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

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

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less