The major news of the past week or so has been about the now infamous statement “[his claim about Plan Parenthood] was not intended to be a factual statement” by senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) in response to his claim that over 90% of the work done at Plan Parenthood are abortions. The major news outlets are responding that his response is indicative of the disproportionate attention that political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and pundits like them have received. They feel that these programs, and implicitly Fox News, have been sowing misinformation and political discord which has been negatively affecting the political process.
The two claims that have got my attention are that a) our political environment has become more partisan than it was in the past, and b) the production of misinformation is the source of this partisanship. Arguments about these claims have been circulating for some time. To my knowledge, claim (a) has not been disputed by either side. Rather, both sides claim that the other is responsible for elevating the intensity of the rhetoric and presenting false information.
The vitriol in politics, to my knowledge, is not new. When it comes to disagreements about a topic that many consider central to their system of belief the rhetoric around the debate can get quite ugly. The recent slump in the economy and various attempts to fix the problem have brought some people's opinions about the fiscal policies of the government to the forefront of the national debate. Money, even in less financially difficult times, is a subject that can break up friendships and marriages. It wouldn't be surprising that the intensity of the debate centers around the particular subject material, not the misinformation and spin produced by the political commentators. In short, there isn't a necessary relationship between the pundits and rogue news programs, and the dialogue between disagreeing parties.
These claims are such that it should be possible to empirically test them. Since there are different countries with relatively similar cultures, but with different news distributors, we could examine the dialogue in other countries and see whether the tone is different. While a different culture might be able to account for some variation between debate within the States and elsewhere, a similarity between these cultures would be indicative of problems with news production. We could also see what the effect of false information has been on a debate. By judging the polarizing effect of information and particular topic within a debate, we should be able to determine if the false information and rhetoric of pundits has a significant affect to a discussions tone.
Since I don't have the resources to do this research, a more conceptual approach to the problem will have to do for the time being. If people form their opinions and act on information received from a reliable source, arguments that use false information to support an argument for the hostile nature of the opposing side would create a more forceful opposition. After all, rallying people against the particular issue is what the argument is intended to do. Why continue to make the arguments if they don't persuade or motivate?
Some believe that people only reaffirm their beliefs, and turn a blind eye toward facts that might challenge the way they believe. As a result, all people do is motivate their base, but not change their frame of mind. While I agree that this does happen, I also believe that more people are open to changing what they believe than many might suspect. Not only do I consistently read about people who have changed what they believe in the face of new facts or good arguments, but I too have changed my mind a few times on important issues. Changing a firmly held belief is not a quick process, but it does happen.
Keep thinking,
Ryan
No comments:
Post a Comment