Antagonistic Labels in Conflict and Media

Aaron Rafferty is the co-founder of BattlePACs

Painful emotional triggers can be powerful. At times they lead to negative judgment and the use of degrading labels. Whether that’s productive can be debated. Surprisingly this has become increasingly common in media reporting and on social media.

This article engages in discussing the practice of labeling to shame and ostracize.

“The vitriol in the media and on social media is a reflection of the state of political discourse in our country right now,” says Aaron Rafferty, co-founder of BattlePACs, a technology platform that leverages NFTs to transform how citizens engage in politics and civil discourse.

“Decades ago, Democrats and Republicans could disagree without being disagreeable,” he asserts. “The parties would also work together on issues where there was common ground. Fast forward to today, the political opposition is treated as an enemy and our political discourse revolves more around destroying the enemy than it does around finding solutions to problems facing the country.”

The reality of the byproduct is clear.

“This doesn't accomplish much,” Rafferty says. “It inhibits real, substantive progress on important issues, turns citizens against each other and tears at the fabric of our country.”

What could prove helpful is the work being done at his organization.

“This is what we hope to change with BattlePACs. BattlePACs will promote civil conversations across party lines and work to identify shared values and concerns,” he states. “We are building a new political ecosystem from the ground up, which presents a tremendous and exciting opportunity to reimagine how citizens engage in political conversations.”

Media participation is occurring in communicating and spreading inflammatory labels in place of using more professional, descriptive language that is less emotionally charged, that could decrease the hostility in society, regardless of where people are on the socio-political spectrum.

“The unfortunate reality is that conflict is good for business,” Rafferty plainly explains. “The media, in many ways, is a contradictory institution.”

He explains this claim.

“It fulfills an important and positive role in society by holding those in power accountable. On the other hand, the media thrives on conflict and therefore stokes divisions in the way it frames issues,” he says.

And nowhere is this more evident than in the sensitive area of government.

“This is especially true in political reporting, where politics is more often covered from the perspective of the ‘horse race’ -- who is winning and who is losing,” Rafferty points out.

“The rise of partisan media on the right and left has also hastened the decline in our political discourse. These platforms on both the right and the left report from an explicitly-biased perspective that villainizes the other side, promotes conflict and exacerbates the partisan divide in the country.”

This point remains a point of contention with journalists and media outlets, who don’t like having their objectivity and professional questioned.

“There's a difference between mainstream media that are accused of having an ideological bias and media outlets that are unabashedly partisan and biased,” Rafferty contends.

“It's understandable that mainstream media outlets would get defensive when parties accuse them of being ideologically biased as a way of undermining their reporting.”

Media and journalists have a defensible point, he says.

“We see this happen most frequently with references to the so-called ‘liberal media’ or when coverage is characterized as ‘fake news.’ To the extent these labels are inaccurate, the media are right to defend their journalistic integrity,” Rafferty states.

However, there is still room to debate problems that are being recognized by consumers.

“With the explicitly-partisan media, they are defending something different — their business models. They argue that they are catering to their audiences, providing news and opinion through ideological filters that their readers or viewers crave,” Rafferty says. “They're not wrong, and this argument underscores the problems with our current political discourse.”

The issues in a way start with society, he reasons.

“The media are a reflection of us. If there wasn't a market for divisive and ideologically-biased reporting, partisan media outlets would not exist. In order to change the media conversations, we need to fundamentally change the political conversations occurring in the county.”

This is something, Rafferty says, that “we hope to accomplish with BattlePACs.”

Despite the significance of the problems and challenges to work through and overcome them, improvements and solutions remain possible. It won’t be easy though as long as society sticks to its favored media consumption.

“Media leaders cater to their audiences, so as long as viewers and readers seek out partisan, emotionally charged and-or antagonistic content, we will likely see this trend continue,” Rafferty says. “In order to fix the media conversation, we need to fix the tone and tenor of the political conversations that we, as Americans, have with each other.”

Rafferty touches on what BattlePacs is committed to achieving to change the momentum and redirect habits.

“Rather than perpetuating conflict, we are providing a safe and fun space for everyone to engage and express their opinions in a civil manner,” he says. “Democrats can engage with Republicans, and vice versa. Independents will also have a greater voice.”

He explains the ideal being sought and pursued.

“We hope that creating a platform for more civil political discourse will have a tangible and positive impact on real-world political conversations and awareness of important issues.”

When it comes to society, there is space for more responsible, measured communication.

“There is hope,” Rafferty trusts. “We firmly believe that political conversations occurring today do not truly reflect the country as a whole because so many people have been left out of the current discourse.

“Independents and moderates in both parties typically have their voices overshadowed by the political extremes. Young people may find it difficult to break into an entrenched and polarized political system that doesn’t serve their interests.”

The byproduct has not been helpful and citizens are unimpressed.

“Citizens of all political stripes have become disillusioned with the dysfunction and vitriol in our politics,” Rafferty says.

Regardless of that reality, he presents encouraging news.

“Once everyone has a voice and feels comfortable expressing themselves, we expect more measured and constructive political conversations will take hold.”

This will also have a positive effect, Rafferty says, on reporting and media commentary.

“Once this happens, the media conversations will follow suit.”