Silencing the Shrieks of Hostility in Rhetoric
The polarization of information delivered throughout endless news cycles shapes a lot of what we as viewers experience in the political context, unfortunately. Worse, the volume of negative news combined with the angry presentation introduces a steady, constant dose of hostility as if it were coming from an IV. From cable news pundits to social media influencers, we are inundated with inflammatory language, discouraging dialogue and compassion, instead fostering hate and division. With the escalation of violence reaching heights beyond imagination, it is time for the media in all its forms to reassess their approach to reporting and commentary.
Sensationalism is the primary mechanism the media utilizes to grab the attention of viewers. The hyperbolic language used while covering political news has the effect of amplifying tension and driving wedges into society or deepening existing divisions. Coverage of polical protests over the Israeli-Gaza conflict demonstrates the media’s inability to layout facts rather than inflame the population with divisive, emotional drivel. In many cases, the bias is extreme so that one side commits to their source to reinforce or rationalize their opinions without even a hint of a counterargument. On the other side, some sources masterfully utilize false equivelnces to maximize the appeal to both sides of the argument and intensify the divide.
It must be noted that this behavior operates out of necessity for the continuation of the industry. Without some form of attraction, there would be no way to sustain the service. The question becomes: how does the media balance its responsibility to the community to promote civil discourse while maintaining the required (or desired) viewership? Some would argue that sensationalism is required simply to acquire and keep viewers in an oversaturated media landscape. No previous time in history has viewership (or readership) been such a contentious resource. In my opinion, there is no need for as many sources of biased information as we have now. The gains from sensationalism are short-term, but the consequences are long-term, and have the potential to be profound. It’s easier said than done, but the media needs to find a way to prioritize their role as disseminators of information.
Does anyone else get pissed that the titles of articles or videos are just long enough to spark your curiosity yet too long to be displayed without clicking the link to know if it is worth viewing? The curse of clickbait culture is that it prioritizes sensations at the expense of substance. Media sources have mastered the art of reeling in viewers with provocative but incomplete headlines. I have found that I have a 40/60 chance of continuing to consume the content versus clicking out of the article or video. The creativity used to trap viewers could be better spent on reporting in-depth and factual content. It leads me to conclude that the source has no confidence in its ability to engage their readers with quality journalism. They resort to the fiscal safety of fearmongering, with a dash of hatemongering, to ensure the captivity of their audience; public safety is an afterthought.
Worst of all is the partisan punditry. Cable networks, as well as online platforms, feature a plethora of pundits who have no pretense of disguising their ideological echo chambers. However, I find the media sources who do attempt to disguise their echo chambers worse. YouTube channels are the best example of this, with an emphasis on “progressive” content. For all their preaching against echo chambers, it’s unclear whether they can’t hear themselves or whether they can only hear themselves. This type of messaging is often done under the pretense of not “Both-sidesing” issues. I agree that both sides of the topics which they discuss are certainly not equally valid. However, I feel that most of their message is lost in the noise while their hypocrisy is amplified.
The sensationalism, the clickbait, and the punditry have quantitative and qualitative effects on the public. A 2023 Gallup poll indicated that U.S. citizens’ trust in the mass media to report news “fully, accuarately, and fairy” remains near a historic low. The level of trust matched the record low of 2016. Distrust among Democrats is a large contributor to this trend. Also, a YouGov survey from April of 2023 revealed varied trust levels throughout different media organizations. This clearly points to the varying degrees of trust among different sources. For a more detailed examination look here.
The unchecked hostility in media rhetoric threatens civil discourse and societal harmony. Furthermore, it does nothing to promote this nation’s democratic values. The temptation of sensational journalism may be alluring. Media sources who view themselves to be responsible must refrain from making conflict and hate the priority of their content. If the media are not up to the challenge, it becomes the responsibility of the citizens to refrain from consuming the civil discord encouraged by the reckless narrative being delivered. Starving out the viewership of these hostile and antagonistic messaging factories is my proposed solution. Starving is a bit hyperbolic—I suggest making an effort to succumb to less clickbait. As a personal goal, I plan to reduce the number of articles that I get suckered into by making a deliberate effort to refuse to look at every third article or video with an incomplete title displayed. My other goal is to resume listening to NPR, which I find to be mostly devoid of emotional stimuli but contains high-quality content. Start with small steps. The less we engage with current media sources, the more incentive they have to modify their rhetoric and messaging.
