Does it seem like the media has become more partisan and polarized than it used to be? You may be right and the reason for this, curiously enough, may be the increased competition in the media. As the number of media outlets goes up, the need to find an audience increases both the motivation and usefulness of going after a narrower target audience rather than trying to please everyone.

The Autumn 2005 issue of Wilson Quarterly discusses “Bad News” by Richard A. Posner, in The New York Times Book Review (July 31, 2005)

Imagine a city with only two newspapers. Because the less committed citizens vastly outnumber the partisans, each competitor has a business incentive not to lean too far right or left. But if changed economic conditions reduce the size of the audience needed to make a profit, competitors will multiply. And as the new rivals try to “out-conservative” or “out-liberal” the original papers in order to gain market share, the latter now have incentives to be more politically partisan.

In much the same way, argues Posner, the lowered costs of entry and increased competition in today’s media world have led to “the current tendency to political polarization in news reporting.” For example, when CNN realized that the rising Fox News Channel was drawing away many of its conservative viewers, he says, it shifted left in its coverage to try to strengthen its hold on its remaining viewers.

One thing worth keeping in mind about this situation is that while it may be very different from what people are accustomed to, it only represents a shift from the latter half of the 20th century. During the first half of the 20th century and the latter half of the 19th century, though, a rather similar situation existed with newspapers: most cities had quite a few newspapers and it was common for them to be partisan — very, unapologetically partisan. Newspaper editors from that era would probably look upon our current situation and consider it rather mild.

Still, this leaves us with one question: why do people tolerate media outlets that are so partisan? Why do they “consume” this “news” which is so obviously biased? Don’t they realize that they would be better informed by either looking at news from multiple perspectives or seeking news outlets that are less partisan? Unfortunately, being “better informed” doesn’t appear to be what people actually desire.

The notion that competition increases polarization conflicts with the notion cherished by Left and Right that “people consume news and opinion in order to become well informed about public issues.” If this were so, says Posner, then “liberals would read conservative newspapers, and conservatives liberal newspapers, just as scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them.” In the real world, however, ordinary people don’t act that way. They look instead for news and opinions that support their existing beliefs, and they look for entertainment. “So they accept, and many relish, a partisan press.”

A partisan press not only confirms what people already believe or want to be true, but it often does so in an entertaining way. Rush Limbaugh isn't popular because he is fair, objective, and balanced — he is popular because he confirms conservative prejudices about society in a manner that is entertaining. Liberals probably aren't immune from the same motivations, it's just seems that similar opportunities haven't existed.

For the time being, though, most liberals can perhaps comfort themselves by imagining that at least they don't pay attention to blowhards like Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. So long as there are no liberal equivalents, or at least not as many liberal equivalents as there are conservatives doing this sort of thing, there may be some small justification for imagining it. Indeed, if the situation persists long enough, one would have to wonder if there the pretense has a little bit of truth to it.

 

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics