HOW Did The U.S. Get So Polarized?

[icekid]

As a side note, I am also in this age bracket and a candidate that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal would have my support wholeheartedly. Those two are going to clash on some issues, but I think it could be worked out, and I also feel left behind by the two party system.

I would like that too, Aviastar!

I know we are not supposed to talk politics, but I am with you both

 

[Octavia]

I agree with the media, and particularly social media, being partly to blame. However, I think the parties themselves share at least some of the blame. There has been (IMO) a tendency to put forward candidates on the more extreme side of the platform in many races, and the bad apples spoil the whole barrel, so to speak. I'm registered D but have friends on both sides of the aisle and consider myself fairly centrist. If someone told me they were voting for the R candidate for governor of my state, I'd completely understand (I disliked both candidates and ended up doing a write-in, but seriously considered voting for him); if someone told me they were voting for Mr. Romney, I might not exactly get why, but I wouldn't judge the person harshly for it. However, if someone said they were voting for a candidate who speaks flippantly about the violation of women's bodies (and minds and emotional well-being), I confess I would perceive that person very unfavorably, just as I do the other politicians who rally around those candidates. Get enough examples like this, and over time people will start to believe that it's a party-wide position which colors their view of others affiliated with the party as well. To be fair, I'd imagine there are people who feel that my party has some equally objectionable and polarizing candidates, I just can't think of specific examples to point to right now. Anyway, my point being that the party's decisions to run candidates that they KNOW the vast majority of voters on the "other side" won't just disagree with but will also find completely repugnant, therefore making animosity, ill-will, and nasty campaigns a given, seems to contribute a lot to the divide.

 

[MissGotRocks]

My experience has been that my conservative friends have been the most prolific in terms of posting things on FB. I don't mind you having an opinion and it's OK that it doesn't mirror mine but I do mind that people denegrate the office of the president and make racial slurs. I find that offensive and I'm shocked that people feel that it's OK to stoop to that level. I have not always liked our presidents but it would not cross my mind to write such ugly things. In the last election, I have to admit that my opinion of some of these people have changed and I will be a long time getting past them. I noticed last night that it had not stopped with the election either - some of them continue to persist in their negative comments. I suppose I could start an argument with every one of them but that's not what I really want to do. I had hoped that they would come to their senses, accept the election results and know that we get to do this again in four years. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

my family immigrated from HK in 1966 and in the past 40 yrs right before my eyes i see that our society have changed from a hard working society to a entitlement society...

i go grocery shopping once a week at Asian markets these are some of the stuffs i have been hearing/seeing while standing in line at the checkstand. all these were spoken in Cantonese language.

why should i work when the government pays me more than working for minimum wage?

i need to spent the rest of the balances in my food stamp card b/c i have more money coming (holding a can of $75 abalone in his hand)... i'm thinking in my mind you are serious?.. buying a can of $75 abalone with food stamp money? ..

i guarantee you would never have heard/see this kind of BS from Asian immigrants of 1960's.

lunch time!!

But that's not the point of this thread, DF The question is why are people getting so angry with people who have opposing views (even if they aren't the food stamp abusers)? Suppose you have a doctor or friend that you respect very much, would you lose respect for him or her if you found out they were from the opposite party? If so, why? How did this happen, that politics colors our personal relationships so much?

iLander - it only really is a problem (IMO) if people go overboard with talking about their beliefs. The problem is people are so addicted to posting quotes and photos on FB and do not know when to stop. They cannot control themselves.

 

[Dancing Fire]

What you describe are stereotypes, iLander -- beliefs about the traits and characteristics that group members possess. That is different than bigotry, which implies ill treatment and discrimination against people based on group membership.

Stereotyping is a relatively automatic process, its part of the brain's laziness. Or energy saving methods if you want to be nice about it. I doubt anything will stop people from engaging in stereotyping on some level.

What would perhaps be an interesting question to me, is whether the content of the liberal and conservative stereotyes have changed recently to become more extreme or polarized. I don't know if this is the case or not, its an empirical question.

My answer is yes, very much so.

To the point where people develop an intense hatred for those of opposing view. It seems to me that in the '80's up until the early 2000's an opposing political view was not really remarked upon, now it's a flash point for instant dislike of another. The intensity has increased at least 10-fold.

that statement is so true...i don't hate any liberals, in fact most of my closest friends are liberals. i like listening to their POVs.

 

[missy]

Political bigot is kind of a problematic term.
Bigotry in race, religion, age, and gender is clearly bad and to be avoided.

But politics itself is about how we feel the entire country/state/city should be.
We vote so X prevails over Y.
X and Y cannot coexist; X or Y gets imposed on 100% of the citizenry.
We can't have two presidents, or two opposite laws.
We have to pick one, then 4 years later the other side gets another chance.

By its very nature politics is about not tolerating the other political perspectives, but conquering them via our vote.
This makes politics not one of the social phenomena that fit nicely into the criteria of bigotry vs. tolerance.

That said, I think we should all be respectful and considerate when dealing with people with differing politics.
We fight political battles alone in the voting booth, not person to person.

I agree. That's the only way to stop this bigotry. Be tolerant of others who have different political beliefs. It's not OK to be a bigot in any way and that includes politics. I don't identify with any political party and consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative as I see a few others here do as well. But I have plenty of friends who identify with either the Democrats or Republicans and we have no problem being respectful of each others views. It comes down to respect and tolerance. Two important qualities for a civilized society IMO.

 

[AmeliaG]

I don't know about the Democrats but the Republican Party is polarized within itself. It has split between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I have friends in both camps and neither side sees eye to eye. I'm amazed they're in the same party.

 

[Dancing Fire]

And the media has a significant liberal bias. I have to say that my conservative facebook friends never posted anything harsher than " I like Romney" while my liberal friends posted, and are still posting, some very offensive stuff.

they have been watching too much MSNBC...

 

[missy]

And the media has a significant liberal bias. I have to say that my conservative facebook friends never posted anything harsher than " I like Romney" while my liberal friends posted, and are still posting, some very offensive stuff.

they have been watching too much MSNBC...

We actually like to watch different news channels to get varying perspectives- CNN, Fox and MSNBC are 3 we like to go between when watching certain news coverage of political events. As well as reading different newspapers. We don't believe everything we hear/read but this way we can obtain a more balanced perspective from the media.

 

[missy]

I don't know about the Democrats but the Republican Party is polarized within itself. It has split between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I have friends in both camps and neither side sees eye to eye. I'm amazed they're in the same party.

That's true- they are very divided amongst themselves. Right now it feels to me as if they have extreme people representing their party and that's part of their problem (IMO).

 

[lulu]

I think it would be terrific if President Obama would cancel the Inauguration and instead ask contributors to donate the $75 million
to Hurricane Sandy victims. it would be a terrific unifying gesture.

 

[monarch64]

I think it would be terrific if President Obama would cancel the Inauguration and instead ask contributors to donate the $75 million
to Hurricane Sandy victims. it would be a terrific unifying gesture.

I would never have thought of this, but reading it now it strikes me as a wonderful idea.

I'm friends with conservatives, independents, liberals, and people who won't talk about their political beliefs whatsoever on FB who are also PS members, so I don't want to speak on what my experience has been recently. I really respect all of them or they wouldn't remain "friends." I feel like I received the same respect back, especially from the ones who knew my husband was a candidate for local office, no matter what political flavor those people were. That was very heartening. On one hand, it's easy to fall into the whoa, this country is so polarized way of thinking, but on the other hand, people have a way of surprising you if you are able to open your mind, let go of your ego, and listen to as well as HEAR what they're saying.

 

[ksinger]

If you self-select your news sources for those that stoke your anger and reinforce your bigotry by never challenging it, you will move further in that direction. And you see it.

I work next to a stereotype. Fifty-eight, white male, brings his Bible study guide every day, and when he gets to work he puts on his head phones and turns on our local station - KTOK - with Limbaugh et al, and listens (in spite of being told repeatedly that we are not to do streaming anything on our computers) ALL.DAY.LONG. I know this because he is mostly deaf and can hear the bleedover from his headphones. When I turn around at times and look, I can see him surfing Faux News. Always Faux News. Blessedly, he doesn't talk about politics much, although the few times he has, it has been also stereotypical, with him making Limbaugh-esque supposed-to-be-roaringly-funny-but-aren't remarks about Sandra Fluke's birth control. I can almost guarantee that this man has never read anything that challenged him in the last 20 years at least. He certainly ain't hanging out at The Root, let's just say.

Most of my friends and acquaintances are conservative, although most of my closest friends are not, or, for the few who are, are able to accept me as I am, and I them. It's the ones who act as if those who disagree are the Antichrist bent on establishing Hell on earth that get up my nose. And in a state like Oklahoma - again, not a SINGLE county came close to going Dem, there are a whole BUNCH of those. There have been a lot of quietly seething people at work this late week.

(The county with the closest split was my own, Oklahoma County -which holds OKC, and it split 45/55 Dem/Repub. All the other counties in OK were more in the 65-90% Repub)

 

[MissGotRocks]

If you self-select your news sources for those that stoke your anger and reinforce your bigotry by never challenging it, you will move further in that direction. And you see it.I work next to a stereotype. Fifty-eight, white male, brings his Bible study guide every day, and when he gets to work he puts on his head phones and turns on our local station - KTOK - with Limbaugh et al, and listens (in spite of being told repeatedly that we are not to do streaming anything on our computers) ALL.DAY.LONG. I know this because he is mostly deaf and can hear the bleedover from his headphones. When I turn around at times and look, I can see him surfing Faux News. Always Faux News. Blessedly, he doesn't talk about politics much, although the few times he has, it has been also stereotypical, with him making Limbaugh-esque supposed-to-be-roaringly-funny-but-aren't remarks about Sandra Fluke's birth control. I can almost guarantee that this man has never read anything that challenged him in the last 20 years at least. He certainly ain't hanging out at The Root, let's just say.

Most of my friends and acquaintances are conservative, although most of my closest friends are not, or, for the few who are, are able to accept me as I am, and I them. It's the ones who act as if those who disagree are the Antichrist bent on establishing Hell on earth that get up my nose. And in a state like Oklahoma - again, not a SINGLE county came close to going Dem, there are a whole BUNCH of those. There have been a lot of quietly seething people at work this late week.

(The county with the closest split was my own, Oklahoma County -which holds OKC, and it split 45/55 Dem/Repub. All the other counties in OK were more in the 65-90% Repub)

Truer words were never spoken! These types never want to hear another point of view - let alone consider it. These folks are tuned in to as much negativity as they can find and never realize that it eats into their souls like a bad disease. They spout it all back at you like they thought of it all themselves. Frightening really - a well rounded person considers many points of view before deciding which best suits them and a deep thinking person still continues to weigh information from all sides because they might stand to learn or consider yet another point of view. Spinning on the same dime of hatred of anything that doesn't look exactly like you is dangerous - and frankly these types of people never seem happy. They are too mired down in contempt and disgust to find any bright spot. Politics is like anything else - must be taken in moderation. In spite of who won, the world keeps turning and you have to continue living. Choosing to live it chewing on the daily news feed while keeping yourself in a ball of frustration doesn't seem like a fun way to live it!

 

[missy]

[quote="lulu|1352423809|3301553"]I think it would be terrific if President Obama would cancel the Inauguration and instead ask contributors to donate the $75 million
to Hurricane Sandy victims. it would be a terrific unifying gesture.

I would never have thought of this, but reading it now it strikes me as a wonderful idea.

I'm friends with conservatives, independents, liberals, and people who won't talk about their political beliefs whatsoever on FB who are also PS members, so I don't want to speak on what my experience has been recently. I really respect all of them or they wouldn't remain "friends." I feel like I received the same respect back, especially from the ones who knew my husband was a candidate for local office, no matter what political flavor those people were. That was very heartening. On one hand, it's easy to fall into the whoa, this country is so polarized way of thinking, but on the other hand, people have a way of surprising you if you are able to open your mind, let go of your ego, and listen to as well as HEAR what they're saying.[/quote]

That would be a great gesture! I doubt they would do that though but wow- if he would that would be amazing!!

I agree that if you really listen and hear what people with differing points of view are saying they might do the same for you and that goes a long way! As they say- it takes two to tango.

 

[innerkitten]

My grandfather thinks this happened around the time of the vietnam war ( that the U.S. became polarized ). He just mentioned it the other day to me.

 

[ksinger]

My grandfather thinks this happened around the time of the vietnam war ( that the U.S. became polarized ). He just mentioned it the other day to me.

... which also coincided with the Civil Rights Movement. NOT exactly inconsequential.

 

[kenny]

My grandfather thinks this happened around the time of the vietnam war ( that the U.S. became polarized ). He just mentioned it the other day to me.

... which also coincided with the Civil Rights Movement. NOT exactly inconsequential.

And now those durn gays expect equality.

An open lesbian just got voted into the senate.
Two states voted for gay marriage ... the first to VOTE it in rather than win it in the courts.
The country is changing and this ship has sailed.

I think the anger and resentment we are seeing is similar to the anger in the south after slavery was abolished.
Their old world of privilege vanished, gone with the wind.

If people are equal then nobody's superior.
People get very used to being superior.

 

[partgypsy]

You can call me biased and it could have to do with where I live, but looking at comments posted to news sites, most of the most inflammatory comments are coming from the GOP side. Just in our local news (NC), for the last 4 years, doesn't matter what the news article will be, at least half of the comments will be personal denigrating comments towards the President. For example a (black) hoodlum robs a convenience store and the comments will be "that's Osama Hussein's fiscal policy plan" or "I bet Obama's going to pardon him" and those are some of the more milder comments. Doesn't matter what the article is, completely random article the comments are filled with these, to the point I wonder, do these people have a job?

Many other places on the internet, I have the seen the same thing. Most of the comments are not about a specific policy, but fear based comments Obama being Socialist, Muslim, not American.

The GOP campaign run was no less subtle. when driving from FL to NC I would see GOP paid billboards that said "Special Forces took out one Threat. Election day lets take out the other threat".

The silent majority does not buy into this hate fueled campaign and rejected it on Tuesday.
But the web bullying hasn't stopped. On the WRAL news site, the article about Obama being elected has over 1K comments and counting.

Personally I think the GOP has some serious introspection to do.

 

[aviastar]

You can call me biased and it could have to do with where I live, but looking at comments posted to news sites, most of the most inflammatory comments are coming from the GOP side. Just in our local news (NC), for the last 4 years, doesn't matter what the news article will be, at least half of the comments will be personal denigrating comments towards the President. For example a (black) hoodlum robs a convenience store and the comments will be "that's Osama Hussein's fiscal policy plan" or "I bet Obama's going to pardon him" and those are some of the more milder comments. Doesn't matter what the article is, completely random article the comments are filled with these, to the point I wonder, do these people have a job?

Many other places on the internet, I have the seen the same thing. Most of the comments are not about a specific policy, but fear based comments Obama being Socialist, Muslim, not American.

The GOP campaign run was no less subtle. when driving from FL to NC I would see GOP paid billboards that said "Special Forces took out one Threat. Election day lets take out the other threat".

The silent majority does not buy into this hate fueled campaign and rejected it on Tuesday.
But the web bullying hasn't stopped. On the WRAL news site, the article about Obama being elected has over 1K comments and counting.

Personally I think the GOP has some serious introspection to do.

I think we are treading into dangerous territory when we start picking on one party; PS rules wise, but also in reinforcing the very thing we are trying to explore in this thread- self introspection regarding bias, stereotyping, and having an open mind. And it's already been pointed out in this thread that people read bias according to beliefs they already hold. There are many examples of BOTH parties practicing fearmongering- and many times it is an affiliated PAC or group and not the candidate himself that develops, designs, and pays for ads. For instance, the BBC found that MSNBC was the most biased, according to their rubric, but then you have to take into account the BBC bias and the rubric and how the person who wrote the article interpreted it and...it just goes on forever.

I try to read around the 'nets and the comment sections are, frankly, appalling in both directions. It is simply not ok make derogotory comments about a candidate's religion, or lack thereof. And Romeny's LDS faith got just as much negative (Slate, for example seems downright obsessed) as the spurious Muslim stuff aimed at Obama. So let's agree that it's a general problem among Americans; just because a party won this election (SOMEbody is going to win every time) that there is no need for introspection within the group as a whole.

 

[partgypsy]

Like I said, it may have to do with being a blue voter in a red state, but I would say the discourse politically seems to be at an all time low (but then again I wasn't around during the Vietnam era, which was certainly worse).
My FIL who mostly votes Democrat, has a friend who is Libertarian. They argue about politics, and have always been able to do it in a joking and teasing manner. His friend has been sending him emails, links, etc the last 4 years, and they have conversations about those articles. When his friend challenged him who he was going to vote for in the days preceeding the election, and he replied Obama, his long time friend was so angry, and kept calling him "you're stupid you're stupid", to the point it was really upsetting to my FIL.
I am also so tired of the trope that people vote for Obama because they are on the dole.

Because I hate one-sided discourse I read either CNN, local news, or New York Times, so I may have missed the worst of the one-sided attacks (both sides). I personally haven't read much bashing Romney's faith, but it could certainly be out there. Overall I was heartened that attacks based on personal religious belief was not used in the mainstream campaign.

 

[Dancing Fire]

there were less than 10 PSers whom voted for Romney and i am one of them...

 

[ksinger]

You can call me biased and it could have to do with where I live, but looking at comments posted to news sites, most of the most inflammatory comments are coming from the GOP side. Just in our local news (NC), for the last 4 years, doesn't matter what the news article will be, at least half of the comments will be personal denigrating comments towards the President. For example a (black) hoodlum robs a convenience store and the comments will be "that's Osama Hussein's fiscal policy plan" or "I bet Obama's going to pardon him" and those are some of the more milder comments. Doesn't matter what the article is, completely random article the comments are filled with these, to the point I wonder, do these people have a job?

Many other places on the internet, I have the seen the same thing. Most of the comments are not about a specific policy, but fear based comments Obama being Socialist, Muslim, not American.

The GOP campaign run was no less subtle. when driving from FL to NC I would see GOP paid billboards that said "Special Forces took out one Threat. Election day lets take out the other threat".

The silent majority does not buy into this hate fueled campaign and rejected it on Tuesday.
But the web bullying hasn't stopped. On the WRAL news site, the article about Obama being elected has over 1K comments and counting.

Personally I think the GOP has some serious introspection to do.

I think we are treading into dangerous territory when we start picking on one party; PS rules wise, but also in reinforcing the very thing we are trying to explore in this thread- self introspection regarding bias, stereotyping, and having an open mind. And it's already been pointed out in this thread that people read bias according to beliefs they already hold. There are many examples of BOTH parties practicing fearmongering- and many times it is an affiliated PAC or group and not the candidate himself that develops, designs, and pays for ads. For instance, the BBC found that MSNBC was the most biased, according to their rubric, but then you have to take into account the BBC bias and the rubric and how the person who wrote the article interpreted it and...it just goes on forever.

I try to read around the 'nets and the comment sections are, frankly, appalling in both directions. It is simply not ok make derogotory comments about a candidate's religion, or lack thereof. And Romeny's LDS faith got just as much negative (Slate, for example seems downright obsessed) as the spurious Muslim stuff aimed at Obama. So let's agree that it's a general problem among Americans; just because a party won this election (SOMEbody is going to win every time) that there is no need for introspection within the group as a whole.

Oh I think there is. In any disagreement, there truly CAN be one side that is more intransigent than the other, and claims of I know I am but so are you! don't mean that each side is equally to blame. I'm tired of the false equivalence in the name of being "fair".

The GOP - both party leaders and rank and file, needs to decide what they are willing to compromise on. Because the mantra of no compromise ever and ideological purity over all else, brought them some pretty steep losses this cycle. IMO, the Tea Party wing especially made sure they took a beating. That no compromise ever paradigm mixed with a medieval stance on women and candidates who made sure that you KNEW it every time they opened their mouths, did a job. That and ignoring both demographics AND plain old reality. Watching them be utterly astonished (or melting down like Rove on Fox) at the outcome of a race that was pretty much always a wrap for the Dems, showed that many of them were hanging out in a Wayback Time Machine echochamber. The fact that you could have had a site seriously entitled unskewedpolls.com, with the premise that ALL the polls were being skewed by nefarious liberal pollsters, shows how far from reality a good portion of the GOP electorate has strayed. And anger! I live in what I hear now is the 3rd reddest state in the nation. And good grief, the seething anger and fear of change! I've never seen the like. When Lindsay Graham comes out and says, "The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.", you know at least some in the GOP are well aware of the need for that introspection. If all you can generate is anger, you have a big problem.

As one piece I read pointed out, demography is destiny. Nothing will change the fact that white, rural, evangelical, and male are on their way down from being on top. The Republican party will either adjust by moderating their stances, or they will go into the dustbin of history.

 

[iLander]

The US Census bureau, which I'm pretty sure doesn't have an ax to grind, has said that by 2032, whites will no longer be the majority in the U.S.

This does not mean they will be a minority, it means that there will be more citizens who categorize themselves as non-white.

I don't see a problem with that.

I used to be a Republican, back in the day, but the shenanigans like the offensive billboards have lost me.

 

[aviastar]

Ksinger- I don't disagree with anything you've said about the GOP, but a dead pig in a Romney shirt with barbed wire wrapped around its head was left on the doorstep on a Romney campaign office in southern CA this morning. The Dems ran ads of their candidates shooting Rebublican zombies in the head. Jay-Z substituted the name Romney for the word 'bitches' in his song onstage with President Obama standing right there with him. Mr. Romney was also threatened by assasination attempts, just like President Obama.

The Democratic Party doesn't have to have this conversation in the national spolight right now because they won this election; good for them. Doesn't mean they have nothing to work on.

The nastiness, the polarization is widespread across all parties, among all demographics. If we, as individual people, want to work on fixing some of this polarization we can't assume that party affiliation, or lack thereof, lets people off the hook for bad behavior and poor choices. If we want to reject the kind of language and tactics you cited then they must be rejected across the board. All parties, candidates, and citizens should post-mortem a campaign in light of the prinicples and morality they wish to uphold and see where they could have done better.

 

[iLander]

I think there is no room for bad behavior, on either side.

This gets me started on the "TV role models all stink" conversation: most of those reality shows (which I avoid like the plague) generally have people behaving badly. They're impolite, rude, and nasty. And I think people seem to think this is okay behavior. Especially younger viewers. Do we really want to raise a generation of "real housewives" and "snookies"?

I point the finger at the media again.

 

[aviastar]

I think there is no room for bad behavior, on either side.

This gets me started on the "TV role models all stink" conversation: most of those reality shows (which I avoid like the plague) generally have people behaving badly. They're impolite, rude, and nasty. And I think people seem to think this is okay behavior. Especially younger viewers. Do we really want to raise a generation of "real housewives" and "snookies"?

I point the finger at the media again.

I concur!

 

[HollyS]

I don't feel manipulated by the media because I refuse to watch the talking heads.

Turn off the tv, turn off the talk radio. Read news from sources you can trust to tell the truth, or at least look carefully at what is "between the lines".

And, no, I wouldn't say anyone is being made into a bigot by their party or ideologies. Being made into a fool, or taken for a fool . . . sometimes.

 

[VRBeauty]

I'm not going to post a link, because all of the sites I've found that have both letters are on blogs.

These letters are worth reading in their entirety - google "Fordham Coulter" if you'd like to do so.

Apparently at Fordham College (a Jesuit institution) the Republicans and Democrats clubs each invite speakers during the school year, and work together to help stage the events. The Republicans Club recently asked Ann Coulter to speak. Fordham President, Father Joseph McShane, wrote to express his disappointment, noting that "There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative — more heat than light — and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature." Still, he did not disallow the visit - "Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech."

The Republicans Club replied that they had already made the decision to cancel the invitation when they received Father McShane's letter.
"Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it."

All I can say is- Wow. Just wow. Father McShane's letter does a wonderful job of explaining why, even in a land that values free speech almost above all, there is some speech that should be repudiated. The Republican Club's response is equally well thought out. To me, the exchange provides hope that may be some day, the divisiveness we're living in now will fade to the background.

I realize by the way that neither party has cornered the market on incivility and name-calling.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

It is easy to point a finger at the media but I think that is a simplistic answer. I would say that the media may amplify what is going on in society but it is not solely responsible.

The media is, in general, trying to make money and they screen what they will think will make them the most money. If they have targeted a potential niche, they will say what that niche wants to hear and as much as possible. This leads to a certain message being replayed over and over to a certain audience.

For example, 60 years ago, how would realities show like Real Housewives and Jersey Shore be received? A lot of people would have complained very loudly, ratings would have rather low and the show would probably have been taken off the air. Looking into people's private lives was seen as rather distasteful (the neighbourhood gossip was generally portrait rather negatively, even if a lot of people were interested in her stories) and having outrageous shenanigans was not something to boast about. When the first Big Brother was aired (in the Netherlands), it was already a very different society and it became a hit. People were now openly interested in other people's nasty deeds. Since it was a money maker, more and more versions were made. People behaving badly was bringing in the dough so the tv stations went looking for ever more shocking contents. Did society complain or ignore it? No, we lap it up and, by doing so, we guarantee that more such shows will be made. We may shake our heads in disdain but we (as a whole) are watching. This whole trend would die a pretty fast death if we weren't interested.

The same thing can be said about a lot of conspiracy theories that used to be quite fringe beliefs. However, when they are published, more magazines or newspapers are sold, more similar stories are printed and more and more people start to see them as real, since the newspaper published it.

This kind of self enforcing behaviour can be seen all over. Media caters to what sells and it shows us a reflection of ourselves - distorted or amplified, perhaps, but it is something that is within our society.