This is the second article in my series on Media Solutions and my examination of Gavin Ellis’s paper “If not journalists, then who?” This article in the series considers the issue of social cohesion. This phrase appears with some regularity as a purpose for a trusted media. It is a phrase that has been used frequently and the concept seems important in a time of apparent increasing divisiveness in society. It is also a matter that has been the subject of examination by two papers emerging from Koi Tu to which consideration is given and which form the basis for the second article.
Trust and Social Cohesion
One of the critical features relating to news media and the public response is a decline in trust along with a number of other concerns on the part of the news consuming public. Some of these concerns are:
Shallow and sensationalized reporting
Lack of diversity and representation
Negativity and bias
Decline in local news coverage
Lack of trust and credibility
Limited coverage of critical topics
Groupthink and lack of diverse viewpoints
Negative and depressing news
Repetitiveness
Bias and lack of transparency
Fake news and disinformation
News literacy
Lack of local news coverage
Trust and credibility
Polarization and bias
Decline in local journalism
Lack of coverage of critical topics
Misrepresentation of certain sectors
Declining trust
News avoidance
Distinguishing fact from opinion
Lack of local news coverage
Bias and polarization
Misrepresentation of sectors
Low levels of public trust
Lack of faith in the process and results
Need for responsible and independent media
Existential threats to journalism
Desire for better quality news
These concerns highlight the need for news media to address issues of quality, diversity, representation, trust, transparency, and local news coverage in order to better serve the public and fulfill their role in a democratic society.
One factor identified by Dr. Ellis which becomes apparent from the research is an avoidance of news consumption by many sectors of the public. The reasons for this “news avoidance” may be summarised as follows:
· Information overload: In today's digital age, there is an overwhelming amount of news available, making it difficult for individuals to keep up with everything. This can lead to feelings of information overload and a desire to disconnect from news consumption.
· Negative news bias: News media often focus on negative and sensational stories, which can be emotionally draining and contribute to feelings of anxiety or distress. Some individuals may choose to avoid news to protect their mental well-being.
· Lack of trust in media: Trust in media has declined in recent years, with concerns about bias, misinformation, and sensationalism. Some individuals may choose to avoid news altogether due to a lack of trust in the sources and the belief that they cannot rely on the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented.
· Political polarization: News consumption can be influenced by political beliefs and affiliations. Individuals may avoid news that contradicts their existing beliefs or that they perceive as biased against their political ideology.
· News fatigue: Continuous exposure to news, particularly during times of crisis or intense coverage, can lead to news fatigue. This can result in individuals feeling overwhelmed, exhausted, or desensitized to news events, leading them to disengage from news consumption.
· Time constraints and competing priorities: Busy lifestyles and competing demands for time can make it challenging for individuals to dedicate time to news consumption. News may be seen as a low priority compared to other responsibilities and activities.
· Sensationalism and clickbait: Some individuals may avoid news due to the prevalence of sensationalized headlines and clickbait, which can create a perception of shallow or misleading content.
· Personal well-being: News consumption can have a negative impact on mental health and well-being, particularly when it involves traumatic or distressing events. Some individuals may choose to avoid news to protect their emotional state.
Social Cohesion
A consistent theme throughout the paper is the relationship between a reliable and trusted media and social cohesion.
It is argued that a modern liberal democracy can only function effectively and act with integrity for the benefit of its citizens if there is trust and accountability between the structures and institutions that perform various governing functions, and those who are governed (referred to as vertical trust). Contemporary liberal democratic societies are comprised of individuals and groups with differing histories, identities, values and worldviews, who also need to trust each other sufficiently to cooperate (horizontal trust). Vertical and horizontal trust are interdependent, and both are essential for a cohesive democratic society.
This is a phrase that is laden with meaning and appears in a number of papers dealing with societal issues going back to the Royal Commission on the Christchurch Massacre in 2019. Koi Tu has done some work on social cohesion and I turn to consider this issue, given that ii is seen as an important consequence of a trusted media environment.
Why is this important
Trust and respect are essential within social cohesion.
The 2021 paper – Sustaining New Zealand as a Cohesive Society, published in 2021 by Koi Tu identifies the characteristics of social cohesion as:
1. Sufficient levels of trust and respect between those who are governed and the institutions and individuals who they empower to govern them.
2. Sufficient trust and respect between all the components of a society (which reflects a diverse set of identities, worldviews, values, beliefs, and interests) to foster cooperation for the good of society as a whole.
3. Institutions and structures that promote trust and respect for and between all members of society.
4. Belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, and legitimacy should be universally possible.
These characteristics emphasize the importance of trust, respect, cooperation, and inclusivity in maintaining social cohesion in a democratic society. They highlight the need for individuals and institutions to work together and value the diversity of identities and perspectives within society.
It is argued that social cohesion is necessary in the face of continuing disruptive change, although the pandemic demonstrated the relative ease with which people adapted to new ways of working, socialising, shopping and consuming, accessing healthcare and other services, and other aspects of daily living. But it also highlighted and exacerbated existing inequalities, leaving many individuals, communities, and nations struggling to cope.
Defining Social Cohesion
So if trust and respect are necessary what exactly is this thing called social cohesion? In some respects the discussion in the 2021 paper begs the question in that social cohesion can be described in terms of the desired characteristics of a cohesive society or in terms of the factors that create or undermine it. It is important that we focus not only on the desirable outcomes but also evaluate the drivers and barriers to maintaining or achieving social cohesion. A working definition must encompass and reflect the diversity of interests, sub-groups, and communities in a society. In Aotearoa, it must especially consider tangata whenua ambitions, as well as the population as a whole.
Thus social cohesion becomes apparent from an identification of desired characteristics. These desired characteristics are expressed are expressed by the OECD in terms of what a cohesive society is - one that works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility.
Peace and Spoonley (Professor Paul Spoonley is a member of Koi Tu) define social cohesion in terms of two groups of criteria – the elements of what amounts to socially cohesive behaviour and the conditions that are necessary for a socially cohesive society.
The behaviours identified include a sense of belonging to the wider community, trusting others along with a respect for the Rule of Law and civil and human rights. In addition there is a recognition of culturally diverse communities where there contribution is valued.
Participation and involvement in various aspects of life – within the workplace, the family and in community settings and groups. This includes participation in political and civic life.
The conditions that are identified are those of inclusion where all people share access to equitable (as opposed to “equal”) opportunities and services which may include work, education, social benefits, health services and accommodation.
Another condition identified is that or recognition where the diversity of opinions and values are accepted, and difference is respected along with a lack of discrimination and harassment.
A third condition – and this is important in terms of trust and confidence in institutions is that of legitimacy. Legitimacy is based on trust and confidence – an assuredness that public institutions will protect the interests of all, that there is a means of conflict mediation or resolution and a responsiveness on the part of public institutions.
Thus the Koi Tu paper adopts a broad definition characterizing social cohesion in a democratic society depending on:
• Sufficient trust and respect between those who are governed and the institutions and individuals they empower to govern them;
• Sufficient trust and respect between all members of a society (which by inference reflects a diverse set of identities, worldviews, values, beliefs, and interests) to foster cooperation for the good of the society as a whole;
• Institutions and structures that promote trust and respect between all members of society; and allowing
• Belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, and legitimacy to be universally possible.
The Part of the Fourth Estate
The “Enlightenment approach” separated emotion and faith based approaches from reason and a reliance on empirical facts. This was seen as a proper and objective element of collective and rational decision-making.
The problem is that post-modernism, critical thinking and the Neo-Marxist approach to problem identification and solutions has resulted in a “post truth” era which is characterized by a rejection of objective and observable facts that do not fit within existing politically inspired biases. This in itself gives rise to misinformation and disinformation although the Left has been quick to call this out as a problem of the Right without seeing that their own inbuilt biases and selectivity of “truths” occupies exactly the space of information verifiability of which they complain.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to A Halfling's View to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.