“Political Finger-Pointing in the Digital Age”

Who’s to blame for the polarized political scene causing an inefficient Washington…elected officials or today’s news consumers?

News habits differ greatly among the political spectrum.

Polarized parties could perhaps be the greatest contributor to inefficiency in Washington. The public’s tendency to click on articles reflecting their personal bias only fuels this polarized system. 

Americans tend to point fingers at elected officials in Washington for not comprising with leaders of the opposing party.

But, are those pointing just as guilty?

The Pew Research Center has done extensive research exploring a correlation between political polarization and American’s online behavior.  Sites frequently visited for news, reveal a good bit about where someone lies on the political spectrum.

It’s easy to blame the media for only presenting biased news. Yet, the media industry technically lays a solid spread on the table for Americans to pick and choose from. The biased media outlets actually take the lead in ratings and profits. Americans appear to have an economic preference for like-minded news. Consequently, biased media sources gain more attention and subscribers on average.

Sitting centerfold is often seen as the non-risky, politically correct spot to be. But in this digital age, the center may be the riskier move for media profitability.

A one-sided, stubborn attitude is becoming characteristic of an “American identity”.  We pick a side and run with it. Politics provide the perfect platform for an ideologically stubborn identity to thrive…and destroy any hope of compromise while doing so. It comes as no surprise that diplomatic compromise seems almost out of the picture in America’s two-party system. 

Could my decision to frequent the same papers and networks actually be contributing to the inefficiency in Washington? 

Research supports this scary, yet highly possible connection.

Political polarization is linked to people’s information environment. Essentially, their news sources and social media accounts. News outlets that lean to one side are simply more profitable in this day and age.

Variance occurs in regards to their ‘trust rating’. For example, conservatives only showed 14% trust in left-leaning sources like CNN, but 88% in the conservative giant Fox. With an increasing gap between ideological preferences, each side looks to the other as an enemy.

CNN and Fox News had a high trust rating overall, representing the centrist majority in America – often overshadowed by polarized politicians and biased news consumers.

Tony Dokoupil of NBC news told The Week in an interview a few years ago that "at the center of national sentiment there's no longer a chasm but a common ground where a diverse and growing majority — 51 percent — is bound by a surprising set of shared ideas.”

Four years have passed since Dokoupil’s statement. So why does America find itself more polarized than ever? Technological development is keeping pace quickly with the growing political divide.

Access to hundreds of news article, social media, the blogosphere, etc. at the click of a button presents Americans with a choice. The choice to either absorb information from sites that prop up their preconceived beliefs, or to explore the other side.

Developments in this digital age should educate opposing views through a new information environment. A politically educated public is possible.

Americans hesitation to want oneness and sameness is evident in the public’s struggle to work together in a respectful and positive environment. Our leaders are not leading by example. A continued lack of diplomacy in our politics could lead to a more divided, less efficient America.

However, the rise of the digital age presents a new argument in favor of the congressman. Mr. Congressman has credible reasons to point back at the American public in blaming the political divide.

Consumers should attempt a cognitive effort to consume news from both sides of the political spectrum. The party divide will only grow if citizens do not take responsibility for hearing both sides of each political argument before forming a concrete opinion.

Who knows? Maybe America’s political leaders will take a hint from the public.

United we 'Stand'

The American catchphrase ‘United we stand’ has recently been gaining a lot of attention.

NFL athletes have been using their massive fan-base and media attention at primetime football games as a platform to perform peaceful protests via kneeling during the National Anthem. As American citizens, these players obviously have a right to protest and the freedom to express their dissatisfaction with the government’s attempts to improve racial equality in the nation… but is during the national anthem the appropriate time for this?

The national anthem does have historical roots as America’s solemn patriotic song that expresses national identity.

Steeler’s player Alejandro Villanueva sees both sides of the argument as a former marine and current NFL starting left tackle. He revealed which team he favored during the Steelers/ Bears game Sunday when he proudly walked onto the field out of the locker room tunnel, solo. But now in Monday morning quarterback fashion, Villanueva is looking back at his actions with regret, now stating that he “threw the Steelers under the bus” during the National Anthem.

Should Americans in general be forced to pick a side in the pair-up between Trump’s anti-kneeling stance and the NFL’s promotion of peaceful protest?

Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys’ actions revealed that, finally, someone was taking a deeper look at the whole issue through the lenses of varying perspectives. Instead of kneeling during the National Anthem itself and possibly disrespecting those that have served in the US Military, the Cowboys took a knee, together, before the national anthem ever began to show that their views on the racial inequalities in our nation are still strong.

Perspective is a valuable tool in addressing conflict. For once, both teams can win.