The filter bubble phenomena has been on my mind for the last few weeks as I’ve contemplated its reach beyond our individual web footprints and considered media production and consumption overall.
There’s a constant tug of war for media outlets, between making money by giving consumers what they want versus providing what we need at an acceptable cost. Amazon knows I’m apt to buy more books if it recommends reads similar (in content and in style) to ones I’ve already read, though I’d be more well-rounded if I read outside my comfort zone now and again. Print, online and television news sources develop their own framework for reporting based on the audience demographics being targeted: Fox News reports to the right of mainstream; MSNBC embraces the left. And their framework is typically meant to fire up their viewers to keep them coming back for more. As Jon Stewart pointed out this weekend at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear:
The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.
Does ignorance of the full spectrum of information and interpretation available to the public, threaten our ability to exchange ideas and shake up the status quo to reach amenable compromises on urgent issues? Groupthink experiments point to the greater cost. Living in a media bubble, as conflict- free and as comforting as it may seem to be, takes a toll on our ability to think as independent actors, which, may in turn, amp polarization in this country. It becomes increasingly difficult to express sentiment that falls outside the echo chamber that makes up our preferred media channels.
In The Element, Ken Robinson reviews the Solomon Asch conformity experiments of the 1950s. Subjects were placed with groups of fellow college students whose answers to a set of questions had been coached to be wrong the majority of the time; the experimental subject had no idea as to the preparation of fellow group members. With planted group members repeatedly responding incorrectly to questions, the experimental subject answered incorrectly, as well, the majority of the time. Test respondents readily admitted that they responded contrary to answers they believed to be true out of fear of being called out for straying from the majority opinion. Subjects wanted to fit in and self-censored accordingly.
Our ability to voice opinions contrary to the majority, let alone consider alternatives to popular sentiment is limited in a media vacuum that constantly regurgitates the talking points we want or — worse — expect to hear.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Lately, the Daily Dish’s Andrew Sullivan has been posting reader comments about whether liberals should do interviews on FOX News. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Rachel Maddow regularly implores conservatives to be guests on her show for a fact-based discussion of trending issues.
There is tremendous value in even hearing varied opinions, whether or not they are your own. In Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, the Brafman brothers noted the power of dissent in another Asch study. Repeating the same scenario, one of the control subjects in the group was directed to answer independently, while the others continued to respond with wrong answers.
The dissenting actor didn’t even need to give the right answer to inspire the real participant to speak up with the correct response; all it took to break the sway was for someone to give an answer that was different from the majority. (p.155)
If the mere presence of a differing opinion can change the participation choices of an experimental subject, what would hearty debate of the issues do for viewers at home? As it stands, we’re mostly standing in an echo chamber of reiterated talking points. Could it bring more voices into the fray?
And if we create space where we can be open to disagreement about the solutions, can we create space that allows us to more completely expose the range of options, including those in our worldview periphery, in such a manner that we could find the common ground we need to move forward on urgent issues?
Recent Comments