A communication culture of binary framing

Hello, and welcome to another post where I pretty much centre myself. Are you surprised? How come? This is perfectly on brand for a white middle-aged woman...

I jest. But, seriously: My lack of academic prowess means I can only describe what I experience and witness rather than do formal research. And my resentment over having been spoken for (or over) too many times against my will or even without my involvement inspired a desire to never speak for others unless asked, which then leads me to write mostly from my own perspective. Then sometimes I publish what I write to give myself a (wicked?) sense of accomplishment and chase off anyone who I'd rather not ever be in the same (real or metaphorical) room with. If I did not also have a need to feel validated every now and then, I would only write and never publish, so there's definitely that, too, but I don't cherish any illusions in respect of my reach.

Lately I have been struggling to write coherent sentences and arguments, but I felt urged to at least make an attempt. I was going to post something shorter than this in the comment section of a YouTube video, but felt that wasn't the place to centre myself, whereas this online sandpit that I pay for to publish my writing very much is. Anyway, I do feel I have to at least link the video that inspired this latest bout of verbal vomit, but please understand this is in no way an attack of anyone who made that video or anyone mentioned in it.

The trigger

What triggered me on this particular occasion was coverage of ongoing legal wrangling between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. No disrespect to anyone involved, but celebrity news like this is, in itself, inconsequential to most of us. It does not matter if we know (of) the people involved or whether we like or dislike either or both, most of us will not be changed by what's happened or what may happen next. If the legal wrangling ends up setting any case precedent somehow, most of us will not be affected by it.

What, in my opinion, we should be looking at, however, is the coverage, because it is pretty similar across legacy media and new media brands and emblematic of a broader cultural change (beyond media alone) that has been worrying me for a while now.

Disclaimer: The linked YouTube video serves as illustration of what I have been witnessing because as such it triggered me to write this piece. This is not a critique againts this specific video or the particular segment mentioned, nor is it against the segment's/video's creators or anyone involved or mentioned in the story/stories covered by this video. My critique is also not about tone-policing any individual; I am describing what I am seeing as an illustration of a wider cultural phenomenon I am witnessing.

The issue

The way media brands are reporting there being a "Baldoni camp" and a "Lively camp" isn't going to affect anyone's lives or change the world at large, but it bothers me because it's painfully illustrative of how awfully (brain-)broken (media) brands and audiences are in terms of reporting through a seemingly ever-present (imaginary) tribal lens where there's two "camps" being presented in a way for anyone watching, listening or reading to pick one—as if they should.

This bothers me so much. I wish media coverage would stop being as if its only purpose were to facilitate the nailing of colours to masts.

Firstly, I don't have to have a [bleep]ing opinion on everything and everyone, let alone pick sides on everything or be in anyone's "camp"—no one does. That's already unrealistic in any civil legal case between two (celebrity) sides exchanging a number of accusations, let alone the intricacies of greater societal issues or international conflicts.

Secondly, if and when I do need or want to have an opinion on something, for instance on matters where I have to make decisions for myself or my loved ones, I don't want to be fed binary options, I want information and I want updates as and when information changes ("the sky was clear earlier today, but clouds have drifted in and there may even be some rain this evening"). This means sometimes one perspective suffices ("this X-ray shows your leg is broken") and other times more than two perspectives are helpful ("this medication prolongs life, but its side effects may significantly reduce quality of life; here is a website with 28 patients and their care providers describing what each experienced on this medication and how they felt about it").

Either way, even a story of two apparent sides may require more nuance than coverage of two "camps" and yet this dichotomisation now seems to have become the standard go-to for virtually every legacy media outlet, every online creator or new(er) media brand, and every politician, even in contexts where that's inappropriate, and possibly so much so that at least some audiences have come to expect it. This is where, in my opinion, it becomes potentially problematic.

Origins

I do not know for certain where this phenomenon of splitting everything into two sides as if there's always (supposed to be) a binary choice to be made comes from. Personally I suspect it's as old as the centuries-old concept of divide and conquer but infused with twentieth-century marketing/advertising and twenty-first-century clickbaiting/engagement farming.

What's [your] problem?

For me, the issue is that is an unhealthy level of information manipulation that appears to have, by now, crept into everything, everywhere, without integrity: it's no longer only a marketing gimmick deployed by brands to sell and make money or a political tactic utilised occasionally to persuade voters on a particular matter, it's become various politicians'/political parties', corporate C-suites', celebrity billionaires', media organisations'/brands', and online creators' entire identity and strategy, applied relentlessly and dishonestly. Facts may be twisted, events misrepresented, actions mislabeled, and sources cherry-picked in ways that may end up infringing on real people's actual existence and personal safety. That is petrifying me.

Potential harm(s)

This dichotomising approach of positioning one viewpoint against another¹, this ever-present notion that there is a binary choice to be made, this implication of a requirement to commit to either side, may have already bred a public perception that this is how things ought to be and an expectation of information always having to be presented in this type of binary format in order to meet the supposition that an opinion shall be held and that opinion is a matter of going/being all-in on either side.

On less consequential subjects (like, perhaps, civil litigiation between two celebrities) it seems silly and mostly harmless, but on more serious topics (especially those more intricate) this, in my opinion, seems precisely what has (at least in part) been driving and people's and organisations' neo-fascist leanings and behaviours.

Smaller stories, however, do illustrate and further reinforce the current overall culture of binary reasoning being slapped on everything. And I may be the only one thinking what I'm about to write, but: this feels weird and seems unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. Personally I fear this is exactly the type of (manufactured) culture that possibly incites or at least endorses culture wars, violence, military invasions, and genocides.

Not that deep?

For every comment or critique, there will always be a counter comment saying "it't not that deep" and, guess what: both can be right, there is no need to (force anyone to) choose a side (!)

Something may not be "that deep" in terms of individual occurences, but when it's the style applied to virtually each and every single press story, media segment, or political statement, it no longer matters if the context is light entertainment or serious news/politics, it's contributing to a particular culture. Already it seems so ingrained, it's a routine that (some) audiences may have come to expect; so much so, that if any outlet were to change that overnight, people might express alarm over the sudden absence of a style so common it is, by now, expected; the culture is already here.

Culture shift(s)

As someone who tries to keep up with politics, news, current affairs, media, and popular culture, I can only speak for myself here and I know I am not able to change output that isn't my own, let alone push for any culture shift. The only power I hold is the power to control my intake and maybe, if I dare to be exceptionally, unrealistically optimistic, get a handful of people to read rambling posts like this one.

No one needs my wordy essays. After hitting 'Publish' on this post, I intend to switch off more, even if that risks being informed less in terms of quantity and speed of information. This is my cue to consume less (and mute more) information, be it political news, current affairs coverage, or pop culture stories.

It's not that I do not care for other people or about everything going on in the world – on the contrary! – it's the way information is being presented that's made keeping up with it increasingly problematic for me; this style, this culture: I resent it. (Again: only speaking for myself here.)

Consuming a communication style I resent feels like contributing to it continuing to exist. (That's a matter of principle, not actual influence; it only serves my conscience.) Moreover, I fear that if I absorb too much of this dichotomise-everything culture too often, it may harm my ability to independently reason or empathise in the face of it, because I feel as if I am always being prompted for engagement or led to make up my mind in an express way.

Is this why I see other people rely on ChatGPT or ask Grok on what or how to effectively think or feel about things? Are they already conditioned to require prompts and/or gentle direction in order to form thoughts and opinions? Seems dangerous; I best steer clear of that, too.

¹ Strangely, it's the both-sidesing of any and all news and reporting that appears to be killing its balance. And it may very well be the radio/TV call-in shows, online comment sections and social media which bred audiences' collective need to hold opinions on everything and placed expectations on reporting to either enable them to form opinions or to confirm already held beliefs and opinions, I don't know. But even if this is a demand being met by the supply side, I'm not okay with it.