The Shift in Media Discourse
A Critique of the Antagonistic Framework
The Emergence of Artificial Binary and Emotional Responses in Debate
I have observed a concerning development within media, which becomes apparent when comparing old media or discourse on television with the current state of affairs. When contrasted with the past, it appears there has been a shift in the underlying framework for discussion. Nowadays, debate seems to begin by establishing an artificial binary: you are incontrovertibly wrong; I will attack your position, in lieu of arguing mine, for it. Although one may believe that someone is incorrect, this antagonistic attitude undermines productive discourse because it provokes emotional responses from the other side. The person being challenged adopts a defensive stance in their mind, with the intention of counterattacking to protect their beliefs and deliver an unbiased statement. However, even if they attempt to provide an objective assessment, it is often heavily rhetorical. If this pattern persists, we can expect more senseless content.
Obviously, what I’m describing isn’t particularly new; it has been famous for being childish behavior. Yet, this dynamic is normalized on TV—it can be difficult to detect and discern if you don’t have a high vocabulary or a good understanding of language because it seems as though those who aren’t very intelligent with low verbal IQ are saying important things eloquently. The framework of childish discussion, the artificial binary, and antagonism often slip past their heads unnoticed. Convinced that they must be right on whichever side they happen to be on due to the smooth flow of words and emotional reactions, some justify this behavior by saying that if someone gets too upset or agitated, it means they are correct. Each party thinks about this differently, leading to a chaotic debate with no pursuit of truth—at least none genuine.
Concision vs. Infotainment: A Dying Tradition?
Now I acknowledge that the framework I described earlier may have been popular on TV; however, what was more common in the past was concision—as Chomsky described—where one is given a limited amount of time to discuss something. If you present a dissenting view because it often takes a long time to explain due to being outside the mainstream, you are seen as eccentric or odd since there isn’t enough time to argue for your perspective. This can lead to saying something shocking superficially and not having the opportunity to clarify why it is not what it appears, potentially swaying people’s opinions. The framework of childish behavior I mentioned earlier was also prevalent; however, even concision is dying due to podcasts that are exceptionally long—up to hours—where arguments persist for extended periods and become ugly. This valorization of anti-truth and self-aggrandizement is now vulgar, adding another disappointment in my opinion: the increased use of vulgarity, which makes it all the more base to listen to.
Noam Chomsky would argue that because work hours are long, people would plop themselves on the couch and listen to whatever was on TV and assume it must be right since no one spends additional time after a 9-5 for personal research projects. Chomsky describes his own research intensity as fanatical, which I agree with; he was operating at an entirely different level that we may not see again in many decades. The point is that even this is outdated now because people work from home and have their AirPods in. In earlier days, they might have had Sony Walkmans or similar devices but there was no internet or podcasts to listen to on mobile carrying devices with audio. Nowadays, people are ambulatory and listen to whatever they want 24/7. The medium is the message; ideas must be advertised and proclaimed with flair. With short attention spans and a demand for infotainment—information mixed with entertainment value—the antagonistic, childish framework seems almost necessary: intellectual celebrity drama where people yell vulgarities.
The Role of Commercial Profit in Political Polarization.
Necessitating commercial profit for political activists is profoundly dangerous and is an implicating factor for why we’re witnessing so much base quarrelling. The personalized content that aligns with predisposed ideas through customized podcast frameworks compounds the issue further. This antagonistic nature encourages the adoption of ideologies as one’s own, leading people to wear politically identifiable symbols — as far reaching as the MAGA hat or the circled-A of the anarchists. The use of such symbols—when donned—is suspect because it discourages open-mindedness and self-reflection, particularly in politics. Podcasts promote merchandise that reinforces political positions, making it difficult for individuals to disengage from cultish frameworks. The cognitive dissonance, when challenged, may be overwhelming if one wears a shirt or has posters in their room promoting a specific ideology. This reinforces the belief that change is not necessary due to personal association with the ideology. The group dynamic of surrounding oneself with like-minded individuals and discussing similar political beliefs can also lead to groupthink, where dissenting opinions are discouraged or met with hostility.
Reflections on Personal Dress and Speech in a Polarized World
It is easy for one to pontificate with a detached perspective; however, individuals like myself are also subject to gradations of this behavior. I intentionally remove any sort of idol or symbol that even remotely resembles an idol from my life. I view shirts adorned with icons skeptically if they do not resonate with me personally—and even more skeptically if they do resonate with me. My thought process goes, “What gets you so vested in this that you proclaim to the world that that’s you? And if you’re not so interested in it, why hyperbolize your interests with such apparel?” In terms of personal dress and speech, I strive to remain unpredictable so others cannot easily discern my political positions unless I genuinely believe them wholeheartedly and only when relevant. It is essential for anyone to train their mind to view dissenting opinions critically, understand why they may be incorrect, distinguish between nonsense—’nonsense upon stilts’—and informative content as Jeremy Bentham suggested.