Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

By focusing on outrage, the media risks alienating younger audiences

Young man looking angry at display of his smartphone.

The inflammatory rhetoric, meaningless speculation and lack of fact checking by the media may result in young adults rejecting traditional platforms in favor of their well-being.

urbazon/Getty Images

Rikleen is executive director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and the editor of “Her Honor – Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges.” Beougher is a junior at Amherst College and a co-founder of Students Strengthening American Democracy.

As attacks on democracy and the rule of law continually increase, much of the media refuses to address its role in intensifying the peril.

Instead of asking hard questions and insisting on answers, traditional media outlets increasingly trade news and facts for speculative commentary that ignores a story’s contextual significance. At the same time, social media outlets and influencers stoke anger as an alternative to thoughtfulness.


Examples abound every day. The New York Times just posed 21 detailed policy questions that Vice President Kamala Harris should answer, without offering a similar set of questions for former President Donald Trump. Most traditional and social media outlets have ignored detailed investigative reporting into whether, days before the 2016 election, the president of Egypt gave Trump an illegal $10 million donation. That failure of reporting has also allowed Trump’s last attorney general, William Barr, to evade scrutiny about whether he prematurely shut down the government’s investigation into the gift.

This is not simply about candidates being treated differently. It reveals an abrogation of responsibility with grave implications, particularly for younger generations seeking trusted sources of information and exploring how to marshal arguments based on facts. Instead, they are bombarded by media outlets that sacrifice accuracy, analysis and truth for speculation, anger and disinformation, resulting in a pervasive distrust of the media.

By using algorithms that consistently select content that evokes anger and outrage, engagement is maximized, and media sources profit from the attention. Information that enlightens and informs takes a back seat to hyped emotions that increase viewership and interaction, leading to greater profits. The result is an upside-down world of incentives that promote less factual reporting and more rampant speculation that drives emotions and deepens the divisions in this country.

But the incentives may prove to offer only short-term benefits. Traditional and social media outlets that seek a younger demographic to grow their future revenues may find themselves thwarted by a generation taking measures to protect their own mental health. The incessant inflammatory rhetoric, meaningless speculation and failures to fact check may be resulting in young adults rejecting these platforms in favor of their well-being.

Moreover, the greatest hazard resulting from a disinformation environment where the incentives lead to increased toxicity and a less-informed electorate is alienation, driving young and future voters away from the polls.

Historically, when an intervention was warranted to curb societal dangers, we could look to legislative solutions to shape some form of relief. The toxic nature of our public square itself, however, has contributed to the paralysis of Congress. And Supreme Court decisions under Chief Justice John Roberts have repeatedly prevented the government from protecting the public from speech that spreads lies or that can lead to serious harm to targeted groups.

If neither Congress, the Supreme Court nor the media can be counted on to deliver interventions, it may be up to each of us to try to alter the algorithms that promote anger and division.

The first step is to recognize that every click on a video, news article or post that is spreading inflammatory and potentially false information teaches that algorithm that you will respond to similar stimuli. Fortunately, we are already seeing signs that members of Gen Z are trying to retrain algorithms and regain power over their own feeds.

It is important to offer media outlets different incentives — ones that will focus on facts and reject outrage. We do so when we seek information sources that care about truth, accountability and well-being. This task involves ingenuity and energy but the reward is finding truthful information that can be shared widely. For example, before clicking on a story that appears designed to induce anger and disinformation, test its veracity through sources such as FactCheck.org.

Become an explorer who finds new sources and resources. Consider the work of the National Institute for Civil Discourse, which has launched the Media Roundtable to help shift incentive structures away from rewarding the exploitation of differences. Younger activists are channeling their own anger into mobilizing and sharing facts and information on causes of deep concern.

Universities are becoming increasingly involved in the important work of teaching media literacy, particularly in the engagement of young people. Projects such as the Media Education Lab and Teach for Chicago Journalism offer resources and approaches to building savvier media consumers.

Demanding truth, refusing clickbait, and turning away from disinformation and speculation sends a strong message to traditional and social media sources and advertisers that it is time to listen to those seeking responsible information. Media outlets that thrive on rage, prognostication, speculation and division must be thwarted by alternatives that speak truth to power.

For democracy and the rule of law to survive and flourish, anger and disinformation cannot be business as usual. Media outlets that focus on facts and truth build trust with future consumers, particularly the younger generations on whom their survival ultimately depends.

Read More

On Live Facial Recognition in the City: We Are Not Guinea Pigs, and We Are Not Disposable

New Orleans fights a facial recognition ordinance as residents warn of privacy risks, mass surveillance, and threats to immigrant communities.

Getty Images, PhanuwatNandee

On Live Facial Recognition in the City: We Are Not Guinea Pigs, and We Are Not Disposable

Every day, I ride my bike down my block in Milan, a tight-knit residential neighborhood in central New Orleans. And every day, a surveillance camera follows me down the block.

Despite the rosy rhetoric of pro-surveillance politicians and facial recognition vendors, that camera doesn’t make me safer. In fact, it puts everyone in New Orleans at risk.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy
a skeleton sitting at a desk with a laptop and keyboard
Photo by Growtika on Unsplash

The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy

15-year-old Owen Cooper made history to become the youngest male to win an Emmy Award. In the Netflix series Adolescence, Owen plays the role of a 13-year-old schoolboy who is arrested after the murder of a girl in his school. As we follow the events leading up to the crime, the award-winning series forces us to confront legitimate insecurities that many teenage boys face, from lack of physical prowess to emotional disconnection from their fathers. It also exposes how easily young men, seeking comfort in their computers, can be pulled into online spaces that normalize misogyny and rage; a pipeline enabled by a failure of tech policy.

At the center of this danger lies the manosphere: a global network of influencers whose words can radicalize young men and channel their frustrations into violence. But this is more than a social crisis affecting some young men. It is a growing threat to the democratic values of equality and tolerance that keep us all safe.

Keep ReadingShow less
Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Discover how your personal data is tracked, sold, and used to control your online experience—and how to reclaim your digital rights.

Getty Images, Sorapop

Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Social media users and digital consumers willingly present a detailed trail of personal data in the pursuit of searching, watching, and engaging on as many platforms as possible. Signing up and signing on is made to be as easy as possible. Most people know on some level that they are giving up more data than they should , but with hopes that it won’t be used surreptitiously by scammers, and certainly not for surveillance of any sort.

However, in his book, "Means of Control," Byron Tau shockingly reveals how much of our digital data is tracked, packaged, and sold—not by scammers but by the brands and organizations we know and trust. As technology has deeply permeated our lives, we have willingly handed over our entire digital identity. Every app we download, every document we create, every social media site we join, there are terms and conditions that none of us ever bother to read.

That means our behaviors, content, and assets are given up to corporations that profit from them in more ways than the average person realizes. The very data and the reuse of it are controlling our lives, our freedom, and our well-being.

Let’s think about all this in the context of a social media site. It is a place where you interact with friends, post family photos, and highlight your art and videos. You may even share a perspective on current events. These very social media platforms don’t just own your content. They can use your behavior and your content to target you. They also sell your data to others, and profit massively off of YOU, their customer.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel next to a computer chip with the words "AI" on it.

Often, AI policy debates focus on speculative risks rather than real-world impacts. Kevin Frazier argues that lawmakers and academics must shift their focus from sci-fi scenarios to practical challenges.

Getty Images, Just_Super

Why Academic Debates About AI Mislead Lawmakers—and the Public

Picture this: A congressional hearing on “AI policy” makes the evening news. A senator gravely asks whether artificial intelligence might one day “wake up” and take over the world. Cameras flash. Headlines declare: “Lawmakers Confront the Coming Robot Threat.” Meanwhile, outside the Beltway on main streets across the country, everyday Americans worry about whether AI tools will replace them on factory floors, in call centers, or even in classrooms. Those bread-and-butter concerns—job displacement, worker retraining, and community instability—deserve placement at the top of the agenda for policymakers. Yet legislatures too often get distracted, following academic debates that may intrigue scholars but fail to address the challenges that most directly affect people’s lives.

That misalignment is no coincidence. Academic discourse does not merely fill journals; it actively shapes the policy agenda and popular conceptions of AI. Too many scholars dwell on speculative, even trivial, hypotheticals. They debate whether large language models should be treated as co-authors on scientific papers or whether AI could ever develop consciousness. These conversations filter into the media, morph into lawmaker talking points, and eventually dominate legislative hearings. The result is a political environment where sci-fi scenarios crowd out the issues most relevant to ordinary people—like how to safeguard workers, encourage innovation, and ensure fairness in critical industries. When lawmakers turn to scholars for guidance, they often encounter lofty speculation rather than clear-eyed analysis of how AI is already reshaping specific sectors.

Keep ReadingShow less