This week…same as last week. And the week before. And the week before. The goal of exciting bases, pointing fingers and characterizing the “other” take precedence over finding common ground, resolving differences and finding solutions.
Blue Headlines
The Newest Potential White Supremacist Code Word? Calling Democrats ‘Clowns’
Republican Cowards: Lawmakers Refuse To Talk Guns On CNN
The Right Wing Is Trying To Make It A Crime To Oppose Fascism
GOP Politicians Are Using Video Games As A Scapegoat For Mass Shootings, And It’s Working
Republicans Fake Outrage After Democrat Tweets Publicly Available Information, And The Media Bites
4 thoughts on “And the Beat Goes On…”
There are 2 articles above that don’t strike me as polarizing– “The Right Wing is Trying to Make it a Crime to Oppose Fascism” and “GOP Politicians are using video games as a scapegoat.” Both of the articles seem factual and well-reasoned to me. Greg, can you say more about why these articles made the list? Is there a way that these reporters could have covered these issues that would be less polarizing?
My measure is simply: Does the headline purposefully tend to widen rather than narrow the polarization gap. The word choice in “The Right Wing is trying to make it a crime to oppose fascism” is fully loaded to anger conservatives and delight liberals. Imagine sitting across from your conservative uncle and saying this. (His probable response: “Oh My God – you think THAT’S what we’re trying to do????”) You’ve started a fight before the conversation begins.
Same thing with the “scapegoat” term. No way would a conservative feel they were “scapegoating.”
I happen to agree with the bias of these two headlines, and yes they are technically, factually correct. But to me they serve more to enflame the “other” and flatter “our side” rather than simply inform or, better, move the debate to rational discourse and resolution.
I know this is the difference between editorial writing and reporting – but this is the soup we’re in. That these headlines seem factual and objective (to those agree with the bias) is an indication of how corrosive the atmosphere of polarization has become. We don’t recognize bias…as long as we agree with it.
Thanks, that’s helplful. So a non-polarizing version might be “GOP resolution would label antifa a ‘domestic terrorist organization'” or “Left activists fear GOP’s antifa resolution would suppress dissent”?
Yes – but of course that brings up the issue that, often, when you remove the polarizing fire, its kind of boring –
because in fact there’s not much of a story. Which is exactly the point and the problem.
Making a nothing story “hot” by pumping up the polarizing aspect is a great way to get attention…but at the
risk of fanning the flames that threaten to burn down the house.