The coverage from the major media outlets has contributed to the division in the nation. They have not been providing the full context surrounding issues and instead are covering the news similar to a lawyer making an argument. They ignore details that do not help their narrative.
In the case of a car accident, the lawyer for one of the parties might state that their client, the driver of the red car, was rear-ended by the driver of the blue car, who was on their phone. The lawyer of the driver of the blue car would then state that their client was using their phone for navigation and that the driver of the red car put on their turn signal and started to turn on a side road before abruptly changing direction and re-entering the road. The lawyer for the blue car would go on to state that this is the driver of the red car’s fifth accident this year. The lawyer for the red car would respond that this is a delivery driver and that is a usual number of accidents for a delivery driver in this area.
If you listened to only one of these lawyers, you would be shocked that anyone could have a different opinion on the case. You would not be able to appreciate how anyone had a different opinion. The discussion would quickly devolve into an argument. He was totally at fault; he rear-ended him and was on his phone! He was at fault; he is always getting into accidents and he was driving erratically. Due to the two people not agreeing on the surrounding context, any discussion will be fraught with frustration.
The way our legal system works is that it is adversarial. Both sides present their case and the judge or jury weighs the facts and context presented and makes their decision. If only one lawyer is allowed to present evidence and no one is there to challenge what they say, then that lawyer would most likely win their case. Because the prosecution is the only one to present facts to the grand jury, it is often said that you could indict a ham sandwich.
Without both sides of the case being presented, our legal system would fail. There is another type of legal system called inquisitorial, where the court actively investigates the facts of the case. Some in the media like to claim that they are inquisitorial when their behavior is much more like a participant in an adversarial system. From a newspaper, one would expect that the regular coverage is inquisitorial and the op-ed page is the adversarial coverage. The adversarial coverage results in more interest, and therefore, it is more of what the media produces.
Some in the media go further and warn people not to listen to the other outlets that present the competing context. They want to encourage brand loyalty, but they also do not want their narrative questioned. This would be like the lawyer of the driver of the blue car telling the jury not to listen to the lawyer of the driver of the red car.
As families get together for the holidays, remember that those you are discussing with might not have the same context as you. Depending on the narrative that the major media that they consume choose to present, you may have a completely different understanding of the context. If you can discuss each of your understandings of the context, you might be able to have a meaningful conversation.
However, if you cannot come to an agreement on the context rather than pushing the issues, just enjoy each other’s company and discuss the latest non-controversial article that you read in the Hernando Sun.
Rocco Maglio is the co-publisher of The Hernando Sun. He’s also a software engineer who focuses on cybersecurity.
