One (possible) argument in favor the broadcast model, that I offer for discussion, which I'm still mulling over myself. Henry Farrell has written about disagreement in democratic societies (see links below) and a broadcast model may be more conducive to, "the groups that exist within a pluralistic society must accept one another as legitimate"
So what this all points to is something very different than the pursuit of bias-free reason that’s still popular across much of the Internet. It’s not about a radical individual virtuosity, but a radical individual humility. Your most truthful contributions to collective reasoning are unlikely to be your own individual arguments, but your useful criticisms of others’ rationales. Even more pungently, you are on average best able to contribute to collective understanding through your criticisms of those whose perspectives are most different to your own, and hence very likely those you most strongly disagree with. The very best thing that you may do in your life is create a speck of intense irritation for someone whose views you vigorously dispute, around which a pearl of new intelligence may then accrete.
All this said, our article is very explicitly a piece about polarization and democratic stability. Its underlying intuition is that if beliefs become too polarized, democracy will become unstable. And that is not an inherently stupid or biased argument. As Kreiss and McGregor summarize a broader literature:
****at some fundamental level the groups that exist within a pluralistic society must accept one another as legitimate, even though they may have opposing values, interests, and ends. Groups must tolerate one another, accepting each other’s right to exist and to advance their interests in private and public spheres. This tolerance is essential given that groups often define themselves through drawing boundaries with others (Smith, 2003). It is often socially and politically powerful to create and draw hard edges around a shared identity, conjure a clear opposition, and define competing interests, especially through media spheres that support building, maintaining, and contesting political power (Squires, 2002). As such, some level of polarization is an endemic feature of social and political life. Polarization becomes problematic, however, when it is so extreme as to erode the legitimacy of opposing groups, the tolerance that democratic co-existence is premised upon and faith among partisans that the other side will continue to engage in free and fair elections (Haggard and Kaufman, 2021)****
The broadcasting model has already failed the epistemic test when confronted with the shameless lies of the political right. Objectivity, construed as giving both of the main political parties an equal hearing is directly in conflict with truthfulness. The result is that after tens of thousands of Trump lies, the of the NY Times and WaPo have yet to call him a liar when reporting the news of his latest lie.
Unwillingness to confront this fact is at the core of the "crisis of liberalism". For the left in general, there's no general assumption that our political adversaries share values of truth and reasonableness. So, the current crisis does not challenge our epistemic views: it's the simple fact that our adversaries have become more open and dangerous enemies.
One (possible) argument in favor the broadcast model, that I offer for discussion, which I'm still mulling over myself. Henry Farrell has written about disagreement in democratic societies (see links below) and a broadcast model may be more conducive to, "the groups that exist within a pluralistic society must accept one another as legitimate"
In praise of negativity: https://crookedtimber.org/2020/07/24/in-praise-of-negativity/
-----
So what this all points to is something very different than the pursuit of bias-free reason that’s still popular across much of the Internet. It’s not about a radical individual virtuosity, but a radical individual humility. Your most truthful contributions to collective reasoning are unlikely to be your own individual arguments, but your useful criticisms of others’ rationales. Even more pungently, you are on average best able to contribute to collective understanding through your criticisms of those whose perspectives are most different to your own, and hence very likely those you most strongly disagree with. The very best thing that you may do in your life is create a speck of intense irritation for someone whose views you vigorously dispute, around which a pearl of new intelligence may then accrete.
---
Platforms Polarization and Democracy: https://crookedtimber.org/2024/02/21/52438/
----
All this said, our article is very explicitly a piece about polarization and democratic stability. Its underlying intuition is that if beliefs become too polarized, democracy will become unstable. And that is not an inherently stupid or biased argument. As Kreiss and McGregor summarize a broader literature:
****at some fundamental level the groups that exist within a pluralistic society must accept one another as legitimate, even though they may have opposing values, interests, and ends. Groups must tolerate one another, accepting each other’s right to exist and to advance their interests in private and public spheres. This tolerance is essential given that groups often define themselves through drawing boundaries with others (Smith, 2003). It is often socially and politically powerful to create and draw hard edges around a shared identity, conjure a clear opposition, and define competing interests, especially through media spheres that support building, maintaining, and contesting political power (Squires, 2002). As such, some level of polarization is an endemic feature of social and political life. Polarization becomes problematic, however, when it is so extreme as to erode the legitimacy of opposing groups, the tolerance that democratic co-existence is premised upon and faith among partisans that the other side will continue to engage in free and fair elections (Haggard and Kaufman, 2021)****
------
The broadcasting model has already failed the epistemic test when confronted with the shameless lies of the political right. Objectivity, construed as giving both of the main political parties an equal hearing is directly in conflict with truthfulness. The result is that after tens of thousands of Trump lies, the of the NY Times and WaPo have yet to call him a liar when reporting the news of his latest lie.
Unwillingness to confront this fact is at the core of the "crisis of liberalism". For the left in general, there's no general assumption that our political adversaries share values of truth and reasonableness. So, the current crisis does not challenge our epistemic views: it's the simple fact that our adversaries have become more open and dangerous enemies.