We’ve spent a lot of time the last few classes in AP Government reading and analyzing and talking about the Federalist papers.
Specifically Federalist 10, in which James Madison talks about factions, or interest groups that lobby for policy that doesn’t necessarily serve the greater good and harms minorities. In his essay, Madison talks about how having a larger country plays to our advantage in mitigating the effects of these factions because factious ideas would be slow to spread and take root across large swaths of the nation, allowing time for these ideas to be fact-checked and rationalized.
America in 2026 would be Madison’s worst nightmare.
We all know that social media is a breeding ground for increasingly polarized and extreme views. The algorithm plays off what it thinks you want to see and hear to curate an echo chamber of a feed where all you’re seeing and hearing are things that align with your point of view.
But that – to some degree – is what social media is all about: connecting with people of similar viewpoints and exchanging ideas (although we don’t really see much of the latter these days).
You know what – or rather, who – isn’t supposed to be feeding into this cesspool of polarized viewpoints and sensationalized events?
The press.
For so long, the press has been referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy because of its duty to keep our government accountable, to ensure that we all have access to factual information, and to just generally keep the populace informed.
But these days, news articles – even by the most reputable of newspapers – seem to focus little on the facts or ramifications of an event and more on sensational headlines.
Just a few minutes ago, I read an article titled “Frisco ISD threat: Are Frisco ISD campuses secure? What were the threatening emails about?” by The Economic Times. The picture featured alongside the article? An image of a bomb, accompanied by the words “bomb threat,” despite there being not a single word in the article itself or any official district communication regarding such an event.
Last month, as I was researching for an International Insight article, I read an article by AP News about a recently published report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) regarding the record high revenue made by global arms manufacturers in 2024, titled “Report says world’s biggest arms producers increased revenue by 5.9% last year to record level.” And while the article did a fantastic job of regurgitating what felt like every number included in that SIPRI report, nowhere – beyond a few vague references to Ukraine and Gaza – did the article deign to look deeper: to examine in greater depth the reason for this record high, to reflect on history and identify the types of situations during which we’ve seen similar trends, to consult with experts in the field to make sense of what this means and what it says about international relations and how this could impact humanity down the line.
It seems that in our rush to expand viewership and grab attention and get the most likes, we’ve lost the plot on the purpose of the press: to keep the populace informed.
Instead, the fourth pillar of democracy has been reduced to sensationalizing headlines, regurgitating numbers that frankly don’t make a difference in the lives of laypeople, implying “facts” that have no truth behind them, and playing into the political polarization of our nation.
How can we ever hope to keep our government accountable when the principal tool we used to do so is just as guilty of political posturing?
While I can’t offer any real solution to this issue for now – at least beyond refusing to engage with sensationalized media and demanding more factual news, what I can do is remind you that now, more than ever before, there is More to the Story than we can see at first glance. It’s just up to you to find it.
