Canada is becoming more polarized, less tolerant

In considering the role of media in sparking democratic debate and civic discourse, I have long liked the idealistic view expressed by renowned American playwright Arthur Miller almost half a century ago.

“A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself,” Miller famously said in a 1961 interview with London’s the Observer. By that, I took him to mean that a news organization had some responsibility to publish a range of facts and perspectives in both news and opinions to spark wide-ranging discussion and debate on issues that matter.

Clearly, in a world in which social media has supplanted the daily newspaper as our primary means of sharing news and views, the ideal of citizens in a democracy seeking a diversity of perspectives would seem to be as faint as the post-Second World War world’s portrayed in Miller’s prizewinning plays. These days, growing evidence suggests, rather than talking to one another across our country, so many are just interacting with those who share their partisan views — or tuning out all together.

A report this week by the Digital Democracy Project portrays a Canadian media environment in which partisans of all political affiliations are more willing to share views and choose media that reinforces their beliefs, while less-partisan Canadians are less inclined to share their views and take part in political life at all.

“Are there ways to make sure more voices are heard in the political conversation, and not just those with a vested interest in a certain outcome?” the report asks.

The Digital Democracy Project is a partnership between Canada’s Public Policy Forum and the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. Throughout this federal election, the project has tracked Canada’s digital media environment to identify potential threats to Canadian democracy.

In past weeks, there has been some reassuring finding from this initiative: there has been considerably less misinformation circulating in Canada throughout this election than had been expected; and, most Canadians still engage broadly with — and trust — mainstream news sources for political news.

This week’s report found a “massive” increase in Canadians’ social media activity since the election call with political activity up about 800 per cent on Twitter and 250 per cent on public Facebook posts.

Seemingly, much of this social media activity was based in clear political partisanship — further evidence of the growing “unhealthy” polarization in Canada reported this week by the Star’s national politics veteran, Bruce CampionSmith.

The Digital Democracy Project report found that, even when exposed to news coverage from a variety of perspectives, — that ideal Miller espoused — audiences are more likely to choose and share content that supports their political views. The research also indicates a preference for sharing negative content.

Moreover, even when presented with “both sides of an argument” — a goal of the Star’s ongoing weekly “The Big Debate” opinion page feature — Canadians are more likely to harden their partisan views on divisive issues, not alter their perspective.

These findings suggest a Canada of more entrenched, less moderate views. Indeed, a more polarized, less tolerant, country.

“If partisans are drawn to information that supports their views, and exposure to information that supports their views reinforces them more strongly, it could contribute to an escalating cycle of partisanship, whereby those who consume the most political information become the least moderate and potentially less likely to consider alternative views,” the report states.

There is little to suggest that this reluctance of political partisans to engage with other perspectives will end post-election. The Digital Democracy Project tells us this issue will be one of the “important questions” facing technology companies, policy-makers and researchers.

Indeed, the reality that so many “hardened” partisans are looking only to media sources that align with their world view and shutting out other perspectives is an important question also for journalism and those news organizations that strive to present a diverse range of perspectives that encourage a nation to talk to itself — and listen to one another.