How can we heal the political divide without a consensus on reality?

Sauk Valley Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

I‘m not crazy about very cold weather. I don’t like having to bundle up to go out and I worry about falling on the ice. So, I find myself checking the weather report often in the winter. I might check the Telegraph or the Weather Channel or WNIJ or just call NOAA.

But no matter the source, I’m probably going to get just about the same forecast. If I hear that it’s going to be 5 degrees and windy on WNIJ, NOAA probably is not going to tell me that it’s going to be 70 degrees and sunny.

However, with other important news, it now seems that listeners can choose their own reality. If you’re not too crazy about the outcome of the Nov. 3 presidential election, for example, all you have to do is limit the news sources to those that will tell you that the presidential race continues to be undecided. As long as you restrict your exposure to information that matches your view of the world, you don’t have to accept the reality of the outcome of a race for president of the United States or the reality of a worldwide pandemic or the reality of global warming. A wide range of radio stations, TV channels, and social media sources will gladly supply you with words that comfortably fit with the perspective you wish to hold on to.

Between 1949 and 1987, the Fairness Doctrine required media outlets to present balanced points of view on controversial issues. Under the Fairness Doctrine, consumers of news reports were more likely to be exposed to a range of points of view and, at least theoretically, become better informed. Efforts to reinstate a similar set of rules were vetoed by both President Reagan and the first President Bush.

I wonder if it will be possible for the sharp political divide in this country to heal as long as people can turn on the “news” and hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. Without some consensus of what is true and what is false, is there any hope of neighborly conversation and dialog on challenging issues?

Sarah Bingaman

Dixon