Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Reaching Americans As Media Consumers – Not Only As Participants – To Improve the Political Environment

Opinion

People on their phones. ​

In order to achieve scale, many civic efforts must also reach Americans as media consumers, where Americans currently spend much more time.

Getty Images, Xavier Lorenzo

Current efforts to improve how Americans think and feel about those across the political spectrum overwhelmingly rely on participation. Participation usually involves interpersonal interaction, mostly to have dialogues or to collectively work on a project together.

These can be valuable, but in order to achieve scale, many efforts must also reach Americans as media consumers, where Americans currently spend much more time.


This is not some “competition” between approaches. They are actually mutually reinforcing: targeting Americans as media consumers should increase participation, and events that are at least partially videotaped can be used to create content for media consumers. Additionally, this is more of a continuum than a binary distinction, since there are options such as being an attendee at an event or creating content that do not fit neatly in either box.

Americans consume much more media than interact across political divides

The average American spends over 10 hours every single day consuming media, according to Nielsen’s 2023 data.

This is dramatically greater than the time spent interacting with fellow Americans across divides. In the recent study The Connection Opportunity from More in Common, fewer than half of Americans in the past year had done each of the seven activities research inquired about, with someone from a different background than them.

In terms of politics, The Connection Opportunity found somewhat under half of Americans who engaged in an extended conversation or talked about group tensions across politics, all the way down to 15% of Americans who worked to achieve a mutual goal that improved their community.

Target Americans as media consumers to reduce Perception Gaps, in addition to as participants

Efforts to reduce perceived political divides – often called Perception Gaps – in the US must acknowledge what Americans are actually doing with their lives right now, consuming hours and hours of media each day. Approaches to reducing Perception Gaps must lean into changing what Americans see and hear about each other across the political spectrum, targeting the media environment.

It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge how many of us Americans spend our time as media consumers. Yet interventions must acknowledge this reality.

Americans need to see each other across politics in a better and more accurate light, rather than the distorted and sometimes even demonized caricatures currently shown in the media environment. Efforts to reach Americans as media consumers to reduce political divides can include vicarious contact (i.e., seeing those across the political interact well), parasocial contact (i.e., developing one-sided relationships with relatable and respectable characters in the other political party), and correcting all sorts of stereotypical views of those in across politics.

A few organizations are encouraging entertainment media to improve depictions of at least interactions between Republicans and Democrats, including Bridge Entertainment Labs, PopShift, and Resetting the Table.

There also needs to be efforts to correct perverse incentives in news and social media that encourage overly negative portrayals of fellow Americans across politics.

All this said, there should still be efforts to reach Americans as participants, either focused more on dialogue and interpersonal communication (e.g., a Braver Angels workshop), or approaches designed to improve a given situation in a community (e.g., Urban Rural Action’s effort “Uniting for Safe and Strong Communities in South-Central Pennsylvania”).

Reaching Americans as media consumers motivates participation

In fact, efforts to reach Americans as media consumers should motivate participation in these types of activities. Referring once again to More in Common’s Connection Opportunity report, and a summary in The Fulcrum that James wrote, the most substantial reasons Americans give for wanting to correct across divides are “perceived community norms” (increasing interest in connecting) and “intergroup anxiety” (decreasing interest in connecting).

Efforts to reach Americans as media consumers should increase perceived community norms about connecting across the political spectrum. For instance, using the concept of vicarious contact, if Americans see others like themselves positively interacting with those in the other political party, many Americans should be more open to doing this themselves.

These efforts should also reduce intergroup anxiety. We at More Like US have a mnemonic CAST for those in the Arts to develop content to CAST fellow Americans as more Complex, Admirable, Similar, and worthy of Togetherness (good conversation partners, collaborators, or friends) than currently believed. This is designed to reduce distorted thinking of those across politics that can increase anxiety to engage across political differences.

To really emphasize how CAST can reduce intergroup anxiety, think of the opposites of CAST. Many would have a great deal of anxiety if they think of interacting with someone who they see as likely stereotypical (rather than Complex), cognitively and morally inferior (rather than Admirable or at least respectable in some ways), totally different (rather than having some Similarity), and as basically worthy of avoidance (rather than worthy of various forms of Togetherness).

Additionally, events with participants provide content for media consumers

The reverse is also true in this mutually-beneficial relationship: more events with participants lead to more potential content that can be created for media consumers.

Some of this work has already been done. Examples include the Braver Angels: Reuniting America documentary about a Braver Angels Red / Blue workshop, and Builders’ The Tennessee 11 documentary about a group of 11 Tennessee collectively developing shared gun control / rights policies. Shorter content includes a 7-minute video about a citizens assembly in Deschutes County, Oregon. Even shorter content suitable for social media such as Instagram or TikTok is also possible.

Benefits and drawbacks of both media consumer and participant approaches

It needs to be clear that efforts to reduce perceived political divides should not devolve into a ridiculous battle between reaching Americans as media consumers “versus” reaching Americans as participants. This said, one must recognize some benefits and drawbacks of each.

Media consumer approaches offer much greater possibility for scale, in a country of over 340 million residents. Messages and relevant data showing similarities can come from all sorts of sources in the media environment, including entertainment, political leaders, athletes, religious leaders, schools and higher education, journalism, etc. More Like US focuses on doing just this. Similar to an advertising model, it is possible to reach people multiple times with messages and content that eventually get remembered and absorbed. It is a model that relies on repetition and breadth.

Even if events could reach 1,000 Americans each day, it would take over 400 years to reach all who voted in the 2024 election – a single time.

A single participant experience likely will be more impactful than a single piece of content seen. Many will likely remember and feel it more, increasing the impact from a single event.

This said, many Americans will not have the time, interest, or energy to participate in any event, let alone repeated events. There are also limits on how many events can be hosted.

A continuum rather than a binary between media consumer and participant approaches

In addition to roles of “media consumer” and “participant,” there are opportunities such as being an attendee at an event or creating media content. These opportunities do not neatly map onto a media consumer vs. participant binary, so thinking about the roles Americans can play much better maps onto something like a continuum, rather than a binary distinction.

Being an attendee at an event involves receiving content, but one has to take a much more proactive step than looking at a screen. A content creator is in a way “participating” quite intensively, but not necessarily in an interpersonal way.

Nevertheless, many Americans will only be media consumers, since all these other options require substantial effort. Americans who lead busy lives trying to make a living and taking care of kids or other loved ones cannot all be expected to make very active efforts.

Conclusion: Target Americans as media consumers, without ignoring other options

Maybe in the future, America will be so bustling with community-driven associational life and sufficient support (e.g., childcare, elder care) that participant experiences alone will be enough. But until this future comes to pass, it is necessary to reach people where they are today, as media consumers watching and absorbing content for hours each day. This is in addition to opportunities for those who have the time, interest, and energy for participant approaches.

Luckily, options reinforce each other. Media consumer approaches motivate participation, and participatory events provide underlying content for media consumption.

Let’s have a field reducing perceived political divides that reaches Americans both as media consumers and participants.

James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org.

Imre Huss is a current intern at More Like US.


Read More

Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less
AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
person reading a computer screen
man using computer inside room

Student-Led AI Initiative Aims to Tackle Misinformation

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ — As generative artificial intelligence reshapes the digital landscape, a New Jersey student researcher is using the technology to combat media bias. Shaurya Jindal, an AI researcher and student at West Windsor-Plainsboro High School South, has launched Cogito News, an educational platform designed to build modern media literacy skills.

Cogito News was founded in response to growing concerns about partisan framing and selective sourcing in contemporary journalism. Recognizing that cognitive biases often influence how news is packaged and consumed, Jindal sought to build a tool that helps users critically evaluate the information they encounter daily. The platform's real-world impact and timely relevance were highlighted when Jindal was my guest on The Fulcrum Democracy Forum, an interview series dedicated to civic renewal and examining innovative approaches to strengthening democratic systems.

Keep ReadingShow less