Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

Generative AI and surgical robotics are advancing toward autonomous surgery, raising new questions about safety, regulation, payment models, and trust.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

In medicine’s history, the best technologies didn’t just improve clinical practice. They turned traditional medicine on its head.

For example, advances like CT, MRI, and ultrasound machines did more than merely improve diagnostic accuracy. They diminished the importance of the physical exam and the physicians who excelled at it.

Keep ReadingShow less