Fact, Fiction, and the Partisan Divide

As I scroll through my Facebook feed, I see a sponsored article from Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit organiza­tion. Then, I see a New York Times article about gun violence in America that my friends have shared. When I “Google” the issue of gun vi­olence, I usually get my facts from organiza­tions like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Not once have I depended on the NRA. Not once have I watched Fox News’ take on the issue. Not once have I read a Breitbart article. I prefer to use the term “gun safety” in­stead of “gun control” when talking about laws that I believe would reduce gun violence. I like to think that I have reflected thoughtfully on this issue.

But am I living in my own liberal bubble?

I consider myself an open-minded person who listens to opposing viewpoints without dismissing them at first glance. Yet I do not use a diverse set of “information sources.” I usually receive my information from a narrow set of sources: the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, New Yorker, and Brookings Institution. From these sources, it is quite easy to tell that I am a liberal, but not one from the far left. My opinions usually stem from arti­cles of this narrow set or books by similarly liberally inclined authors. I like to think that I have a unique worldview, but, in reality, I typically rely on the views of sources and authors I trust to gain a better understand­ing of an issue.

When I discuss politics with someone with an opposing viewpoint, it is likely that they also receive their knowledge from the limited set of sources that they trust. Those sources are like­ly conservative. While it is worthwhile to listen to different viewpoints and ideas during these discussions, there is often a major dispute when talking about “the facts.” While my sources reaf­firm my facts, their sources say that my facts are nothing but a contrived liberal myth.

In the age of the Internet, facts have often be­come irrelevant. I can find multiple websites that support my facts—and my counterpart can also pull up websites that support their facts. When I see the same facts in all of my sources, it feels as though that they must be true. I have formed my political consciousness from reading these sources, trusting them to make me think hard­er. What I believe to be the truth has been in­grained in me, and it would be hard for me to suddenly doubt my beliefs. I imagine this also holds true for my opponents. Both of our sourc­es use the same data, but skew the facts only to share the side of the story we want to hear.

We use the vocabulary of “furthering the par­tisan divide.” Our vocabulary is important be­cause it demonstrates how we think and label issues. A liberal may view the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando as a gun safety is­sue, while a conservative may view it as a rad­ical Islamic threat. The way we conceptualize and grasp issues is also significant. As a liberal, I try to understand the perspective of those who have been affected by gun violence in schools, in the streets, and in stores. My conservative counterparts, on the other hand, see themselves as the hero who pulls out their gun and saves everyone, a major myth according to my liberal sources. When I hear about immigrants, I imag­ine my great-grandparents escaping anti-Semi­tism and persecution in Europe, coming to Ellis Island, and working day and night to provide a better future for my grandparents. When oth­ers hear about immigrants, they may imag­ine breached borders, rising crime, and stolen jobs, once again, all myths according to my lib­eral sources. This is critical because it impacts the policy prescriptions we view as fit to fix the problems. A Trump supporter’s solution may be to stop the flow of Muslim immigrants, while a liberal’s may be to stop the flow of guns.

While someone may change the way they think about the world over time, in a short debate about a single issue it seems like the Internet has wedded us to viewpoints and facts we have grown comfortable with. We often surround ourselves in a bubble of like-minded media sources, further reinforcing our views and ce­menting them deeper into our consciousness. The Internet and social media may have made information more accessible, but perhaps this is at a cost of furthering political polarization, al­lowing us to safely stay in the bubble of our own views. Is this cost worth it?

Share your thoughts