> The very nature of US political discourse itself leaves no space for healthy debate.
I am quite convinced that the nature of US political discourse is largely determined by the predominant media, and not by the individuals participating in the discourse.
–– Cable news is incentivized to sensationalize any minor event, and to frame stories centered around conflict
–– Social media rewards the most emotionally potent messages, consistently pushing aside calm discourse in favor of messages that hit emotional hot-buttons
–– Newspapers, magazines, etc have adapted their style of writing in order to gain more traction on social media, furthering the cycle of increasingly strong emotional engagement. Sure, newspapers are also often quite dispassionate, but those stories rarely gain much attention in the political realm.
–– Social media also increasingly creates identity bubbles, where like minded individuals can support one another's beliefs. This grouping of people has lead to identity being the primary consideration; facts are secondary.
> I am quite convinced that the nature of US political discourse is largely determined by the predominant media
There are plenty of historical examples of partisan clashes like the USA’s "conservative versus liberal/progressive" one without a modern media. Just look at some of the appalling rhetoric between the two parties of the time in 19th-century America, or the clashes between the Blues and Greens in Constantinople.
Choosing a tribe to belong to and then adapting a harsh “us versus them” stance seems to be a human universal. Modern media has only capitalized on something that was already there.
I agree with this. Sensationalism and conflict sells papers / ads. The comments section is just a reflection of the standard of the journalism business today. I would predict that any comment technology that lowers page views, even if it makes the conversation better, will be abandoned.
I would go one step further though, the news tries to make everything emotional (it obvious by the loaded words they use). Any emotional discussion can't be rational, almost by nature.
I am quite convinced that the nature of US political discourse is largely determined by the predominant media, and not by the individuals participating in the discourse.
–– Cable news is incentivized to sensationalize any minor event, and to frame stories centered around conflict
–– Social media rewards the most emotionally potent messages, consistently pushing aside calm discourse in favor of messages that hit emotional hot-buttons
–– Newspapers, magazines, etc have adapted their style of writing in order to gain more traction on social media, furthering the cycle of increasingly strong emotional engagement. Sure, newspapers are also often quite dispassionate, but those stories rarely gain much attention in the political realm.
–– Social media also increasingly creates identity bubbles, where like minded individuals can support one another's beliefs. This grouping of people has lead to identity being the primary consideration; facts are secondary.