Essay On Political Polarization

In the study, each source was ranked based on the political leanings of its audience. As a result, it ranked sources such as Buzzfeed more liberal than average while it ranked sources such as the Rush Limbaugh Show more conservative than average. However, none of the sources earned a perfectly neutral ranking (Wormald). The correlation between news sources and their audience’s political leanings becomes interesting when compared to the type of content each news source produces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is infamous for his conservative rhetoric, whereas Buzzfeed is known for its lighthearted quizzes and comical representation of liberal politics. This reveals something about our perception of truth: biased sources allow individuals to ‘select’ the truth. When conflicting information is pushed to the side, it becomes nonexistent. Subsequently, the sum of partial truths interpreted by an individual becomes a whole truth in their mind, especially when partial truths are reinforced by mainstream media sources such as Buzzfeed or the Rush Limbaugh Show. This is harmful because, as Lewis implied, the entire truth is lost in this process and mutual understanding becomes harder to

Viewers are starting to realize that media bias is very prominent in the news, especially in today’s political climate. Due to the fact that there is so much bias in the media, viewers easily can tell whether a news channel is conservative or liberal. The viewer should not even know the political stance of a news broadcasting network. Although many look to the news to validate their opinions, many would rather be provided with just facts. Viewers are beginning to become more open minded and are giving their attention to media outlets who are more factual. People are now watching other news outlets rather than watching major networks, who have biased content. Bias and groupthink in the media should be eliminated because viewers are making a shift from biased news outlets to more factual news

Journalists play an important part in the democratic process. Traditionally, the roles of the news media are to provide a forum for debate, represent opposing perspectives on the day’s issues and hold public officials accountable while serving their constituents. However, in recent decades, media has given way to biased forms of news— partisan media. In Matthew Levendusky’s “How Partisan Media Polarize America,” he explores if these partisan media influences viewers. The book’s second chapter, “What Do Partisan Media Actually Say?” concludes that partisan media promotes a larger agenda separately to Democrats and Republicans, attack the opposing side while denouncing compromise, and usually side with their candidate of choice during

A Washington Times story last week screamed, “Americans increasingly seeking media outlets that confirm pre-existing partisan views.” The Public Policy Polling people recently found Republicans only trust Fox News while Democrats trust any news other than

Does Nicolas Carr, author of “How Social Media Is Ruining Politics” provide enough evidence that social media is ruining politics? The answer is a very obvious yes. Overtime, social media has slowly polarized the political perception of the American people. Social Networking is a new, popular medium that has changed the nature of political conversation. Therefore, it has become both a good thing and a bad thing. It has encouraged those who once did not partake in the political process to participate. Social networking is very useful to find out news and information ahead of the news media.. “It has become an easy way for political candidates to connect and communicate with the American people.” (Carr 1) While social media might provide the candidates with a form of convenience because it simplifies and speeds up the communication process, it also provides many ways for their campaigns to be easily and deliberately attacked. Unfortunately, what receives the most attention on social media is outrageous statements. Some candidates like Donald Trump know how to use this to their advantage. The danger in this is that candidates tend to use abrasive soundbites to grab the attention of the social media user. Unfortunately, the abrasive soundbites are often taken out the intended context. Other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush did not come to this realization as quickly because they did not want to take the chance of hindering their image. They understood that a

Robert J. Samuelson’s essay, “Picking Sides for the News,” details the problem of citizens only hearing the news that they want to hear through statistics. Samuelson begins his essay by giving the reader the opinion of Americans in regards to news being reported. He goes on to say that Americans are increasingly choosing to listen to news based on “partisanship,” meaning conservatives listen to Republican news and liberals listen to Democratic news. Samuelson highlights the fact that most Americans are starting to not believe what they hear in the news, partisan growth resulting because of the distrust. Samuelson concludes his essay by describing why the reader should care. He believes the reader should care because the media’s bias’ are shaping

Consumers now have access to more information than in any other point in history, and are being subjected to partisan news on a larger scale than ever before. Partisan news outlets, such as Fox News and MSNBC tailor their broadcasts to appeal to the confirmation bias of their target audiences. Each network not only chooses which stories to run based on the interest of their target demographic, but also frames the facts in a way that leads consumers to believe that their own beliefs, however factual, are correct, which aligns with a scientific principle known as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to seek out information that aligns with their beliefs,

Often times people utilize certain sources and watch certain news channels because these viewers can relate to the views on these sources. It can make one believe that his/her perspective is correct simply because that is what the new source is providing. Viewers watch news sources that share the same opinions as their own, because these viewers are just as bias as the sources; these viewers favor one side, as do the news sources. John Stossel, a Fox News reporter discusses the book “Bias” with author Bernie Goldberg, an ex CBS News reporter. John expected for ABC to read the book and disagree with Bernie on the ABC news channel (Goldberg and Stossel). However, these people were proud of not reading the book and gave it no attention. Even if one does not agree with a certain viewpoint, it is very important to hear the different perspectives because it allows the viewer to see and hear other people’s opinion. Because most news sources do not include all sides, it becomes difficult for an individual to

I truly agree to the statement of Fareed Zakaria on why political polarization has gone wild in America. He said over the last few decades, the rules of organizing American politics have changed. This is in regards to the changes in congressional rules that made it more difficult to enact large compromise legislation (Zakaria, 2011). This is the type of problem, we as citizens of this country and the nation will compel to face if no changes will occur.

Representation is an essential component of a republic, yet moneyed interests often seem to carry more weight in congressional representation than the interests of the average citizen. One avenue in which big money can affect polarization is through election communication. For language and communication is the avenue for political conflict and developing policy outcomes (Grimmer and Stewart, 2013). Moreover, voters have ideological preferences that match with the candidates but do not know who is the closest candidates is to their positions. Electoral communications become a salient venue to highlight the congruence between a candidate’s ideological position and a candidate’s (Krupnikov, 2011). Now Super PACs have become an avenue by which

In this paper I will discuss the matter of the two-party system and the issue of polarization of thought in America. With the system under which we live, political and moral thought is limited by political identity in that individual’s ideas must conform entirely to their thought of their political party otherwise they would be discredited. Non-conformist thought is seen as immoral because to lean too far onto the side of the opposing political party is extremely frowned upon as the other side is seen as immoral. Additionally, each political party is polarized in that the ideals of the party that are presente a the governmental level are extreme, whereas the political ideas of individuals may not be. Because of this, we are only shown the polarized

We live in a world blanketed by the darkness of ignorance. Instead of blindly searching for the black or white answers, we must defeat the enemy by moving toward common ground. Currently in politics, we see the negative effect of polarization as the presidential campaign has become candidate centered rather than issue centered. We see the candidates resort to bully-like tactics where they attack each other personally, rather than focusing on the issues at hand. While it is said that polarity is an integral part of nature, we need our differences to bring us together as a whole, rather than drive us apart. Polarization is inevitable due to the unique design of every individual, but issues are seen as either black or white, when really

Of the many conversations pertaining to the United States on a global scale, the presumed superpower has found itself as the center of a myriad of debates concerning its probable demise as a hegemon. Many experts conclude that this decline is a result of threats imposed by emerging powers like Russia and China. I argue that the internal issues of polarization and trust in the government are potentially paving the path of slow decline for the United States on an international level. As this paper aims to support my argument, the first portion will describe the U.S.’s rising political gap, as well as its correlation to the American public’s low level of confidence in the federal government’s performance. The second section of this

Whether it is news channels on the television or whether it is Twitter and Facebook news, the public will always have a way to find out current reports. Since society has become so dependent on technology, a greater amount of individuals get their actual news online and especially through social media. As many of the public know, you cannot trust what people online are saying. Since individuals are so accustomed to getting the news online, many of them tend to believe what they just happen to scroll across on Twitter and Facebook or any other sort of social media. Finding actual facts and truths on the news have become so difficult now, due to all of the millions of different sites and places where we can get our news from. The news online tend to be biased and untrue due to how openly and freely individuals can create their own site and “reports” on current events such as a real news channels would. Social media has just made it more complicated to find the actual accuracy of current events but with enough research, dedication, and using the SMELL test, finding the right information would not be as

Previously I discussed how and why polarization is created, further, I will be discussing to what extent are we experiencing polarization currently and what effect does polarization have in the United States. John Duca introduced the idea of media fragmentation which is the concept of increasing the number of platforms that media is available on and more access to media. In, "New Media and the Polarization of American Political Discourse" Matthew Baum analyzes the use of the internet as a news source and its effect on political polarization. The data presented shows that both left and right news sources skew their stories in their favors while bipartisan sources are more likely to cover critical stories of each given political party.