Comparing political debates today with those of three decades ago, it is clear that the latter were characterized by a much higher level of political ethics and debate culture.
Why is it important to maintain a culture of debate? It is important in that it makes it possible for the best-reasoned positions to emerge in the public arena. Without a culture of debate, arguments are ignored: e.g., specific individuals are criticized rather than their ideas. Not listening to the arguments of the opponents divides society because if it is demonstrated that agreement is impossible, the next natural step is conflict – which is what happened during the fateful protest in front of the Lithuania Parliament on 10 August 2021. As Rūta Žiliūkaitė, Associate Professor of Political Sociology at Vilnius University has argued, the participants of the rally did not identify themselves in the image presented by the critical media – i.e., what was actually being criticized was a caricature of the protesters’ position (a mistake in the argumentation of Straw Man). Also, the criticism focused on individuals and not on ideas (see ad hominem).
The political correctness that emerged after the Second World War eventually created a censorial atmosphere that is readily noticeable. In 2016, during Nigel Farage’s ‘political Brexit revolution’, this censorious atmosphere was well reflected in several polls:
– Almost half of the people who voted for Britain to leave the EU said that the mass media were (especially) biased and, in turn, unfair.
– Meanwhile, 48% of people who voted for Trump in the 2016 US presidential election said they thought the mass media were unfair and biased against Trump.
With political correctness and a strict dichotomy between preferred and rejected positions, the public is never afforded an honest debate. Political bias in the media has been empirically confirmed a number of times. This is why trust in the media is at an all-time low.
In Lithuania, a survey conducted on 18 August of this year shows that public trust in the media is at its lowest level in 23 years. Going beyond simple censorship, the media currently shows disrespect to debaters and listeners depending on their position. An example of this is the interview of the conservative doctor of clinical psychology, Jonathan Peterson, on Britain’s Channel 4 television in 2018, in which the interviewer kept trying to impose discrediting positions on the aforementioned doctor. If Mr. Peterson would say that paper is white, the presenter would ask “Are you saying that black people cannot read?” We can see that in this case there is neither an honest discussion nor constructive conversation. There is no culture of honest debate in the mass media because of political bias and radicalism which allow the media to trample on the principles of debate. This phenomenon can rightly be called propaganda. Since propaganda claims are based on emotions and not on arguments, there is no room for constructive discussion or debate. Michael Sandel, the respected and renowned American political scientist, says that the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the public does not expect honest debate to be possible in the current state. It is inclined to think that only open verbal conflict, not constructive dialogue, can take place in polarizing media. However, Mr. Sandel argues that constructive dialogue is not only possible but necessary. One can hypothesize that the media have gone down the road of political and economic gain by pandering to the dominant elite, and that honest debate has become economically unattractive. The opponents of the elite are presented in the mass media as negative breakouts, the effect of such labeling showing which positions are permissible and which are not (see Noam Chomsky’s “The Common Good”, narrow range of permissible opinions).
What’s next?
Moving along the trajectory of the status quo, there is no reason to expect relief from further fragmentation and radicalization of society in the near future. In fact, to make matters worse, it is an open secret that the algorithms of social media such as Facebook and YouTube seek to provide ever more edgy and sensational content. Apart from the “us” versus “them” opposition created by mass media, the fragmentation and radicalization of society is exacerbated by the creation of information bubbles of various radical groups with their own sensational content. Long term, it is clear that people who become consumers of these information bubbles will learn ideological jargon, but not meaningful and objective information on which to base their opinions. Without an honest culture of debate and constructive arguments, normal debate is impossible.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
