and moderation to understand opposing views.

As the two academics put it: “How journalists cover polarization shapes how citizens respond to it.”

In particular, they found that more than two-thirds of articles about polarization between 2000 and 2012 went beyond general description. The articles contained examples of uncivil or disparaging remarks about the opposition, thus helping drive polarization. The media amplified what it decried.

The researchers claim they are the first to document the consequences of media coverage of polarization. If so, their timing is impeccable. The 2016 presidential race needs a moment of self-reflection about the effect of media choices, in both topics and words.

Voters have learned to soften their positions amid the rising noise about how divided they are. They seek consensus and compromise when confronted with descriptions of Americans as fearful of each other’s politics. Democracy may rely on lively debate and an adversarial process. But its underlying principle is a respect and regard for one’s fellow citizens.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Who says voters are ‘polarized’?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today