Verified by 
Key points
- Most Americans get their news on digital devices, and about half get it from social media.
- Of social media users, 70 percent read only the headline on online stories.
- Leaders' political affiliations are often identified in headlines, which may amplify readers' political biases.
"Iowa Democrats Criticize Reynolds for Public Health Vacancies"
Various Iowa media outlets ran a version of this headline as part of their coverage of Republican Governor Kim Reynold’s failure to support the Iowa Board of Health, which dwindled to just four members out of 11 and could not meet during the pandemic because it did not have a quorum. Some said “Democratic Leaders” objected. But in all the stories I surveyed, the word “Democrat” was prominent.
Why? The Democrats mentioned are those who have been elected to the Iowa Legislature. Voters in their districts chose them as their senators and representative. They are leaders. Period. Do they need to be modified by party affiliation? I wonder, and I wonder if, by making that choice, media outlets unnecessarily dig us deeper into division.
Nationally the coverage is much the same. Leaders are identified in headlines and initial paragraphs as being either Democrat or Republican. That immediately adds bias to the story. Republican voters don't feel the need to read because they know they can blame or dismiss Democrats. Democratic voters don't feel the need to read because they know they can blame or dismiss Republicans.
Likewise, the pending infrastructure legislation is regularly called Biden’s plan. Why not just call it "the president's plan," because he is, in fact, the president? Because of our polarization, linking it to Biden in the headline links it to a whole laundry list of real and imagined party ills or benefits. And to what end?
Leaders are, in theory, elected to lead us all
Can’t leaders just be leaders anymore? Anybody following politics for less than a second will answer, “no.” We’re too polarized for that. But I'm not convinced we need to be. Or, at least, I'm not convinced it needs to be this bad. I do believe we have some elected officials who are bad actors and out only for their own, or their party's, gain. But we also have honest leaders. Our current system rewards the bad actors' bad behavior.
Consider a few facts:
- Most Americans (80 percent) get their news on digital devices. About half get it from social media. We're inhaling only snatches of information, not nearly what we need to become the kind of well-informed citizenry our Constitution assumes.
- Most of those—70 percent—read only the headline of an article. You've seen this—people arguing with an article that is clearly satire, or concluding that the piece said what they wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They clearly read no farther than the headline.
- Those who rely on social media are the most ill-informed Americans. (See 1 and 2 above.) But, boy, they may feel strongly about their misinformation.
A simple proposal
Why not cut political affiliation from the headline and teaser copy on online versions of news stories and opinion pieces? To be clear: I'm only talking about the headline and teaser. Include it in the article itself—it is relevant information there.
But make readers dig through a few actual facts and details before letting them conclude that the other party is automatically up to no good. They might be surprised. Or, better, they might be informed.
READ ALSO:
America the Angry: Politics has us livid. Can we calm that rage?
