Bonus Episode: Bridging the Divide – Journalism in an Age of Polarization

In this special bonus episode of On Assignment, guest host Dr. Kanji Nakamura, a civic engagement expert from San Francisco, unpacks one of the most urgent threats to American democracy: political polarization. As partisan divides deepen and media discourse grows more combative, what role should journalism play in restoring trust and fostering dialogue?

Dr. Nakamura explores how traditional journalism's reliance on conflict-driven narratives may be fueling the problem—and how a shift toward constructive journalism could offer a path forward. Drawing on real-world examples, research insights, and strategies from fields like mediation and public engagement, this episode examines how journalists can move from amplifying division to creating space for mutual understanding, empathy, and problem-solving.

From "Walk a Mile in My News" to Braver Angels workshops, discover how storytelling and newsrooms can help bridge ideological chasms—by listening better, listening louder, and encouraging conversations that heal rather than harm.

Creators and Guests

Guest

Dr. Kanji Nakamura

Dr. Kenji Nakamura is a researcher focused on depolarization and local civic engagement. His work bridges political psychology and grassroots organizing, helping communities reclaim agency by focusing on shared local narratives rather than divisive national frames.

What is On Assignment by The Assignment Desk?

On Assignment is a podcast about the people, practices, and ideas shaping the future of journalism. Produced by The Assignment Desk, each episode dives into the evolving world of local media, journalism education, news innovation, and the urgent fight against disinformation. From conversations about newsroom funding and emerging technologies to rebuilding public trust and reimagining community storytelling, On Assignment explores the challenges and possibilities facing today’s news landscape. Whether you’re a journalist, student, educator, or simply someone who cares about credible information, this podcast is your place to listen, learn, and stay connected to the mission of public-interest journalism.

Welcome back to "On Assignment," and thank you for joining us for this special bonus episode. I'm Doctor Kanji Nakamura, and today we're going to dig a little deeper into one of the most pressing challenges facing American democracy right now: the widening political divides.

It's a topic that touches all of our lives – from our dinner tables to our national discourse – and it's something that journalism, traditionally a cornerstone of informed society, has a unique and critical role to play.

We're living in a deeply polarized world, and frankly, it often feels like we're drowning in what one researcher called a "swamp of distortions, lies and untruths." This polarization isn't just about disagreeing on policy anymore; it's escalated to a point where people sometimes view those on the "other side as an existential threat." This creates a "corrosive and dangerous" impact on politics, society, and even journalism itself.

We see growing intolerance, a refusal to truly listen and talk to one another. The numbers are pretty stark: studies from 2017 showed alarming sentiments, with a significant percentage of both Republicans and Democrats agreeing that the country would be "better off if large numbers of opposing partisans in the public today 'just died'." By March 2022, the average Democrat and Republican were "further apart ideologically than at any time in the last 50 years."

These divisions – often tied to identity, whether nationality, religion, gender, or political partisanship – have been supercharged by the internet and social media, turning online debates into shriller, uglier, and more extreme exchanges.

So where does journalism fit into this picture? Well, for too long, journalists have – perhaps unintentionally – contributed to this polarization. The traditional "conflict model" of journalism, which has worked for over a century, often portrays political disagreements as "punch-ups," "battles," or "war." This combative language and the focus on "winners and losers" can make political coverage feel like warfare, driven by the pursuit of clicks and viewership.

Surveys, particularly in Denmark, indicate that the public is "fed up with politicians yelling at each other in the media." What people truly want are politicians who offer solutions, admit doubts, and are willing to listen.

This traditional approach leads to several problems that actually worsen polarization:

First, there's poisonous, combative language. Not every political issue needs to be treated as a "row," and not every story needs to be "ramped up" for dramatic effect.

Then we have debate formats. Many televised debates are "engineered to provoke confrontation," focusing on extremes in the hope of creating shouting matches. This approach is often a turn-off for viewers, who would prefer debates that are "civil and informative" and offer solutions.

There's also news fatigue. A relentlessly negative news agenda leads to fatigue, especially among young people, who are increasingly avoiding news altogether. Many teenagers, particularly in India and Africa, want news to contain solutions.

We're seeing a lack of public engagement. The decline of local news has shifted focus to national news, which tends to be more factional, reducing opportunities for local civic engagement.

Online comments present another challenge. While the internet offered a chance for journalists to connect with readers, online comment sections often become "abusive, sexist, misogynist, sectarian and intolerant."

There's the issue of bias and false balance. Journalists are sometimes perceived as partisan or elitist, leading to a loss of trust. Furthermore, attempts at "balance" can sometimes be "false balance" – pitting a scientist against a climate denier, for instance – which distorts reality and exacerbates polarization.

And finally, there's not listening. Journalists are often accused of "not listening enough," approaching interviews with preconceived notions and treating people as "walking quote boxes."

So if journalism is part of the problem, how can it become part of the solution? The answer lies in shifting towards what's known as constructive journalism or solutions journalism. This approach, championed by organizations like the Constructive Institute, believes that journalism should not only expose problems but also "offer solutions." It's about moving beyond being just "smoke-detectors" and actively engaging in "promoting constructive conversation."

How do we actually do this? We can learn from other fields, like marriage counseling or mediation. The goal is to facilitate dialogue and create spaces where people can truly connect and understand each other, even when they disagree.

Let me share some strategies for journalism to bridge political divides, drawing lessons from various sources:

First, cultivating the right mindset – what researchers call intrapersonal strategies.

For journalists, this means introspection and a conscious shift in their approach to reporting and moderation.

Practice empathy and open-mindedness. Try to understand the feelings, motivations, and experiences of others, avoiding "preconceived notions or stereotypes." This allows journalists to approach conversations with genuine willingness to consider alternative viewpoints.

Avoid jumping to conclusions. Resist making snap judgments based on limited information.

Break out of the echo chamber. Diversify media consumption and social circles to gain different perspectives, moving towards what might be uncomfortable but enlightening experiences.

Engage in personal reflection. Journalists should ask themselves, "Why do I feel this way about the issue? Is there another way to think about the issue? Is the issue more complicated than I think?"

Seek first to understand. Assume that the other person's perspective "makes as much sense to them as yours does to you."

Develop a collaborative mindset. See conflict as an "opportunity to learn and push thinking to a new level," shifting away from "us vs. them" thinking towards problem-solving. This includes believing that "diverse parties can find answers of mutual benefit."

Second, facilitating better conversations – the interpersonal strategies.

This involves how journalists interact with and guide public discussions.

Listen first. When people feel heard, they are "more inclined to bridge differences." This requires active listening, focusing on the "heart of the message" – feelings, fears, and needs – rather than just facts. Asking clarifying, open-ended questions like, "Can you tell me more about that?" or "Did I get that right?" is crucial.

Put people before politics. Encourage sharing personal stories and experiences before diving into political discussions to humanize the conversation. Use "hedging language" like "probably" or "sometimes" to acknowledge complexity and avoid speaking in absolutes.

Practice perspective taking and giving. Recognize and empathize with different worldviews to diminish the tendency to label others as adversaries.

Find commonalities. Actively look for shared interests, values, or goals that transcend superficial differences. "Connecting questions" can help uncover these shared identities.

Seek to understand values. Understand the underlying moral foundations that drive people's positions, even if those values differ from one's own. This is not about changing minds, but fostering understanding.

Third, creating conditions for dialogue – the intergroup strategies.

Journalism can actively convene and shape environments for productive engagement.

Convene and facilitate meetings. Create spaces for open dialogue, encouraging individuals to share experiences and challenge misconceptions.

Identify shared problems and goals. Focus on common challenges that require collaborative effort, redirecting focus from individual identities to collective aims.

Focus on solutions, not identities. Guide discussions towards practical solutions rather than reinforcing stereotypes or assigning blame based on group identity.

Create safe spaces for dialogue. Provide inclusive environments, whether in town halls, community dialogues, or workshops, with ground rules that promote active listening and discourage dismissive behavior. Facilitators are key to ensuring neutrality and balancing participation.

Now, let me share some real-world examples that demonstrate these principles in action:

The "Turbine of Constructive Conversation" from the Constructive Institute proposes a model with ten essential elements for constructive conversation: listening, asking, being based on facts, nuanced, rich in different perspectives, solution-oriented, respectful, concrete, engaging, and uniting. These elements, combined with factors like clear goals, rules, effective moderation, thoughtful settings, meticulous recruiting, and training, form a holistic approach to foster productive public discourse.

Braver Angels Red/Blue Workshops is a non-governmental organization that applies principles from couples therapy to partisan polarization. Workshops bring together equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to "humanize" out-partisans by challenging stereotypes, fostering empathy, and correcting misperceptions about their views. Participants reflect on their own party's stereotypes and share their values and hesitations, with the goal of understanding, not persuading. A key finding is that these workshops significantly reduce "affective polarization" and increase support for depolarization, suggesting that combining emotional and informational approaches is impactful.

The "Walk A Mile In My News" program, for example, pairs "reds" and "blues" to read and discuss news from the "other side," fostering genuine connection and understanding. As one participant noted, "it's hard to hate someone when you know them."

"Melting Mountains" from Evergrey in the US took urban Hillary Clinton supporters to meet rural Donald Trump supporters, facilitating one-to-one exchanges that helped each side see the other as "human beings who had, for the most part, perfectly rational reasons for voting in the way they did."

"My Country Talks" from Zeit Online in Germany is described as "Tinder for politics" – this project uses an algorithm to match people with opposing views for one-on-one, in-person or online conversations. Studies showed that even a two-hour conversation could "reduce polarization and prejudice."

"Einig?" ("Do you agree?") from NRK in Norway is a groundbreaking TV program that discusses controversial issues with 2-4 participants, often without a visible host, encouraging them to ask questions to "understand the source of disagreement rather than blame one another." The goal is to replicate the "conciliatory, amiable tone politicians engage in when cameras are not around."

"Werkstatt Demokratie" from Süddeutsche Zeitung in Germany involves readers voting on topics, journalists providing facts, and then moderated workshops where readers "develop proposals" for solutions to present to politicians.

Now, it's important to acknowledge that bridging these divides is a complex and often challenging task. It's unrealistic to imagine completely "overcoming" them, especially given existing geopolitical and societal factors where some actors might even seek to widen them. Instead, the focus should be on "navigating" their impact and minimizing adverse effects.

Furthermore, simply calling for "civility" is often insufficient. True dialogue requires acknowledging and addressing "social power dynamics" and the fact that "not all civic actors are acting in good faith." For marginalized groups, discussions about issues like police violence are not abstract debates but "life-and-death" matters, where emotions understandably run high.

Bridging divides requires creating spaces where participants can "show up in all their complexity, as their full selves," which allows for authentic engagement and deeper understanding of underlying values and experiences, not just superficial similarities. This means journalism needs to be transparent about its processes, embrace diversity within newsrooms, and be willing to experiment and learn from mistakes.

In conclusion, political polarization is a significant threat to American democracy, and traditional journalism, with its emphasis on conflict, has inadvertently amplified it. However, a shift towards constructive journalism offers a powerful path forward. By adopting a mindset of empathy and understanding, employing active listening and question-asking, and creating intentional spaces for diverse groups to engage in solution-oriented dialogue, journalism can help "re-establish trust in democratic discourse" and strengthen the fabric of our society.

It's about listening better, listening louder, and helping people find their shared humanity amidst their differences, ensuring that our collective wisdom can be harnessed for a more resilient and collaborative future.

Thank you for joining me today for this bonus episode of "On Assignment." I hope you'll return again and learn more about the future of local journalism. Good bye.