Even though politics is a serious business, Canadian politics has shown a capacity to be endlessly diverting. I might say “entertaining”, but when I want entertainment, I find that this is best left to the professionals.
The political debate leading up to this election call is a good example of the thought provoking nature of our system. This is not to say that our politicians have stirred Canadians with the compelling logic of their cases or have illuminated the deep recesses of their philosophies. On the contrary, we are warned by our politicians that the upcoming electoral contest will be nasty and brutish (but not short, to complete the Hobbesian paraphrase). Further, the politicians who are telling us to be wary of demonization, fear-mongering and intimidation are the same ones who are labelling their opponents as gangsters, corrupt and sleazy. These statements are often made within minutes, if not seconds, of each other. That is not interesting. What is interesting is that these individuals make these contradictory statements with passionate sincerity and, even more interesting, that their followers embrace them wholesale.
We know that politicians are capable of self-deception. The ability to believe in victory in the face of certain defeat or to promote a policy in the face of continued hostility is an essential job requirement for those who offer themselves for office. But why do we, the voters, let them get away with it? We are reasonable and intelligent people, why do we embrace these contradictory viewpoints without challenge?
For many years, people who studied political behaviour held to the belief that the way we saw the world shaped our partisan leanings. Our family lives, childhood relationships, the signal events of growing up, brushes with the law and injustice, our exposure to the broader world, and so on – all of these were thought to create the basis of our political thinking and the way that we relate (or don’t relate) to the political process and voting behaviour.
But, as political behaviourists study this issue, they are coming across evidence that our partisan leanings and attachments may have more of an impact on how we see the world than the reverse. This is most true when it comes to assessing the veracity of political statements and perceptions of media bias.
We know that, as human beings, we have a predisposition to hear those things that we want to hear and are more likely to remember those things that we find agreeable and repress those things we find disagreeable. Psychologists call this phenomenon “selective screening.” If a person identifies with a particular party, they are more willing to accept statements by party figures as true and are more critical of the statements made by their party’s opponents. This is true even if the statements are neutral and concern matters of broad agreement.
For example, if I were to pose a question on a public opinion survey asking participants to agree or disagree with the statement that “The Internet has changed the way Canadians communicate”, I would expect a substantial amount of agreement. However, if I were to preface the statement by saying that a party leader, let’s say former Reform Party Leader Preston Manning, made that statement, the survey results would show that supporters of the Mr. Manning would show higher levels of agreement with that statement and adherents of other leaders would be more likely to disagree. If the survey question attributed the statement to former Liberal Party Leader Jean Chrétien, those with Liberal leanings would be more in agreement and non-Liberals would show higher levels of disagreement, even though nothing about the statement has changed.
Rather than assessing the truthfulness of statement in its own right, we view the statement through the lens of our own political standpoint. Perhaps this is best summed up by former American President Harry S. Truman when he said of his opponents, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell.”
This behaviour not only affects the way we consume political information, but also lies at the heart of our perceptions of media bias.
Interestingly, if a news story, columnist or editorial confirms a view held by the reader, our most common response is to state that there is no bias at all. We believe that the story accurately describes the situation or that the columnist (finally!) understands the situation. This rule applies equally to coverage that could be construed as positive toward the party or viewpoint supported by the reader as well as negative coverage of opposing parties or views.
Typically, “media bias” is only seen when the content is critical of the party or political leader that the reader supports or is positive toward the parties and personalities opposed by the reader. This is not to say that all reporting is absolutely objective, but it is important to note that most charges of media bias depend on whose ox is being gored. Frankly, claims of bias in the media would carry more weight if those making these claims could identify those times when the bias was in their favour as it was to their detriment. But then again, as noted in the previous paragraph, there is no perception of bias when reporters “get the story right.”
Let’s face it. The reason why we like political satire shows like This Hour Has 22 Minutes or Royal Canadian Air Farce is that they pick on “the other guys” three-quarters of the time. They get it totally wrong when it comes to so-and-so, but they sure have everyone else pegged right.
So, how do we resolve this self-perpetuating conundrum? With the election upon us, each of us has an opportunity to see how we react to the statements and actions of the politicians and political parties as presented in the media. Do you show a preference for news items that confirm your current views and perceptions? Or do you seek out items that may challenge your perceptions and give you different political points of view? You may think that you belong to the second group. I hope you do.
- 30 -
Originally published in The Hill Times 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment