Heavy snow and difficult travel expected again, heaviest snow in southern Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

It’s a familiar refrain: We live in politically polarized times.

 last year found that a majority of American adults say public discourse has become increasingly disrespectful in recent years. 

But how did it get that way? And what role does the media play in dividing families and communities? 

University of Pennsylvania political science and communications professor Diana Mutz has been studying those questions for years. Her 2015 book “In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media” explores the rapid rise of news programming that encourages verbal sparring.

Dubbing them “shout shows,” Mutz says the format primes people with opposing viewpoints “to really get riled up and to go after one another in a way that we seldom do in our face-to-face exchanges with others.” 

Viewers who participated in Mutz’s research said that even though they found such uncivil programming unattractive, they admitted that they’d probably watch it again over less boisterous shows. 

“Conflict really draws people’s attention in a way that's good for ratings,” she said. “It’s an attention economy that we live in now, and our media organizations are, for the most part, commercial industries. They want to attract more viewers, and this is the way they do it.”

2) Social media raises tolerance for discord

Since Mutz published her book nearly a decade ago, social media, where often anonymous, incendiary and false information proliferates, has exploded and people have come to expect that the traditional media will be uncivil now, said Mutz. 

“Very calm kinds of programs where people exchange political views respectfully, even [in 2015] were viewed as boring. But now, people are accustomed to a huge amount of incivility,” she said. 

“I think it’s an arms race that people keep jumping over the latest uncivil act and basically upping the ante of what is expected from political conflict.” 

Mutz said there’s no question that the media contributes to polarization. Her research shows that people react more positively to incivility displayed by the politicians they agree with compared to the politicians they disagree with. 

“If the person on the left engaged in uncivil dialog, it made you even more convinced they were terrible people if you're on the right, and vice versa. So it didn’t change anyone’s minds,” she said. ”But the way people viewed incivility was quite different when it came from somebody on their side versus the other side.”

In those cases, incivility that comes from someone you agree with already is viewed as righteous indignation and completely justifiable, Mutz said. 

“When the person on the other side was uncivil, they were considered a jerk.”

Because there’s an incentive to grab the attention of the audience, Mutz said that the media tends to present the extremes on both sides, which can lead to stereotyping. 

“When the media presents us with the other side as being someone with extreme views, then we tend to expect that from other people that we meet who are of opposing viewpoints,” she said. 

And that’s bad for face-to-face dialogue with friends and family that can theoretically lead to a more nuanced understanding of where the other side is coming from, she said.

“Yes, [political sparring] is exciting, it’s conflictual and often uncivil, and does draw attention. But it makes us shy away from engaging in dialog in our everyday lives.”

Mutz thinks American media organizations should look to other countries for ways to attract attention to the news without injecting more conflict into the dialog. 

Humor, she said, is a great way to do that. And in the United States, shows like “The Daily Show” have been successful as a result.

In South Korea, media organizations have attracted larger and bigger audiences by giving people incentives to pay attention to election coverage.

“For example, young people take selfies of themselves voting and doing other kinds of political things, and those get run across the screen during the period of the election,” said Mutz. 

”People love seeing themselves on the mission.” 

Other efforts include creating superheroes out of the candidates to explain their records and policy platforms. 

“I think that we haven’t really been very creative here in the United States about how we cover elections. We tend to think it ought to be done the same way it’s always been done, but I think there probably are better ways and ways that might draw in what we would think of as mass audiences,” Mutz said. 

Politics and Government News

Shows

All Things Considered

NewsPartners

Homepage

Talking Sense

Catharine Richert

Author

We live in politically polarized times, and media coverage can be part of the problem, says Diana Mutz, an author and professor who wants American news organizations to rethink how they present political news.

4 ways news media fuel polarization, and some ways to stop it

A TV shows a picture of vice presidential candidates in a cocktail room

4 ways news media fuel polarization, and some ways to stop it

Go Deeper.

Like this?