The Great Divide, Who Reads What, and It's No Wonder We are Divided

Perhaps you have also been perplexed of late about the vitriol and anger that we see, hear, feel, and read these days.  There is certainly an explosion of explosiveness that is new or old, depending upon how we see things, or maybe how long we have been seeing things.  Conflict is nothing new.  Ask survivors of the Civil Rights Movement from the ‘60s and see what they say. As Black farmers who were pivotal in the Voting Rights Movement in the ‘60s and listen to their descriptions of fear and anxiety co-mingled with conviction. Our two-party system is a player, do you think? My opinion is that the social media craze has much to do with it. It’s difficult to confront someone across the table from us over lunch in a restaurant downtown, but, on the other hand, it is quite easy to challenge someone whose face and voice we do not see through the magic of Facebook or Twitter.

            

My wife and I live in red Texas, or at least a red section of Texas.  For eight years we lived in red, red, red Oklahoma. We are quite accustomed to negotiating conversations when we are the only blues in the room or in the house or sitting at a restaurant. Or were we? Maybe we avoided more than we’d like to admit.

            

Of late I have been pondering what we read.  Then, the Pew Foundation made it clear for all the world to see.  If I lean right, or if I am right, see what I read? If I lean left, or if I am left, see what I read? We simply do not gather sources from the same place. We are not reading the same things. These feed our biases and we are drawn to them because of our biases. It is hard to discuss content, then, or issues, when we read different things. CNN will report differently than Fox News when covering the same event, like a presidential speech, or a candidate's speech. It's no wonder, then, that my friends who watch Fox News see Trump's handling of the coronavirus as a colossal victory for America. On the other hand, it is no wonder, then, that my other friends and I see his handling of the coronavirus as a colossal failure since we gather our information from several of the sources listed below with CNN as #1. I am surprised that my right leaning friends gather their information from two sources. I find this stunning. 

            

Also, someone has created this beautiful schematic which shows the continuum of publications across the continuum of liberal to conservative. We get our news from somewhere, printed or television or radio. Again, they feed our biases, or we are drawn to them because of our biases. 

These helps to understand why we have our own little enclaves. We set up artificial boundaries within which we are contained and from others we are protected. I sat at a table, a rather large table, at a church event several years ago in which the men across the way were discussing the fires in California.  One gentleman offered the view that God was probably punishing California for its stand on homosexuality. I was taken aback, on my heels, and only retrospectively could I process such an ostentatious comment. Bully pulpits offer such interpretation of events, and it is perhaps obvious to all of us that such theological nonsense is offered up in a spirit of holiness in less public forums.

It is no wonder, then, that the public discourse and even private conversations are oftentimes filled with "your opinion does not count since you are citing a source that I consider to be biased toward the left" or "your opinion does not count since you gather your information from a source that I consider to be biased toward the right."  Then we go around and around and around, and then back again and again. 

            

In an upcoming post I’ll share with readers a program that I find provocative in helping to change the discourse we hear and participate in. Perhaps you’ll find it as interesting and challenging as I did.