The polarity of the U.S. political atmosphere is nothing new. This divisiveness has become the new normal as Americans are not only politically polarized, but emotionally polarized, meaning they dislike members of the opposite party.
It is important to note that the statement does not mean every Democrat or every Republican has an aversion to the other party. It simply means there are enough loud voices on both sides of the spectrum with so much hatred that generalizations are often made.
Social media contributes to this by providing a public platform to express views and converse with other users, as well as formulating personal algorithms that only present views and ideas a user agrees with. These algorithms often impact politically active user accounts, which encourage us to vocalize what we believe in.
The more solidified and confident we become in our beliefs, the more likely we are to make our voices heard. This means we become the users encouraging others to share their beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with having personalized algorithms, and it is what platforms like Instagram and TikTok are meant to do to engage users. However, when only one set of viewpoints is presented, the user’s beliefs and political outlook are constrained to a specific set of information. Only consuming one side of the story, especially on platforms where it is easy to be misled by unfiltered opinions, allows for close-mindedness and confusion.
Media consumption is beneficial when done responsibly. But getting news solely from social media inevitably leads to misinformation, specifically if it is not received directly from a media outlet. Consuming information with skepticism in the back of your mind can be beneficial because it means you are not blindly believing everything you see.
Standing firm on our beliefs is good but can become harmful when that confidence is used to demoralize thoughts that aren’t our own. It has become more blatant that the ability to understand others and be respectful is declining.
This spite became impossible to ignore on Sept. 10 when right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated at an event at Utah Valley University. Kirk held culturally conservative views such as “advocating for gun rights, condemning abortion, holding up women as wives and mothers,” and opposing DEI initiatives.
For example, Michael Mallinson was accused of being the shooter due to a post circulating social media, regardless of the fact that he had never been to Utah. The post also claimed that Mallinson was a registered Democrat in Utah. In an interview with the CBC, Mallinson was shocked to discover that there was a shooting in the first place, let alone that he was called a suspect.
Mallinson was also worried for his safety due to the number of hateful messages he and his family received to the point that he contacted local police.
Speculation about the involvement of Kirk’s bodyguards also circulated around social media, claiming that their hand gestures were suspicious. The comment section of a YouTube video showing the hand gestures is filled with comments claiming that it was planned and that the guards were communicating with the shooter. Comments varied from explaining wind speed and providing military context to crediting sign language for a larger conspiracy.
Falsely confirming theories as facts is dangerous because it puts misinformation and disinformation on a pedestal and fosters a culture of dependent thinking. The inability to question information allows our understanding of the world to be manipulated, which largely stems from social media users presenting opinions as facts.
Simply put, our loyalty to political parties is obstructing our integrity to the truth. One of the first reactions to Kirk’s death was to attack the opposite party through blame, critiques of apathy and claims that people are not properly mourning Kirk. Defending our ideologies and parties is not inherently bad, but we can’t at the expense of accountability and media literacy.
This is especially true when the misinformation regards real people. Accusing Mallinson of being the shooter put his safety at risk. Theorizing about the hand gestures can cause accusations of greater seriousness, which threatens the guards’ reputations.
The tendency to spread misinformation cannot be an excuse to defend political parties. Social media has created a culture around ignoring flaws, which we have utilized to worship our own political party and spread political gossip to deflect from our own shortcomings.
A truth was also ignored when there was more coverage about Kirk than the shooting at Evergreen High School in Evergreen, Colo. which occurred on the same day. When there is a greater focus on social media about one case of gun violence over another, it shows that only one case is important.
We have used political violence to enforce division and the believed superiority of our own party, and we have weaponized the cause of grief and heartache of families to further personal political agendas.
Deliberately spreading and embracing misinformation highlights a lack of consideration for those involved, and only worsens the polarization of U.S. politics and political discourse.
Media literacy needs to be encouraged as much as, or more than, political engagement to combat misinformation. This means that individually, we need to be more aware of the news and political content we are consuming. As much criticism as there is of political polarization, society’s actions enable its growth.
