How Media Influences Your Thinking

Much has been made of the divides between America’s political camps, yet something could be said about what they both share in common. When they see something done that they deplore and others cheer, they are apt to look at those who favor such actions and return to the question: “How can anyone support that?”

Why are perspectives about ideas and events so radically different? The answer seems to be, in large part, a matter of inputs. By “inputs,” I mean our news, information, and entertainment sources. We now have an abundance of inputs—news sources reflecting every conceivable perspective, available on a range of platforms, including podcasts, YouTube videos, and social media, to say nothing of magazines, television, and newspapers (even as these older forms of media have seen their audiences decline significantly). This new era has meant that, for example, when we disagree with someone, we no longer disagree over different interpretations of a nightly newscast. More often than not, our disagreement comes from a misalignment of inputs, in which I feel I understand an issue from reading publications A, B, and C, and you feel you understand it from reading publications X, Y, and Z. Each of these publications offer a very different perspective on the matter.

Our niche perspectives are then reinforced by social media echo chambers in which we discuss and share our opinions with others who share our views, but rarely with those who do not. These trends have also made us more vulnerable to misinformation. When not exposed to ideas outside our ideological comfort zone, we lose the needed perspective for identifying false data or information founded on shoddy thinking. Or we can find ourselves fed up with the groupthink in our bubbles and become too uncritically enamored with ideas that come from beyond our narrow inputs, embracing the bad with the good simply because they represent the heterodoxy for which we have been starved.

What are the implications? It means we all see the world through a particular lens. If one only consumes content from NPR, The Atlantic, The New York Times, Threads, and Bluesky, one will draw from a very different set of information and develop different priors about the world from someone who only consumes content from The Free Press, X, The Joe Rogan Experience, Marginal Revolution, and National Review.

What can we do to address this? First, we should maintain an awareness of the problem. We need to be aware of the challenges of bias; being aware of the problem is a first step to solving it. Just as we should remain aware of biases driven by region or socioeconomic position, we should be aware of biases driven by different inputs. When we speak to someone with whom we disagree, we may think, “How can they possibly believe this?” We should consider the likelihood that there is not just a gulf in beliefs but a gulf in inputs. The question then becomes, “If our inputs were aligned, if we each consumed the same news sources, would this person still hold their present position on this issue? Would I?” Even if the answer to these questions is “yes,” being in the habit of asking them is a de-escalatory practice when the public debate badly needs de-escalation. It is a starting point for rebuilding the sense of common understanding of the world that has gradually eroded over the last decade. And that is worthwhile indeed.

Second, we can make an effort to expose ourselves to other inputs. Do we read articles, watch videos, and listen to podcasts made by people with opposing views? Do we invite people with opposing views to our gatherings and welcome them into our communities? And do we expose ourselves to accurate, fair, reasonable, and balanced inputs? Being able to answer yes to these questions is not easy. It takes effort, and no small measure of courage, to engage with inputs and people we disagree with, whose perspectives may even anger or disturb us. But we are in a moment when, for many, being angry and disturbed is the order of the day, an inescapable reality, whether we like it or not. We cannot avoid the unsettling feelings caused by those we disagree with. We can engage with these people and perspectives face-to-face, or live with the consequences of engagement that only come through zero-sum political fights. It is up to us to choose the ground on which we engage. It might involve conflict, where differing perspectives drive the interaction. Or, it might be a dialogue, where we take the uncomfortable steps necessary to bring people together for conversations that shed light, not heat.

Finally, as a habit of mind, we can write and speak in ways that build bridges to others with different inputs. We are in a moment when basic norms of civility and respect are often downplayed or neglected. Yet they are essential for creating an environment in which constructive engagement can happen. This begins with giving others the benefit of the doubt, with assuming that they might be coming from a place of different inputs rather than one of ignorance or intentional malice. When we extend the benefit of the doubt, we can cultivate modes of engagement that lead with respect that draws people in; this starts conversations rather than ends them.

A version of this post also appears on Substack.