Photo Negatives
While I was at home this weekend, I caught a glimpse of my father's Facebook feed. First off, I have tremendous respect for my father. He grew up in a very specific cultural context, and has political opinions that reflect his cultural and contextual acquisition, as well as the breadth of his life experience. He and my mother raised me to ask questions, seek answers, and draw my own conclusions, but to always respect other people, even if their opinions are different than my own. While many of my father's political opinions differ than my own, I am grateful for both him and for the experiences that have shaped his life and his understanding of the world.
A couple of times now, he has brought up Antifa in our conversations. Our conversations are never politically charged, but political topics do tend to arise every now and then. I have thought it odd that he would bring up Antifa, a fringe group of political extremists that I have never paid much mind to since they are seemingly small and have unhealthy approaches to political dialogue. But, I have seen enough of them and their practices to know that they are in no way a fair representation of the majority of politically progressive thinkers or voters. Essentially, I haven't paid them any mind.
Not so for my father. He seems to think that they are a threat, that their existence and prominence is both frightening and indicative of a violent shift in political discourse in this country. To them, they represent the political Left, and must be feared, denounced, and rejected at all costs.
So, as I had wondered about this significant disconnect of consciousness and awareness, I saw my conservative dad's FB feed this week. His feed showed all the same stories that mine showed, but with the exact opposite conclusions about who was right & who was wrong. One example was the story of the catholic boys' interaction with the native american elder in DC last week. I won't go into the details, but the version of the story that I read painted them as violent, privileged racists who went out of their way to attack a sacred Native American ceremony. What I saw on my father's Facebook feed, however, told a different story. They were passionate, pro-life children that were in DC to stand up for their beliefs in the sanctity of life, and were targeted and exploited by a media frenzy that turned a harmless interaction into a conspiracy of hatred and white supremacy.
I was surprised to see my father's version of the story. In truth, I didn't know anything about what actually happened. I read the headlines and saw the video clips and photos that I had access to and drew my own conclusion that these boys were bad people. So, how could my father see that same story and draw the opposite conclusion? It blew my mind.
The easiest thing to do would have been to assume my father was a racist, that he was a minority-hating conservative that thought that white kids like these should be able to do or say whatever they want, regardless of the impact of their words or actions. But, I knew that wasn't true about my dad. So, I decided to figure it out. How could we draw such completely different conclusions about the same story? I watched the full-length video and concluded that both my version and my father's version were incomplete. Both versions had been manipulated and stylized to fit the narrative that we wanted to believe. From his perspective, the boys were good people. From mine, the boys were bad people. But those perspectives were formed using stylized and manipulated information.
So, here's where the major issue arises. How did we get such different versions of the same story? Obviously, biased reporting has always existed. But, when all of our access to information is filtered to reinforce our bias, then we will never develop any understanding for the other side. I will never see those boys as caught in the middle of controversy that they don't deserve to be in. He will never see those boys as racists or insensitive. And, that's just that. The algorithms are set up so that this doesn't change. As long as we are being presented with opportunities to click on links of news stories that justify or reinforce our own worldviews, the marketing companies generate more traffic for their clients who only want to sell us shoes or cruises or diaper bags. It's all about traffic. So, we're stuck in this fragmented reality that we can't climb out of where the people you believe to be the good guys will always be the good guys and those you think are bad will always be bad.
The problem, is that if I believe Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person that wants to destroy my way of life, how can I reconcile a democratic voter who believes her to be an excellent political leader and policy maker? I can't. If she's the devil, democrats are demons. And that's that. If I don't have access to the other side, I'm always right and anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong.
So, What do we do? I don't know, nor am I qualified to make a decision about how to fix the problem of algorithms on social media. But, I think I'm through having opinions. I think that if I want to believe something, I had better find a source of information that isn't trying to sell me health insurance. I believe that my dad is a good man, and if I want to understand him I have to submit to the truth that I know nothing. Maybe he's right. I will decide for myself, but not before I know the facts, as best as they can be known. Let's try that for a bit.
A couple of times now, he has brought up Antifa in our conversations. Our conversations are never politically charged, but political topics do tend to arise every now and then. I have thought it odd that he would bring up Antifa, a fringe group of political extremists that I have never paid much mind to since they are seemingly small and have unhealthy approaches to political dialogue. But, I have seen enough of them and their practices to know that they are in no way a fair representation of the majority of politically progressive thinkers or voters. Essentially, I haven't paid them any mind.
Not so for my father. He seems to think that they are a threat, that their existence and prominence is both frightening and indicative of a violent shift in political discourse in this country. To them, they represent the political Left, and must be feared, denounced, and rejected at all costs.
So, as I had wondered about this significant disconnect of consciousness and awareness, I saw my conservative dad's FB feed this week. His feed showed all the same stories that mine showed, but with the exact opposite conclusions about who was right & who was wrong. One example was the story of the catholic boys' interaction with the native american elder in DC last week. I won't go into the details, but the version of the story that I read painted them as violent, privileged racists who went out of their way to attack a sacred Native American ceremony. What I saw on my father's Facebook feed, however, told a different story. They were passionate, pro-life children that were in DC to stand up for their beliefs in the sanctity of life, and were targeted and exploited by a media frenzy that turned a harmless interaction into a conspiracy of hatred and white supremacy.
I was surprised to see my father's version of the story. In truth, I didn't know anything about what actually happened. I read the headlines and saw the video clips and photos that I had access to and drew my own conclusion that these boys were bad people. So, how could my father see that same story and draw the opposite conclusion? It blew my mind.
The easiest thing to do would have been to assume my father was a racist, that he was a minority-hating conservative that thought that white kids like these should be able to do or say whatever they want, regardless of the impact of their words or actions. But, I knew that wasn't true about my dad. So, I decided to figure it out. How could we draw such completely different conclusions about the same story? I watched the full-length video and concluded that both my version and my father's version were incomplete. Both versions had been manipulated and stylized to fit the narrative that we wanted to believe. From his perspective, the boys were good people. From mine, the boys were bad people. But those perspectives were formed using stylized and manipulated information.
So, here's where the major issue arises. How did we get such different versions of the same story? Obviously, biased reporting has always existed. But, when all of our access to information is filtered to reinforce our bias, then we will never develop any understanding for the other side. I will never see those boys as caught in the middle of controversy that they don't deserve to be in. He will never see those boys as racists or insensitive. And, that's just that. The algorithms are set up so that this doesn't change. As long as we are being presented with opportunities to click on links of news stories that justify or reinforce our own worldviews, the marketing companies generate more traffic for their clients who only want to sell us shoes or cruises or diaper bags. It's all about traffic. So, we're stuck in this fragmented reality that we can't climb out of where the people you believe to be the good guys will always be the good guys and those you think are bad will always be bad.
The problem, is that if I believe Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person that wants to destroy my way of life, how can I reconcile a democratic voter who believes her to be an excellent political leader and policy maker? I can't. If she's the devil, democrats are demons. And that's that. If I don't have access to the other side, I'm always right and anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong.
So, What do we do? I don't know, nor am I qualified to make a decision about how to fix the problem of algorithms on social media. But, I think I'm through having opinions. I think that if I want to believe something, I had better find a source of information that isn't trying to sell me health insurance. I believe that my dad is a good man, and if I want to understand him I have to submit to the truth that I know nothing. Maybe he's right. I will decide for myself, but not before I know the facts, as best as they can be known. Let's try that for a bit.
Comments