by Mike Smith It’s a stunning transformation to witness. In restaurants, airports and other public places, often our companion is not the person sitting with us, but rather the electronic device we are clinging to. More and more our heads are pointed down, our eyes are glued to phones, tablets or computers, and we are focused solely on what is being transmitted over that device, oblivious to what is happening around us. And although we have the capacity to communicate more broadly and expand our knowledge and horizons, the question is: do we?
Ironically, the vastness of the information age has also given us the option to isolate ourselves in a bubble with others of like minds. Our knowledge of the world doesn’t expand, rather it constricts ,and all information that doesn’t conform to our point of view can be blocked, disregarded or mocked.
News organizations now cater to a growing appetite for information that closely mirrors our views. Those who seek a liberal view will watch and follow MSNBC, while those seeking a more conservative view will watch and follow Fox News. Many people reading The New York Times are seeking a liberal perspective while those seeking a more conservative take may gravitate to The Wall Street Journal.
Not so long ago, these same outlets proclaimed their objectivity and their commitment to fair news coverage. Today, they seem to embrace their bias and use it to attract more viewers or readers who simply agree with their slant. We’ve become reliant on news outlets that offer a particular perspective, and are very distrustful of those other outlets that may offer a different view.
Have you asked a conservative lately to watch and consider the value in Rachel Maddow’s perspective? Similarly, would a liberal find value in the opinions of Bill O’Reilly? Any news organization that seeks to strike a balance is sure to struggle to find a steady following. There’s nothing wrong with this natural tendency to seek perspectives that agree with our own point of view, but when it’s done at the exclusion of other, more diverse opinion, it becomes counterproductive, divisive and even dangerous.
Harvard Law professor Cass R. Sunstein in his book “Why Groups Go To Extremes” argues that like-minded groups tend to become more extreme in their views because those views are constantly reinforced by people who only agree with them. And that’s where things get dangerous. The absence of diverse or contrary opinion can lead to polarization, even radicalization. Certainly our political environment nowadays seems to be polarized, perhaps because of a greater tendency to seek out information and relationships that are solely in line with our political perspectives.
Taking it a step further, the way we communicate with those we disagree with has changed dramatically over the last few years — and not for the better. We find ourselves buried ever deeper in our devices, reading texts during dinner, scrolling Facebook vacation photos during gatherings, reading snarky tweets late into the night. And when we catch a post, tweet or message we disagree with, the comments can be brutal.
Comment sections associated with news articles are frequently filled with responses no one would ever say face-to-face to a person. Two things could happen if these vicious comments were personally conveyed. The person would see firsthand the emotional pain their words inflict, or they would feel the pain of a violent rebuttal. In this way, how we communicate has lost core elements of healthy human interaction and we have become insensitive, even hostile, to diverse opinion. It seems that our objective is to demean and discredit those we disagree with rather than to debate, question and even understand their point of view.
This social media culture has also enhanced our sense of self-importance. A person’s Twitter feed, Facebook page, Instagram and Snapchats give them the power to decide what’s important, and in too many cases they conclude it’s themselves. We have become self-absorbed with the importance of our own situation and opinions and less sensitive to those of others. We seem to be losing our perspective between what is inconvenient and what is life altering. For example, tweets of one’s plane being delayed for weather reasons should not seek the same attention or importance as refugees fleeing war, or soldiers in harm’s way, or the homeless mother with children. There is simply no equivalence.
So, as technology offers more and better ways to communicate with the world, it’s odd to think we need to guard against isolating ourselves inside an information bubble. But that’s our challenge: to expand beyond that bubble and seek diverse perspectives. It is through this knowledge that we may find ways to seek solutions to what now seem like intractable problems and polarizing issues.
Mike Smith was the secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Gov. Jim Douglas. He is the host of the radio program, “Open Mike with Mike Smith,” on WDEV 550 AM and 96.1, 96.5 and 101.9 FM. He is also a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to The Times Argus, Rutland Herald and Vermont Business Magazine.