---

Transcript

Scroll down for the transcript.

Intro: Welcome to Ready to Be Strong, a podcast where we’re learning how to stay connected with ourselves and each other. I’m Tania Israel, professor of counseling, psychology, and author of two books about dealing with political division, Facing the Fracture and Beyond your Bubble. And I’m Pema Rocker. A creative coach and author, I write about connection and collective healing. In each episode of Ready to Be Strong, we unpack what’s making us feel so polarized because we’re actually not as divided as we think we are. Together, we’ll broaden our minds,open our hearts and strengthen connections in a politically charged election season and beyond. With Pema’s curiosity and storytelling, and Tania’s expertise on bridging divides. We want you to feel informed, empowered, and optimistic. We want you to feel ready to be strong.

Tania: In this episode, we’re talking about how to consume news wisely.

Pema: So, I listened to NPR habitually. In younger years, I got into the audio habit. I set my alarm to the NPR radio station, the local in my town, to help me wake up in the morning. But in the early two thousands, I had to stop that process of waking up to the news because it was constant war news at that time, and it was really troubling to wake up to.

I would listen to it later in the day, in the evening, and what remained true is that NPR was my trusted news source. Then in 2021, I was listening to a congressional hearing being broadcast live and several times when a Republican was making a very rational, but potentially threatening point to a Democrat principle, they cut to an announcer or a program id, and it happened with a frequency. And then alternatively, they would let the democratic speakers go on without interruption. And at that time, I just kind of arched an eyebrow and cocked my head and, and what it did deeper, more deeply for me was it shook my trust in my trusted news source that I listened to to get my news.

And so on the topic of consume news wisely, I wonder how do I find news that I can trust? Is it a matter of listening in a special way or is it available?

Tania: These are great questions. I want to start by saying. Listening to NPR is relatable content for me. If there is anyone I have woken up to in my adult life, it has been NPR most consistently. Uh, that’s, you know, I, so, so that has been my trusted news source and I love the depth in which they go into things. I love the range of topics that they cover, um, and I’ve become aware more recently as I’ve been listening with this, um, eye and ear to political division that it is, you know, it’s, it’s not a neutral source. Uh, it has a bias. I, I’ve noticed the same thing that you’ve noticed that they have different kinds of ways of talking to and talking about people on the left and the right, and so I just wanna validate everything that you’re noticing and at the same time, it’s still where I want to go for news. Um, and so, so that’s where I’m like, all right, you know, your question about like, what are we supposed to do here? I think it is a really good one. I think it’s very helpful to be aware of the bias of our news source. I think that that’s one of the best stances that we can go into the news with.

Um, many news sources are gonna have some kind of bias, but if we recognize what that bias is, and that doesn’t necessarily make us discredit that source, it’s saying, oh, they’re giving me a small slice of the information and they’re giving me a narrative, um, and information that supports that narrative. There are other narratives out there also, and I can go and seek those if I want a fuller picture.

Pema: That’s helpful to hear right off the bat. Uh, it reminds me of, when I was in sixth grade and learning reading comprehension where we would be assigned to read an essay, and then I remember the assignment was to read an essay and then by the end of the essay, see how much you retained, but also see how much of the content, how much of the substance of the essay was material to a particular point the author was making? Um, were they trying to persuade you? Did you remember how the details that they used, um, swayed the point that they were making? So I will sometimes think of sixth grade reading comprehension when I’m listening, uh, with an awareness of the bias of my news source.

Tania: Oh, I love that example because it just reminds us that, you know, like when we’re reading, we’re not just reading a bullet pointed list of facts. Uh, that we’re reading, uh, a narrative, we’re reading an argument, and it has facts that support it. Uh, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t facts that support a different argument or that there aren’t other arguments, but, um, but it’s true that we learn to comprehend something in the context of what’s the point that it’s trying to make. And that’s such a great way for us to think about the news that we’re consuming also, that often what we’re listening to, it’s trying to make a point and, and that’s what we’re getting. And there are other potential points that it could be making.

Pema: Could you say more about that?

Tania: Oh sure. When you look at the media coverage of vaccination rates, what people seem most familiar with and what was really being put out there so strongly was this partisan difference in vaccination rates. Um, by fall 2021, 90% of Democrats had received at least one dose of the Covid vaccine compared to 61% of Republicans. People seem incredibly aware of that, and that’s what I saw everywhere. What people are not as familiar with is that by January, 2022, 86% of US adults had gotten at least one shot. And I think that that’s an astounding thing, that we were focused on this partisan difference that, um, provided this narrative about vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaxxers and that there are these people who don’t wanna get any vaccine. And overall, only 14% of the US population hadn’t gotten any vaccine by, um, by January, 2022. And I think, wow, what if the media had leaned into that information? What if the media was like, oh my gosh, the American public has come together in a time of crisis to act in unity? Because for the most part, we really were. And you know, even those people who didn’t get shots, it turns out, you know, most of them were not anti-vaxxers per se. People had a variety of reasons that they hadn’t gotten vaccinated. So, that’s where I just see we’re getting a very specific narrative and what we know about um, so if you look at like college student drinking for example, we know that, um, college students who think that other college students drink a lot, tend to drink a lot themselves. That what we think are the peer norms really affect our behavior. So, instead of saying, oh, Republicans don’t get vaccinated very much, which was kind of what the news was telling us. If we said everybody got vaccinated, a lot like, or, you know, most people got vaccinated. I wonder if that would’ve actually gotten more people to get vaccinated rather than perhaps having some people dig into their political identities and feel like, you know, whether or not they got vaccinated was a representation of their ideology.

Pema: Right, so I’m not choosing to get vaccinated or not based on what my preferred political party is doing. I’m actually kind of checking into what I believe about my health and what I’m learning about a pandemic to make a decision. I mean, that’s what it sounds like you’re saying.

Tania: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So that it’s not yet another way that we signify what tribe we’re in, in this polarized society.

Pema: Right. I mean, at the risk of pushing too hard on this, I know that there has been an anti-VAX movement in other cases pre, uh, COVID and that some people regarding their own particular health decisions have a, um, you know, really clear choices about that but this was kind of more about a movement and more about a tribal choice, is what it sounds like you’re saying.

Tania: Well, so 86% is, you know, still not a hundred percent. So there’s certainly people who don’t get vaccinated and some percentage of those people are really part of this, you know, kind of anti-vaccination movement. It’s a very small percentage though of our, of, of the American public is actually, um, part of the anti-vaccination movement.

So we can either focus on this very small anti-vaccination movement, or we can focus, I mean, there’s a lot of possibilities, but another possibility is that we focus on this sort of unifying message of overall what people did, um, in this country. So, it’s not a matter of one of them, again, like this is one of those, like neither aspect of that is misinformation per se, but if you look at the media coverage of vaccination rates, hardly anybody mentioned, that 86%. I found it one place like buried deeply in one article, but the primary point of that article was about this partisan difference. So the partisan difference seems much more interesting, I think, for the media to cover than this kind of unity message. But, by continuing to cover divisiveness, does that then become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Pema: I see. Right. It is interesting to imagine what pressing on a unifying message might look like just as a thought exercise. It’s really different. So we’ve talked about extremes and how polarization is often fed by a media position that draws listeners and viewers and readers. Into it because it’s extreme, because it causes reactions.

Tania: I mean with the 24 hour news channels and the, you know, the importance for the media to keep our attention, we get this idea that like every single thing is urgent and breaking. I mean, how many urgent and breaking text messages have I gotten on my phone lately? It’s like all the time. Uh, and, and in addition to this, um, you know, emotional activation of that showing us the extremes, because also, that’s sort of more interesting and more attention getting than showing like, people just going about their daily lives and not having conflict. You know, you’ve gotta have some kind of conflict to resolve in, in any kind of, um, media that we’re consuming to keep our attention. So it tends to amplify the division and the hostility. I’m gonna give an example of this. Um, I was interviewed, you know, about political division. I have this new book out and so we were talking about that and, and so in this, so I just got to see the clip now, and the clip is me talking about how we’re not as polarized as we think we are. People aren’t as hostile as we perceive them to be. And the images that they’re showing are the January 6th, uh, you know, invasion of the US Capitol, the protests that were going on in Portland right before that. Um, you know, people holding, like signs that are really provocative and it’s just so funny because I was like, well, I appreciated that they interviewed me and let me unpack all of this stuff about how we’re not as divided and hostile as we think we are, but I’m like, what are the viewers gonna take away from that? Me saying all these very reasonable things that are factually true. Or images of hostility and violence and extremism. So, you know, I, I think that even, even in trying to cover political division, it’s, um, you know, we, we may be amplifying it.

Pema: So that’s both hilarious and heartbreaking. I mean,

Tania: Yes.

Pema: Uh, point taken. I mean, I keep thinking about what it’s like, what it means to be aware of the bias of my news source while I’m watching something so on the news as you, you talking about the facts, while, um, these images are shown and that feels like it would really exercise my muscle of, wait one of these, what I’m seeing is not relating to what I’m saying. That feels a little bit clockwork orange to me. Um, like, uh.

Tania: Well, you know, it’s interesting because, I mean, you and I have both talked about how we listen to the news and what I realized is I often don’t know what things look like because I’m mostly getting my news, um, through my ears. And I mean, this is why I didn’t know what Taylor Swift looked like until like two years ago. Um, so there’s. There’s something interesting about how those vivid images really can be so emotionally evocative also, um, versus hearing something described,

Pema: Uh, it makes me think of reality shows and how viewers are tuned to, um, stick with the drama. It makes me have all kinds of emotions when I am seeing something that are counteracting what I’m understanding of listening to the facts, for instance, that you’re sharing.

Tania: Well, and I think what we’re realizing is that no matter what form the, we’re getting the news there  can be bias. Some of it’s gonna be more emotionally evocative than other parts, but that bias is there. There’s this thing that I’ve been thinking, which is noticing how when I’m listening to the news on NPR, they always will label people’s political parties like, you know, um, this Democratic Senator, blah, blah, blah, or a Republican member of Congress and.

I’m like, I start to think, I wonder what would happen if they just didn’t say people’s political parties, because I realize sometimes I kind of rely on that to know what, what point they’re trying to make. Like what are they trying to say about that? Or how should I be feeling about that particular bill? ‘Cause sometimes it’s not always obvious. Uh, when, when they describe something, sort of what, um, uh. What my opinion about that might be and um, and, and it, so, so I feel like sometimes by labeling something as this came from a Democrat or the Republican, they’re sort of like, this is the other side versus this is our group, you know?

Pema: Absolutely. I relate to that and sometimes I look for that because I will be reading something that seems that I’m assessing as rational. And then I will have an emotional response to that probably of calm and what it feels like to receive information. And then I’m like, wait, who’s saying this? Which side is saying this as if to inform my emotion and whether that’s okay to be on that side. Uh, yeah, that, that feels, that feels troubling to recognize it, and even actually to say it out loud feels really troubling.

Tania: I know it’s sort of embarrassing for me, uh, to say, yeah, like that, that does affect my assessment of something, whether it would come from a Democrat or a Republican. So I, I think that I, my awareness of that helps me to think about it a little bit more deeply than if I’m just kind of taking it in. And maybe that’s one of the things about consuming news wisely, is not just consuming it. Um, you know, we talk about media literacy. You were talking about, you know, reading comprehension. So basically that’s one of the things that we can really do when we’re consuming news and other media, is we can say, okay, what’s, what are they trying to, uh, get across here? And recognizing that that’s a particular take on it. Um, and, and if we sort of listen, like a little bit of a step removed from it. Um, so we’re not, you know, it’s, we’re not reading a novel. It’s not just a story that we, uh, wanna be completely absorbed by, but it’s something that we should be perhaps a little bit more discerning about.

Pema: I think that’s an interesting point. When I turn on the news to be entertained or to kind of rest a part of my brain so that it’s, I’m not having to just listen to my own thoughts. You know, it’s been a long day, so I just wanna kind of turn off my brain. If I’m listening to be entertained, that’s a good indicator that I’m not exactly listening beyond any bias.

Tania: Yeah. Well, and you know, some people have the news on literally all the time, like in the background, even while they’re working. You know, it’s, it’s, it’s a companion of sorts and this actually is not so healthy for us to do, to just have it on constantly. Um, I, I realize that people might do this, especially if they’re home all the time, if they’re, you know, working at home or if they’re retired, uh, and, and they just want something in the background. Because news you can have on in the background all the time, and if you go make a sandwich or something, it’s okay. It’s like you’ll, you know, it’s, it’s not like if you’re watching Downton Abbey, you know, and you’re gonna miss something important if you, if you go away from it for a minute. And it also feels important, you know, we feel like, oh, but it’s fine to have the news on all the time. ‘Cause the news is important. That it’s important for us to be informed, but then we get really so steeped in these narratives and we’re not, um, uh, taking it in from any kind of discerning position.

Pema: I think what’s also interesting that you talk about is how like, when I think about listening to that much news, part of it, uh, has kind of become a culture of can you spout an opinion? The barometer of how much I know is, can I spout an opinion? Can you talk about that or correct me about that concept?

Tania: It feels like interacting in the world these days, everybody is, um, is forming opinions about everything. You know, like you have to have an opinion about something. I’ve started to take this stance of, that’s something I don’t need to have an opinion about. You know, as soon as Harris picked her vice presidential running mate, people kept asking me like, what do you think? What do you think? And I’m like, I, I, I don’t know. I haven’t looked into all of the different possibilities. Uh, I don’t really have an opinion on it. I’m sure she made a thoughtful choice and okay. Uh, and that seems, you know, in my circles, sort of odd, an odd thing to say, to sort of say, I, I’m just opting out of forming an opinion about this. Um, I’m not, you know, one of the people who was consulted about this, I didn’t have any, um, you know, particular role in it in any way. And so my opinion, I don’t know that it matters so much, but I feel like people are asking for it. And then people on social media like are putting out opinions constantly in this just unidirectional communication. And so, I don’t know, I do feel like there’s lots of sharing of opinions and forming of opinions, but I’m curious. Is it like that in your world too? Pema?

Pema: Oh yeah, sure. There’s a great Portlandia episode too, in case anybody ever watched that or watches that where, um, the characters were doing this skit about, well, I read this in the New York Times, well, I read that in the National, well I read this, and they’re one-upping each other on the things that they’ve learned. I think what I witness on social media now, and even in conversations at gatherings, uh, there is sometimes a, well, how much do you know? Well, I actually know this. Uh, and I actually know that. And I think that, um. That, that actually makes me think about polarization too. Um, around, huh? Well, great. I’m glad that we all know these things. What do we wanna have for dinner? And also maybe less about what do we ha in the, in regard to this conversation, less about what we are  having for dinner? It’s, we really care about these things. We care about our lives and our families and the laws that we’re living by. And so I think it does matter. Maybe there’s something I’m, I’m feeling around, yeah, there’s reading comprehension, but is there also listening comprehension when it comes to talking to friends, you know?

Tania: Well, and maybe part of this is thinking about coming to the news with what are your intentions? What are your goals? What are you trying to get out of it? If I’m trying to get out of it, you know, information so that I can form an opinion that then I can articulate in, you know, my social circles at, um, at happy hour, whatever, then okay, that’s one, um, goal that I don’t have all the time, you know, not about everything, but if my goal is to stay informed enough that I can be an informed voter, an informed, uh, member of my community so I can know what’s going on enough to pick and choose, like, what are the things that I wanna be involved in? Because it’s like, oh, they’re gonna move the farmer’s market. All right. Uh, what’s going on with that? And, and that’s something that I probably have a little bit more opportunity to advocate for and a little bit, um, more power in terms of weighing in and having an opinion than, you know, the vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket like that, you know, so, so some of it like how is it really affecting us? Um, what role do we have to play in things and what’s the type of informed that we need to be and from what sources in order to play that role?

Pema: I love that question of intention around how I wanna listen, and I love it further that I can gauge what I can have an action on or what is actually material to me in this moment. And my community in my relationships, that’s really helpful. So there’s a direction I wanna go here around health and harm. I have a friend whose doctor told him to stop listening to the news before he went to bed because it was causing him anxiety and it was affecting him all day long. It was affecting his decisions and it was even affecting his hormones. And I have heard this before with another friend and so. It calls to mind your book that came out in August, Tania Facing the Fracture, and for me, I took so much in the realm of self care from your book. Can you talk about that?

Tania: Sure. Well, I’ll, let me talk about it as it relates to this, this topic, because basically consuming news wisely it’s chapter two of the book because it’s very early on because basically we are not, um, I. We’re not viewing the world accurately, in a number of ways that our perceptions are really skewed. And one of the things that’s helpful for us to do is turn down some of that polarizing input to really reduce what we’re taking in because it’s giving us an idea that we are more divided, that we are more hostile. And the news is one of those things that’s doing that. The other thing that the news is doing, that you, oh my gosh, that story that you have about, you know, it’s actually affecting hormones. It’s not surprising. Um, and it’s, it’s affecting sleep. People tell me all the time that they’re losing sleep and I’m like, you know, what are you doing right before bed? And people are just doom scrolling right before bed, or listening to really emotionally activating content that’s just, you know, not good sleep hygiene. But you know, the other thing is whatever news you are tuning into right then it can wait till tomorrow for you to find out about that. We keep feeling there’s a sense of urgency, like you have to know about things immediately when they happen. And you know, the way we used to live and the way I grew up was that, you know, my parents would read the paper in the morning, watch the evening news, and so they would basically get their news twice a day and the rest of the day they weren’t getting news and that was okay. It was okay to only get it in these limited time periods and it’s still okay to do that. We might not have a hot take on things, we might not be able to participate in social media by, you know, doing the latest hashtag. And not only is that okay, that’s probably good to not be so focused on sort of, forming immediate opinions of things and finding ways to express and amplify ourselves.

Pema: So let’s talk about. About misinformation, how does that come into play?

Tania: You know, Americans are so concerned about misinformation and disinformation. They see it as the greatest challenge of the media landscape, and indeed like misinformation where it exists, um, can be very damaging in terms of health and voting and even violence. It turns out though, that we’re not exposed to it nearly as much as we think we are in, in one study, and they used, granted a narrower definition of misinformation. But what they found was that in, seven and a half hours of media that we consume each day, less than one minute is interacting with misinformation. So I think that this really hearkens back to what we were talking about earlier, which is, it’s not necessarily that the other side is misinformed or uninformed, it’s that they’re not getting the same information that we are. So they might be uninformed about the things that we’re exposed to, but we’re also kind of uninformed about the things that they’re exposed to. You know, everybody thinks that misinformation is only happening to the other side also, you know, so that says to me there’s a cognitive bias involved in this. So between the media narratives and our cognitive biases, it really creates some misperceptions and skewed perceptions about not only what’s going on in the world, but even more so about people on the other side. So we think that they’re misinformed ’cause we hear a ton of stuff about misinformation and how damaging it is. But we’re only hearing that the other side is getting it. And then our cognitive biases, our minds just gobble that up. Because it’s so consistent with this bias that we have of, um, confirmation bias where we only pay attention to things that support what we already believe to be true and we ignore or dismiss things that, um, contradict our existing beliefs. And so. Well, that always tells us we’re right. We’re going to our source of media that says, oh yes, you’re right about all that, and the other side is wrong. So there’s really this interplay going on between media narratives and our cognitive biases. Honestly, the only conspiracy theory I know to be true is that media and your mind are conspiring to distort your perceptions of people on the other side of the divide.

Pema: I wanna blame that all on a boogeyman. Like, oh my gosh, that’s so big and so villainous, and now what? But what I take from all of your saying and the research in your book and in others’ contributions to this topic is that this is many layered, there are many pieces to this puzzle.

Tania: It’s complex and, but when we think about media literacy, I mean, it’s important to be able to look at things in a discerning way to know like, is this something that’s actually true? I mean, I always go to Snopes to check out things that I’m like, Hmm, did that actually happen? Like, are Taylor Swift and Beyonce doing a fundraiser for Kamala Harris? And it’s like, oh no, actually they’re not. Um, so I. So it’s good to be able to look at sort of what’s factual and what’s not factual, but even more so. What’s important for us as discerning consumers of news is to recognize that whatever our source of news is, it’s providing a narrative with information that supports that narrative, and there are other narratives available with information that supports those that we’re probably not exposed to. It’s, it’s the small slices of information that we’re exposed to that really divides how we’re seeing the world more than true versus false information.

Pema: I appreciate taking that on from a, sitting at my desk, looking at my laptop perspective, I’m gonna type in, uh, to Snopes and compare something. And then I think about sitting across the desk, a different desk or sitting at the table with somebody at a dinner who, uh, let’s say a little party and they’ve got the information that they’re passionately sharing. I can’t check into Snopes and actually at, in that very moment, and even if I, and if I do look at Snopes, I’m, I’m gonna be contradicting them if it turns out to not be true. Do you have some thoughts about, you know, facing each other in those moments where our bias shows up?

Tania: Sure, and we will definitely get into talking about that more in later episodes. But I would say that the way that we think about that in terms of news, sometimes there will be things that you encounter that you’re like, okay, I know that that’s not like the whole story or that that’s a conspiracy theory that doesn’t have any grounding. What we know and the way we communicate it might be two different things. So it’s important that we are discerning consumers. It’s not always important that then what we do is translate that into correcting other people all the time because it turns out that’s not effective in terms of whatever goals we’re trying to achieve. Um, so, so I think that probably better, you know, as we think about consuming news is to really think about our own media consumption and how to come to that with a little bit more discernment and even humility.

Pema: So we’ve talked in depth about a lot of issues today. I’m wondering what are some takeaways people can look to as they’re coming to the end of this? listen.

Tania: So if there were three things that I could tell people to do, uh, that would help them to consume media better, the first thing is to limit your intake. So don’t have it on in the background all the time. Turn off your notifications for the news, limiting how much you’re focusing on, but, but still stay informed.

Also just don’t engage with content that seems intent on activating your emotions. Of course, you might feel an emotional response to some things that you are encountering, but there’s some news that just in terms of not just the content, but the tone of it and the urgency of it seems, uh, to be focused on trying to get your emotions engaged. And, um, that for me, uh, is best to avoid or limit. 

And then third, that piece about being a discerning consumer. So being aware of the bias of your news source. And there’s actually a couple of resources that are helpful for that. So all sides.com and ground news both provide some really great information for consumers about the bias of the various news sources and about how stories might be positioned differently, uh, different narratives and different perspectives. So limit intake, limit engagement with content that seems intent on activating your emotions, and be aware of the bias of your news source.

Pema:  Okay. I feel healthy already.

Tania: That’s great. Well, I’m Tanya Israel, professor, psychologist, and author of Facing the Fracture.

Pema: And I’m Pema Rocker, creative coach and author of Ash and Spirit. Make your choice.

Tania: Are you ready to be strong?