Evidence of The Division
In 2009 Rush Limbaugh, when talking about Obamas re-election, declared, “I hope he fails” Which sparked controversy nationwide and illustrated the polarization of our country and the partisanship of our media. Media and Political Polarization, written by The Princeton University Associate Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Co-Director Markus Prior offers insight into the polarizing affects of the media in the past 30 years. His fair and unbiased reporting he addresses some of the evidences and influences (with a focus on the media) of polarization. Prior establishes the foundation for his report around one question: “Has the emergence of more partisan media created political polarization and led the American public to support more partisan policies and candidates?” Prior sets out to show that our country is indeed becoming increasingly polarized and provides credible evidence and possible causes of the polarization. Prior is not quarterbacking the movement towards a less polarized nation; however he is not on the sidelines either.
Prior creates a framework for his report by clearly stating what he intends to cover in the report and what he will leave out:. “This article examines if the emergence of more partisan media has contributed to political polarization and led Americans to support more partisan policies and candidates” (101). This helps Prior effectively limit the “twisting” of his intentions by those who may disagree with his method of reporting. This protects his work and may force the audience to do some self examination of their own participation in the polarization.
Prior establishes his ethos by maintaining an objective and fair tone throughout the report. One of the methods that he uses to maintain his realistic approach is by acknowledging some of the difficulty of drawing strong correlations between the rise of partisan media and political polarization:
Evidence for partisan selective exposure is mixed and does not, on its own, show media impact. In this area in particular, measurement problems loom large, making it difficult to quantify selectivity. As it is surprisingly difficult to pinpoint how many people follow partisan news and for how long, a section of this article describes the cable news audience in some detail. (102)
In the next section Prior brings us up to speed with partisanship in the media. He doesn’t simply say MSNBC is liberal and Fox News is conservative (which is, arguably, fairly obvious), instead he identifies the various methods years for measuring the partisanship of media sources that have come about in the last 30. Measuring partisanship has been proven difficult and controversial throughout the years, and various methods of measurement have been developed. Prior goes into detail of 4 different methods, and illustrates how they are different with some surprising data. In mentioning the various methods he further establishes ethos by acknowledging the difficulty in measuring partisanship and addressing more than one method developed by reputable institutions i.e. Harvard and Stanford. Drawing upon various reputable sources for information he portrays he broad vision of the issue. He mentions that one of the methods would label The Wall Street Journal as more liberal than The New York Times. This is indeed surprising, however, only to someone who is not aware that The New York Times is widely considered fairly liberal. Prior could have better illustrated this point. He could have done this by noting a pole in which The New York Times was voted one of the more liberal national newspapers. Throughout the paper Prior retains his unassuming tone by bringing the readers up to speed. However in assuming that most people would know that The New York Times is considered more liberal than The Wall Street Journal, he falls short and misses an opportunity to make a strong point with all of his readers.
Prior addresses the increasing amount of “popular opinion formats on talk radio, cable, and blogs” and then cites a study investigating the “heavy dose of insulting language, name calling, “very dramatic negative exaggeration,” and mockery. Cable and talk radio shows contain dozens of such instances of “outrage” per hour (Jamieson & Cappella 2008). In regards to this kind of language a popular conservative journalist has said, “That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.” (Frum, Par. 12) He continues to illustrate the increasingly more partisan media: “These smaller, more specialized, opinion-focused new media outlets provide the greatest opportunities for one-sided media exposure”
Prior purposely doesn’t focus on one particular political commentator or one station, but rather maintains his unbiased position. In doing this he doesn’t loose the trust of any person (on the right or left side) in his audience. Prior is exceptionally careful to acknowledge that there are two main sides in political media, while addressing both of the sides equally.
Prior cites dozens of studies throughout his report and often it is easy to get lost in all of the information, however he clearly summarizes and translates all of the date for his readers at the end of every section. While citing numerous studies indicating the partisanship of particular media outlets, Prior translates the meaning of all of his cited studies: “In summary, most large US media outlets are politically centrist and provide a balance of competing viewpoints. But the first condition for growing mass polarization through increasingly partisan media is partially met: some talk radio shows, cable news channels, and websites do offer more ideologically extreme packages of news and opinion.” Citing so many studies could be seen as one of Prior’s weaknesses. He is trying so hard to bring us up to his speed and do it fairly that you can get lost in the data. He has established enough credibility at this point in his article that we can just take his word for it on a lot of the things he is saying, rather than him having to illustrate every little point with 3 different studies.
Prior proceeds to address the increasingly polarity in America, which is a very ambiguous issue. He once again qualifies himself by saying “. Evidence for attitude polarization—individuals changing their issue positions, ideological convictions, or partisan sentiments to produce less centrist, more sharply opposed aggregate distributions of the most politically relevant attitudes—turns out to be ambiguous.” He isn’t trying to bite of more than he can chew by saying, “America IS more polarized and THIS is why!” President Jimmy Carter recently said, "This is the most polarized country and the most partisan divide that we have ever seen." (NBC Nightly News, Sept 21st 2010) While Obama has said thing to the contrary: "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America." (Obama, Par. 35) This is an issue that many people have tried to address and is far too ambiguous to draw clear lines around. Although Prior doesn’t come out and say “America IS more polarized and THIS is why!” he does fairly cite various evidences that indicate America is likely more polarized than ever in the last 30 years. Prior was wise to not come out and say exactly what he believes but rather lets his evidences do the convincing. While he is letting his evidence convince you, he also fairly addresses the other side of the argument (that America has not become more polarized). He cites a study indicating increasing polarization as a result of “starker, more ideologically coherent parties and candidates alone. Democratic and Republican elites have adopted positions on cultural issues that line up better with their established standpoints on economic issues” (Fiorina 2006, Layman & Carsey 2002). He continues by citing a study that was able to separate the polarization into 4 different dimensions: the dispersion of attitudes, the extent to which attitudes cluster around two contrasting positions with few moderate views in between, the link between different issue positions (Layman & Carsey 2002). In citing the possibility of multiple dimensions Prior shows his open-mindedness by not creating just two sides to the argument.
The strongest point that Prior brings to light is a recent study that shows “party identifiers rate the opposing party increasingly negatively while not raising evaluations of their own party” (Bartels 2000). For many readers this point is surprising and really hits home. Prior misses a key opportunity to embellish that this is not good for our country. He just says it and moves on without skipping a beat. Perhaps he wanted to maintain his objectivity, which I understand, but he missed a rhetorical opportunity to make a very strong point.
Prior’s reporting is incredibly effective for audiences striving for bipartisanship and struggling to find unifying media. The report might not hit home for people who prefer partisan media, Fox and MSNBC lovers might be turned off. While perhaps turning off a few people, Prior brings in many more with his fair, realistic and credible report. Letting the facts do the convincing and keeping his own biases out of his writing he clearly illustrates his point: Our nation is becoming increasingly divided and Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are at least partly to blame.
In 2009 Rush Limbaugh, when talking about Obamas re-election, declared, “I hope he fails” Which sparked controversy nationwide and illustrated the polarization of our country and the partisanship of our media. Media and Political Polarization, written by The Princeton University Associate Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Co-Director Markus Prior offers insight into the polarizing affects of the media in the past 30 years. His fair and unbiased reporting he addresses some of the evidences and influences (with a focus on the media) of polarization. Prior establishes the foundation for his report around one question: “Has the emergence of more partisan media created political polarization and led the American public to support more partisan policies and candidates?” Prior sets out to show that our country is indeed becoming increasingly polarized and provides credible evidence and possible causes of the polarization. Prior is not quarterbacking the movement towards a less polarized nation; however he is not on the sidelines either.
Prior creates a framework for his report by clearly stating what he intends to cover in the report and what he will leave out:. “This article examines if the emergence of more partisan media has contributed to political polarization and led Americans to support more partisan policies and candidates” (101). This helps Prior effectively limit the “twisting” of his intentions by those who may disagree with his method of reporting. This protects his work and may force the audience to do some self examination of their own participation in the polarization.
Prior establishes his ethos by maintaining an objective and fair tone throughout the report. One of the methods that he uses to maintain his realistic approach is by acknowledging some of the difficulty of drawing strong correlations between the rise of partisan media and political polarization:
Evidence for partisan selective exposure is mixed and does not, on its own, show media impact. In this area in particular, measurement problems loom large, making it difficult to quantify selectivity. As it is surprisingly difficult to pinpoint how many people follow partisan news and for how long, a section of this article describes the cable news audience in some detail. (102)
In the next section Prior brings us up to speed with partisanship in the media. He doesn’t simply say MSNBC is liberal and Fox News is conservative (which is, arguably, fairly obvious), instead he identifies the various methods years for measuring the partisanship of media sources that have come about in the last 30. Measuring partisanship has been proven difficult and controversial throughout the years, and various methods of measurement have been developed. Prior goes into detail of 4 different methods, and illustrates how they are different with some surprising data. In mentioning the various methods he further establishes ethos by acknowledging the difficulty in measuring partisanship and addressing more than one method developed by reputable institutions i.e. Harvard and Stanford. Drawing upon various reputable sources for information he portrays he broad vision of the issue. He mentions that one of the methods would label The Wall Street Journal as more liberal than The New York Times. This is indeed surprising, however, only to someone who is not aware that The New York Times is widely considered fairly liberal. Prior could have better illustrated this point. He could have done this by noting a pole in which The New York Times was voted one of the more liberal national newspapers. Throughout the paper Prior retains his unassuming tone by bringing the readers up to speed. However in assuming that most people would know that The New York Times is considered more liberal than The Wall Street Journal, he falls short and misses an opportunity to make a strong point with all of his readers.
Prior addresses the increasing amount of “popular opinion formats on talk radio, cable, and blogs” and then cites a study investigating the “heavy dose of insulting language, name calling, “very dramatic negative exaggeration,” and mockery. Cable and talk radio shows contain dozens of such instances of “outrage” per hour (Jamieson & Cappella 2008). In regards to this kind of language a popular conservative journalist has said, “That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.” (Frum, Par. 12) He continues to illustrate the increasingly more partisan media: “These smaller, more specialized, opinion-focused new media outlets provide the greatest opportunities for one-sided media exposure”
Prior purposely doesn’t focus on one particular political commentator or one station, but rather maintains his unbiased position. In doing this he doesn’t loose the trust of any person (on the right or left side) in his audience. Prior is exceptionally careful to acknowledge that there are two main sides in political media, while addressing both of the sides equally.
Prior cites dozens of studies throughout his report and often it is easy to get lost in all of the information, however he clearly summarizes and translates all of the date for his readers at the end of every section. While citing numerous studies indicating the partisanship of particular media outlets, Prior translates the meaning of all of his cited studies: “In summary, most large US media outlets are politically centrist and provide a balance of competing viewpoints. But the first condition for growing mass polarization through increasingly partisan media is partially met: some talk radio shows, cable news channels, and websites do offer more ideologically extreme packages of news and opinion.” Citing so many studies could be seen as one of Prior’s weaknesses. He is trying so hard to bring us up to his speed and do it fairly that you can get lost in the data. He has established enough credibility at this point in his article that we can just take his word for it on a lot of the things he is saying, rather than him having to illustrate every little point with 3 different studies.
Prior proceeds to address the increasingly polarity in America, which is a very ambiguous issue. He once again qualifies himself by saying “. Evidence for attitude polarization—individuals changing their issue positions, ideological convictions, or partisan sentiments to produce less centrist, more sharply opposed aggregate distributions of the most politically relevant attitudes—turns out to be ambiguous.” He isn’t trying to bite of more than he can chew by saying, “America IS more polarized and THIS is why!” President Jimmy Carter recently said, "This is the most polarized country and the most partisan divide that we have ever seen." (NBC Nightly News, Sept 21st 2010) While Obama has said thing to the contrary: "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America." (Obama, Par. 35) This is an issue that many people have tried to address and is far too ambiguous to draw clear lines around. Although Prior doesn’t come out and say “America IS more polarized and THIS is why!” he does fairly cite various evidences that indicate America is likely more polarized than ever in the last 30 years. Prior was wise to not come out and say exactly what he believes but rather lets his evidences do the convincing. While he is letting his evidence convince you, he also fairly addresses the other side of the argument (that America has not become more polarized). He cites a study indicating increasing polarization as a result of “starker, more ideologically coherent parties and candidates alone. Democratic and Republican elites have adopted positions on cultural issues that line up better with their established standpoints on economic issues” (Fiorina 2006, Layman & Carsey 2002). He continues by citing a study that was able to separate the polarization into 4 different dimensions: the dispersion of attitudes, the extent to which attitudes cluster around two contrasting positions with few moderate views in between, the link between different issue positions (Layman & Carsey 2002). In citing the possibility of multiple dimensions Prior shows his open-mindedness by not creating just two sides to the argument.
The strongest point that Prior brings to light is a recent study that shows “party identifiers rate the opposing party increasingly negatively while not raising evaluations of their own party” (Bartels 2000). For many readers this point is surprising and really hits home. Prior misses a key opportunity to embellish that this is not good for our country. He just says it and moves on without skipping a beat. Perhaps he wanted to maintain his objectivity, which I understand, but he missed a rhetorical opportunity to make a very strong point.
Prior’s reporting is incredibly effective for audiences striving for bipartisanship and struggling to find unifying media. The report might not hit home for people who prefer partisan media, Fox and MSNBC lovers might be turned off. While perhaps turning off a few people, Prior brings in many more with his fair, realistic and credible report. Letting the facts do the convincing and keeping his own biases out of his writing he clearly illustrates his point: Our nation is becoming increasingly divided and Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are at least partly to blame.