Diana Mutz on How the Mass Media Divide Us

The mass media, particularly television, divide the public by promoting programs featuring bitter debate and confrontation, negatively impacting American politics.

Professor Diana Mutz, an expert in communications and political psychology, conducted studies supporting her view that exposure to uncivil exchanges leads to increased extremism in political views among viewers.
- Example: Former Senator Zell Miller's confrontation with Chris Matthews on Hardball exemplifies memorable uncivil interaction.
- Contrast with C-SPAN's less engaging, but potentially more beneficial calm discussions.

Mutz identifies a trend in political talk shows characterized by intense and heated exchanges, labeled as "SHOUT-SHOW" television.
Programs such as The McLaughlin Group, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hardball thrive on competition for viewership, leading to more contentious and uncivil political discourse.

Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire in 2004 criticized the program for its "partisan hackery," suggesting that such formats harm political discourse in America.
Mutz explores whether this claim holds truth in relation to mass polarization.
The focus is on emotionally extreme, uncivil opinions which potentially worsen attitudes towards opposing views.

Politeness as a Critical Norm: Civility denotes mutual respect and its absence fosters increased polarization among partisans.
Uncivil discourse allows partisans to view their opponents more detrimentally, increasing division.
Market forces favor sensationalized content that enhances polarization, despite viewers' expressed disgust towards it.
Evolutionary factors: Human brains pay more attention to conflict, historically linked to survival instincts.

Mutz conducted research using a mock political talk show with professional actors portraying congressional candidates in both civil and uncivil discussions.
- Results indicated that viewer sentiments towards their favored candidates remained stable while negative feelings towards opposing views intensified in the uncivil version.
- More dramatic exchanges lead to polarizing views, exacerbating the perception of "us" versus "them".
- A civil approach to discussions fosters understanding and decreases polarization, whereas incivility elicits emotional reactions and dismissal of logical reasoning.

Uncivil discourse induces heightened emotional arousal similar to face-to-face conflicts, even when viewers are merely observing.
This arousal can cloud the ability to process substantive arguments and leads to focus on emotional rather than rational content of exchanges, inhibiting understanding of differing viewpoints.
Incivility generates deeper disdain for opposing parties and resonates strongly with viewers, often leading to cyclical emotional responses (e.g., yelling back at the screen).

Highly rated incivility demonstrates its appeal: viewers find uncivil conversations more entertaining despite claiming to dislike them.
- Polite discourse is seen as dull and less engaging, reflecting a trend towards valuing extreme rhetoric over moderated discussion.
The rise of televised political incivility correlates with heightened mass polarization over time.

While there are claims of a "civility crisis," historical evidence does not conclusively indicate that incivility is worse now than in earlier periods.
Past political conflicts, while often vitriolic, did not have the same mass media exposure as today, reducing their immediate public impact.
Televised interactions enhance perceptions of intimacy with political figures, intensifying emotional reactions and potentially escalating disagreements.
- Traditional proxemics suggest a distance of more than twelve feet for political interactions, yet televised encounters offer close-up views, heightening the sense of conflict.

The challenge remains in creating compelling political content without resorting to extreme incivility.
- Alternative methods to engage politically disengaged audiences are critical to mitigate the adverse effects of current trends in televised political discourse.
- Questions surround how to make politics appealing without increasing polarization through sensationalism.