Book examines the consequences of political conversations – The Source

Misinformation is a threat to democracy, but who is to blame? Is it the mainstream media, politicians, social media? Or is there perhaps another culprit – ordinary citizens?

In her new book, Through the Grapevine: Socially Transmitted Information and Distorted Democracy, published by The University of Chicago Press, Taylor Carlson, an associate professor of political science in the Arts & Sciences Department at Washington University in St. Louis, examines how ordinary people—not just the media and politicians—contribute to the creation and spread of misinformation through conversations about politics with friends, colleagues and family.

“Accurate information about politics is essential to a functioning democracy,” Carlson said. “For decades, those who deal with the information landscape have focused on the mass media, but roughly a third of Americans do not learn about politics by engaging directly with the news. Instead, they learn about politics from conversations with others and from social media.”

As anyone who has ever played a game of Chinese whispers knows, news can easily become distorted as it passes from person to person. In her book, Carlson examines how political information changes as it flows from person to person in the news media.

Carlson’s research has shown that the information people share with each other from the news is becoming sparser, more distorted, less accurate, and less mobilizing. These changes in information can sometimes lead to people being less informed and polarized, but also becoming increasingly politically engaged.

“Learning politics through the proverbial grapevine fosters a distorted democracy. A distorted democracy is characterized by an ill-informed, polarized but engaged public,” Carlson said.

“This means that people who learn about politics primarily from others rather than from the news are likely to be exposed to distorted information that can influence their decision-making. Specifically, people may learn less, believe more misinformation, develop more polarized political preferences, but become more politically engaged.”

Trust is key

Why do people get their political information from their peers rather than from the media? Most studies to date have assumed that people seek information from friends because it is a convenient shortcut – a time saver when they don’t have time to read and stay informed about the news. But Carlson’s research offers a different explanation: trust.

“One of the most interesting and surprising findings of my research was the role that trust plays in this equation,” Carlson said.

According to Carlson, research has shown that people who rely on the news for their political information trust the news to give them accurate and objective information. However, “trust” was also the top reason people rely on word of mouth for political information. They say they can’t trust the media to be accurate and objective, but they can trust their friends.

“This clearly shows how important trust is to the way people learn about what is going on in the world and how they interpret it,” Carlson said.

“Restoring trust in the media will be of enormous importance to the future of our democracy. But trust is a two-way street – it is not just the American public that is distrustful; the media has also given us reason to distrust over time.

“If you don’t trust the mainstream media or even fringe media, how can you trust your friend to be the gatekeeper of your information? Where does your friend get his information? Does he seek out reliable information? Does he bring his own opinions to the information he shares? These are all important questions to ask yourself as a recipient of this information,” she said.

Carlson said it’s important to approach political conversations with friends with the same skepticism you bring to information shared in mainstream media and on the internet.

It is time to talk about our political conversations

“Through the Grapevine,” which will be released July 6, is Carlson’s third book in a series that examines how interpersonal political communication contributes to the state of American politics today. In their last book, “What Goes Without Saying: Navigating Political Discussions in America,” Carlson and co-author Jaime E. Settle focused on understanding political discussion as a social process and figuring out why people engage in political discussion in the first place or avoid it altogether.

A central theme of that book was the social considerations, such as maintaining social relationships, that drive decisions in political conversations. Through the Grapevine takes Carlson’s research a step further and examines the political consequences of such discussions.

“If polarization can happen without a partisan media, then who is to blame? It’s easy to blame ‘the media’ or ‘partisan media’ for the problems in American politics. And the media certainly deserves credit for contributing to polarization. But the results of this study are provocative because they blame each other. We all share some responsibility for polarization,” Carlson said.

“This is an uncomfortable reality that we must continue to understand if we are to try to change it.”

But before we blame each other for our role in polarization, Carlson urges people to think more deeply about whether this is all bad. Throughout her book, she tries to develop a balanced view of whether political conversation is good or bad for democracy.

“Although the results presented here are indeed substantively and statistically significant, showing that simple, socially transmitted information can cause attitudes to become more orderly and extreme, some researchers suggest that polarization can be good for the functioning of democracy. Polarization can make it easier for voters to identify candidates and parties that support their policy preferences and encourage political engagement that could actually help democracy work better,” Carlson said.

Ultimately, Carlson hopes her book will inspire a deeper discussion among scholars and ordinary people about the impact of political conversations on our democracy.