A Critical Examination of Polarization, Misinformation, and the Role of Journalists
There has been much discussion of the role of journalists in a much polarized public sphere where misinformation fuels polarization and division within our societies and journalists have the responsibility of identifying the lines between truth and lies.
During this educational program, foreign journalists, with the help of the three expert speakers, dove into the intersection of polarization and misinformation, understanding their meaning, their driving forces, and what can be viewed as solutions to protect ourselves and democracies from breaking our society in polarized divisions, and what the role of a journalist is within this framework.
The experts on the panel offered a diverse range of perspectives.
Among them was Robert Y. Shapiro, a professor and former chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, who previously served as acting director of Columbia’s Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP). Shapiro specializes in American politics with research and teaching interests in public opinion, policymaking, political leadership, the mass media, and applications of statistical methods.
Joining him was Anya Schiffrin, who is the director of the Technology, Media, and Communications at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and a lecturer who teaches on global media, innovation and human rights. She writes on journalism and development, investigative reporting in the global south and has published extensively over the last decade on the media in Africa. More recently she has become focused on solutions to the problem of online disinformation, earning her Ph.D. on the topic from the University of Navarra.
Last but not least was Jere Van Dyk, a journalist and author who has focused much of his writing on far-away, mostly dangerous places, particularly Afghanistan and Pakistan. Van Dyk has appeared on a multitude of broadcast networks, including: BBC, CBS, CNN, WABC, WNBC, al-Jazeera, C-Span, FOX Radio, NPR, RT, VOA, Jon Stewart, Morning Joe, and Charlie Rose. He has given talks around the country and overseas, including at the U.S. State Department, the Carnegie Council, the Carnegie Corporation, New America Foundation, Google, Microsoft, World Affairs Councils, public schools, universities, security companies, and private organizations around the country, and overseas.
This educational program was held on Tuesday, March 28 and was moderated by journalist Thanos Dimadis, who is AFPC-USA’s Executive Director.
The AFPC-USA is solely responsible for the content of this educational program. Below, readers will find a summary of some of the most important takeaways from the presentation.
ON THE ROLE OF PARTISANSHIP IN CREATING A DIVIDED AND POLARIZED SOCIETY
Shapiro says there is a “ferocity and the hostility in current politics that's fraught with misinformation, disinformation, and lies” that “has been the result of the high level of emotions in American politics” which have “stemmed from partisan conflict in polarization.” He adds that “the neglected part of that context is the substantive part of partisan conflict and polarization, which is based on policy issues, differences in ideology, and also the competitiveness of the parties for control of the United States government.”
Shapiro points out that the Democratic and Republican parties have become “ideologically distinctive” from each other and discusses how both parties’ priorities flipped during the Civil Rights Movement and how that influenced former President Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy and beyond.
Over time, he notes, “elections became more important with that greater importance in terms of changes in policy” and politics became “much more emotional” and the two parties “were competing for control of government to shift the direction of public policy on issues” such as abortion, civil rights, and LGBTQ+ rights.
ON MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION
Shapiro says both misinformation and disinformation are employed “to take control of the public opinion.”
Schiffrin says misinformation and disinformation have gotten worse because of social media platforms, which allow falsehoods to go viral. Also impacting this: The decline in local news. “Trust initiatives” gained prominence in the aftermath of the 2016 election, when journalists took it upon themselves to increase overall media trust. Companies like Meta—then just Facebook—expanded the fact-checking movement as a way to avoid public regulation. Additionally, journalists have worked with whistleblowers to expose the bad behavior of the big tech companies.
Van Dyk observes that journalism has become more of an “elite profession” since the Watergate scandal and that “perception is everything” in politics. He stresses that it is very important to speak to people “on the ground” as much as possible to bridge the divide that is is characteristic of a current “class war” that was, at least in part, inflamed by Fox News, which is currently experiencing a reckoning due to the misinformation it has put out.
Van Dyk adds that the polarization he’s witnessed in the United States is not unlike what he witnessed during his time reporting in the Middle East, where indoctrination via the jihadist movement originates.
Schiffrin is not entirely convinced that journalists are to blame for much of this shift, pointing to a degree of anti-intellectualism in the United States that has in the past afflicted (“shyster”) lawyers, (“quack”) doctors, and (“bossy”) teachers.
ON ATTITUDES TOWARD THE PRESS AS WELL AS “HEIGHTENED EMOTION” IN AMERICAN POLITICS
According to Shapiro, polarization and partisan conflict with respect to hostility toward the press “was driven at the level of political leadership and then penetrated to the level of, of public opinion subsequently in terms of the partisan conflict that occurred.”
He points out that the two political parties are “diametrically opposed” on issues like abortion as well as new issues as they pop up. He says the United States is in need of “statesmen who see the need to compromise and lower the level of conflict and emotion in politics as being more important than the distances between the parties and the candidates on issues.”
ON MEDIA CAPTURE
The idea of media capture was “born out of economics,” says Schiffrin, who adds that regulatory agencies over time have become rather “sympathetic” to “the people they’re supposed to be regulating.” Journalists have become more open to discussing media capture in recent years because it’s “so prevalent.” Poland and Hungary are the “best” European examples, she points out, and historically, many media outlets in Latin America were either “corporate-controlled” or “in bed with the government.” The best example in the U.S. at the moment is Fox News, which was deferential and flattering to former President Donald Trump until the network largely “split.”
Van Dyk points out that journalists who work for major news organizations “have to be careful” because they can’t necessarily “go outside what they may want to project.”
