Whether it’s the corona, the climate or politics – there’s hardly any objective discussion these days. Sabine Pöhacker on the reasons for the increasing polarisation of our society.

The search for simple answers
What is right and what is wrong? People are increasingly losing their bearings in an overabundance of information. In times of crisis, existential fears are quickly added to the mix, creating a breeding ground for demagogues and quacks. We uncritically allow ourselves to be seduced by those who claim to have a simple solution, knowing full well that complex problems can only be solved in complex ways. All too often, the pied pipers of our time operate on the fringes of political parties. A study by the American Center for Countering Digital Hate shows that just twelve influencers dominated about 80 per cent of the coronavirus debate in the US. When it comes to critical issues, the views of the middle go largely unheard, while pithy slogans, charged hate speech and heretical war rhetoric from individuals find their way into the mass media in a matter of seconds.

Internet trolls intensify debate
Internet trolls spread hate and malice, personal opinions and deliberately spread disinformation circulate online without any filters. Users allow algorithms to confirm their way of thinking and wallow in the uniformity of their bubbles. Television, print and online media contribute equally to the division of society: sensational stories are adopted without reflection, balanced journalism is only available in homeopathic doses. At the same time, entire TV networks are devoted to their own political views – think of Fox News and Donald Trump, or NBC, which is clearly Democratic.

The poison of polarisation
Polarisation is a major threat to democracy, and we can only lose in the long run if we ignore or even trample on the opinions of others. Families, but also schools and clubs, have a key role to play in countering polarisation: they can address the threat of division while promoting a culture of debate and critical thinking among young people. A prime example of this is the voluntary “living rooms” in the USA, where people with very different opinions come together with the aim of reflecting on and accepting opposing views. In Austria, too, presidential candidate Marco Pogo recently demonstrated the value of discussion – his campaign slogan “Red’ ma drüber” won him 8% of the Austrian electorate.

The media can also play a role in preserving democracy: journalists – whether from quality media or the tabloids – have an obligation to act according to journalistic principles and to report in a balanced way so that individuals can form a valid opinion. The debate should not be led by pithy slogans, but by evidence-based facts and the opinions of recognised experts.