If you’re reading the news and think to yourself, “that’s what I’ve been saying all along,” then you’re doing it wrong. That’s right, you’re doing it wrong.
I’m not suggesting that you exclusively read material you disagree with, only that the news you read should be delivering new information, adding to your knowledge, understanding and perspective.
It is our tendency to gravitate toward agreeable and familiar material while shying away from the disagreeable and unfamiliar. When someone serves food we either don’t recognize or don’t care for, we may try to be polite, eating a small serving, but none of us is asking for a larger helping without trying it first.
Likewise, when it comes to media, we are eager to consume things we already enjoy — we clean our metaphorical plates and ask for seconds. Moreover, we are each susceptible to confirmation bias. Simply put, we have a tendency to read something and search for how it “confirms” our existing positions. We actually seek opportunities to tell ourselves, “that’s what I’ve been saying all along.” Media entities understand these characteristics and produce material to further promote this behavior.
In his book, "Irresistible," Adam Alter writes about the addictive properties of media. “According to Tristan Harris, a ‘design ethicist,’ the problem isn’t that people lack willpower; it’s that ‘there are a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job it is to break down the self-regulation you have.’”
And how are these anonymous tempters breaking down our attempts at self-control? By identifying what we consume and supplying more of the same. But I don’t need to tell you that — that much you already know. Perhaps you are OK with it. Perhaps it doesn’t bother you that you continue to consume the same thing, over and over again. That is what’s being made available to you, precisely because you are a reliable consumer of that content.
In his seminal work, "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill wrote about the importance of entertaining contrary thoughts or arguments in the proverbial "marketplace of ideas."
“Since the general or prevailing opinion on any object is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied," he said.
In short, we obtain greater accuracy only by granting access to additional information. Moreover, Mill argues, when we fail to consider other perspectives, we compromise what knowledge we already have. Eventually, if we refuse to entertain other ideas and allow them to battle our existing notions, our convictions will waver. Atrophy will set in, even for truth.
When it comes to news, we, individually, are the marketplaces, and each marketplace needs to remain open, accessible to alternative opinions and interpretations. We need to expand our thinking, whether to make room for better ideas or give strength to existing convictions.
So the next time you sit down at the kitchen table to read a newspaper, or more likely at your computer to read online, ask yourself, “is that what I’ve been saying all along?” If your answer is “yes,” move on.