The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth…or Maybe Not?

Partisan selective exposure is alive and well in American society today, making itself known anywhere from social media platforms to articles belonging to prestigious news organizations, all the way to statements by figures of governmental authority on matters of importance for the continuance of the United States and its upholdment of the Constitution. What exactly, then, is this all-encompassing political concept, that pervades the words of anyone from a government official to a teenage Twitter-addict? The Journal of Communication defines partisan selective exposure as the behavior in which one uses any media outlet to express their political views. The concept covers more than merely the people who explicitly identify themselves with a political party, however. Partisan selective exposure is a concept that, when applied to something seemingly unbiased, can allow one to identify subtle yet certain ties to political ideologies. This political concept may seem completely irrelevant to the American public while in reality, it has a large impact on a crucial aspect of American society and culture, sometimes referred to as the fourth estate: journalism. Journalism is the form of mass communication in the United States that allows its citizens to remain informed – and, inevitably, misinformed due to the vast amount of biased information in the boundless realm of journalism. This epidemic of misinformation resulting from biased journalism is where partisan selective exposure comes into play, for partisan selective exposure refers to the insertion of one’s political affiliations and opinions into one’s writing. These inclusions of, in particular, a political journalist’s opinions in their writing leads to the framing of political controversies by means of only what the journalist’s political party believes. Though that allows for some truth to shine through in articles, that also allows for other information to be presented in a way that either hides the truth or alters the truth in order to uphold and maintain support for certain political beliefs. This hiding or altering of the truth is detrimental to the American public in that not all people but definitely some Americans will not be fully exposed to the truth, but will rather see the form of the truth that their choice of political party chooses to present to them. Misinformation of the American public is not the only negative effect of partisan selective exposure, however. An additional drawback of this political concept is that it leads to divisions amongst the people in that the constant incorporations of political views in the world of journalism can lead American citizens to mirror the divide between opposing political parties within the journalism world. Americans already are divided on political matters to a great extent, and this concept serves to broaden the fault line between rivaling political parties. This is a major concern, for as President Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” With this issue augmenting the already significant divisions within the United States, it may be only a matter of time until it falls. One aspect of American society and culture that was recently put at stake due to the rise of partisan selective exposure in political news is the education of current generations and generations yet to come. The Core Common State Standards initiative in particular is a recent movement of educational reform that has sparked controversy within the United States and has also caused, once again, political parties to sharply divide and take sides. These political divisions regarding the matter of Core Commons carry over into the world of journalism, with some news organizations along with their writers supporting Core Common and some attacking it. This puts the present and future state of education in America at stake in that partisan selective exposure, as in many other cases, is leading journalists to frame information based on their political views and, in multiple cases, embellish as well as hide the complete truth from American consumers of news. As seen in the following articles discussed, due to partisan selective exposure, one may only consume the whole truth not through only a one source of news due to the issue of biases but rather through stringing together multiple articles with opposing views. As an example of subtle yet certain traces of ties to political parties through discoveries of partisan language, one may shine the spotlight on the Cato Institute. On the “About Cato” page of the Cato Insitute’s website, their philosophy statement repeatedly focuses on their endorsement of “individual liberty, limited government, and free markets”. This phrase, stated multiple times within their philosophy statement, ties them to the libertarian party. These libertarian views carry over into the articles found on this website as well. For example, Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute’s article "Common Core Treats Students Like Soulless Widgets" is an argumentative account of the controversial matter of Common Core State Standards in the United States. In his article, there were many occasions of language that may be considered partisan. For instance, it all begins with the title; he starts off by accusing Common Core of seriously demeaning students, so much that they are "soulless widgets". That type of language right off the bat reveals that this man has clearly taken a side, and that side is the side of libertarianism that strongly opposes government regulation of any sort. Therefore, libertarians like McCluskey oppose initiatives like Common Core which is a government regulation of education. He also uses the somewhat informal and perhaps even disrespectful term "feds" often throughout his writing which reveals his aggression towards controlling government officials and strong support for limited government in which libertarians like himself and the Cato Institution believe. He also had some choice words for the National Governors Association, one of the government institutions behind Common Core. He described the NGA as "powerless", a claim that once again ties to the political ideologies of himself and his institution. On the other hand – and the opposite end of the political spectrum of opinions on Common Core – is an organization called the Center for American Progress. This organization is against conservative beliefs in many ways, making them a somewhat liberal organization, unlike the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute. This contrast between the CAP and the Cato Institute is seen in the CAP’s philosophy statement in which they denounce conservatives and rather side with liberals, claiming that they “critique the policy that stems from conservative values…” Carmel Martin, who is the Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, is no exception as her testimony before the New York State Office of the Governor Common Core Implementation Panel from February 2014 reveals her liberal values. For example, her frequent mentions of several different government organizations – the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Education Association, and others – that she used to support her claims reveal her ties to the liberals, for the liberal party is pro-government in many ways. Like Martin, they consider the government to be essential and wish for a larger, more controlling government in order to maintain peace and equality within the nation and among all nations. Also found in her testimony are lengthy discussions of teachers' approval and support of Common Core as well as mentions of a poll that yielded results that indicated widespread support for Common Core. These also tie to the liberal beliefs of herself and the CAP organization she represents in that liberals care about teachers a great deal and fight for them in regards to their salaries, so it only makes sense that she would focus on teachers' opinions, being a liberal. She also frequently mentioned New York as being a state that she considered to be educationally elite compared to other states, and she also made sure to point out that New York teachers supported the implementation of Common Core. This connects to her liberal beliefs that her and CAP hold in common because, according to a recent Gallup poll, New York is one of the top ten liberal states in the United States. It would only be logical for her to compliment a liberal state and try and subtly convince others to aspire to be like this state – perhaps even on more than just an educational level. Several of Common Core’s Statements of Support contain partisan language quite similar to that used in Carmel Martin’s testimony. For example, a presentation by Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, a Professor of Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley can be compared to Carmel Martin's testimony through the many things he says that can also be considered partisan in that he shows subtle yet certain ties to the liberal party. To begin with, similar to Martin, he complimented California Math Standards, California being a state which, according to the Gallup poll afore mentioned, also makes the list of top ten liberal states in the U.S. This means that Wu, like Martin with New York, is trying to persuade other states to adopt a liberal state's educational standards and perhaps more. Also, Wu brought up the matter of the government needing to increase funding for education – specifically in mathematics – in order to advance, which is a belief held common by many liberals. This is similar to how Martin brought up the teacher support in her testimony, for they both tied their statements supporting Common Core to commonly held liberal beliefs on education. Another testimony supporting the implementation of Common Core that is comparable to Carmel Martin's is the statement from James B. Hunt, Jr., the Chairman of the Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy and former governor of North Carolina. The word that jumped out of this testimony as being considered partisan is the word "governor". This man was the former governor of North Carolina of the United States; an inference can be made that this man, having partaken in the government which means that he thus has an obvious passion for politics and government, would perhaps side with liberals that support larger and more controlling governments since he has had a taste of the power first-hand. Additionally, the testimony coming from the National Association of State Boards of Education concurs with that of Carmel Martin and it also has a clear instance of language that could be classified as partisan. NASBE says that they stand behind their endorsement of Common Core because they want high quality education for all students. The keyword in that statement that may be deemed partisan and may also link it to the liberal party is the word “all”. This ties to the liberal beliefs this organization allegedly hold in that liberals tend to vouge for equality and equal opportunities for all people. There are many more instances of partisan selective exposure taking root in articles that focused on the controversial matter of Common Core State Standards. For example, Commentary Magazine looks at the conservative side of this debate through an article entitled “ObamaCore? Education Reform Hits a Snag” by Seth Mandel where his speech clearly labeled him as a conservative. He attacked the liberals by using words like "ranting" and "weak" to describe how they tried to fight conservatives' claims that Common Core was just another attempt by the Obama administration to control the people and the state, revealing that he definitely has strong conservative and anti-liberal beliefs that largely carry over into his writing. As another example, the opinions page of the US News website's article on Common Core entitled “It's Time to Change the Common Core Debate” by Sara Martinez Tucker presents clear uses of partisan language that indicates the author as having liberal beliefs. The use of partisan language begins with the subtitle of the article, in which the author immediately presents her stance on the topic at hand, saying, “The discussion should be about how the standards are implemented, not if they will be.” This reveals right from the start that the author is placing herself on the liberal side of things, for she clearly states that she is pro-Common Core by telling readers that there is no question that the initiative should be implemented. Also, when the writer mentioned how Common Core can help in the mending of the U.S.'s public school system, that revealed the person's affiliation with the liberal party in that the liberals strongly support the public school system, as did the author. The Politico website also had an article on Common Core that included the use of language that could be considered partisan in the way it tied the author to the conservative party. In the article “Nation’s biggest teacher union slams ‘botched’ Common Core implementation” by Stephanie Simon, the author mentioned that the source of the outrage in the public is a result of distrust for government officials. This indicates that the author may be find the government to be a nuisance that leads to outrage and wish for a less involved and less controlling government to prevent this, thus tying her to the pro-limited government conservatives. In addition, the article from the National Journal definitely included some partisan word choice that labeled the author as a liberal. Fawn Johnson, the author of the article “Why is Common Core a Tea Party Bugbear?”, deemed the conservatives and their views and actions regarding Common Core to be sources of "suspicion". She goes on to encourage liberals to find more support for their arguments. This all implies that she finds the conservatives to be somewhat misinformed due to their "wildly hypothetical" proclamations against Common Core while she is more supportive of the liberals, whom she wishes will find more support for their pro-Common Core arguments so that perhaps they can eventually take greater actions. Lastly, The Huffington Post's Black Voices page contained an article that contained clear examples of partisan word choice siding the author with the liberals. For example, the author Marc H. Morial of article “National Urban League Endorses Common Core State Standards - Here's Why: Part One” mentioned that he supported Common Core's implementation because it would "level the playing field" and provide all U.S. citizens with an equal opportunity to receive the education they need to make it in the modern world. This falls under one of the liberals' main beliefs: equality among all citizens and equal opportunities. These articles are demonstrative of the limited truth that the concept of partisan selective exposure causes journalists to present to their audiences, and that, without looking at multiple accounts of controversies through differing political lenses, one may fail to see the whole truth. Though partisan selective exposure affects the United States on a national level, there is another, more imminent side to this political concept. For example, Michiganders recently were exposed to the more imminent side of partisan selective exposure in the way that the political concept lead to divisions in the state over the matter of the implementation of Common Core State Standards in Michigan as well as confusion regarding Michigan’s legislature’s stance on the subject. The split between liberals and conservatives in Michigan regarding the regarding the adoption of Common Core is seen in the way that information varies among liberal and conservative news organizations. For example, the Huffington Post – a primarily liberal news organization – focused on the probability that Michigan would implement Common Core while primarily conservative news organizations like The Foundry said rather that Michigan was pulling away from Common Core. This varying information leads Michigan citizens away from the whole truth and rather to sharp division within the state between the liberals and conservatives. Confusion over whether Michigan is adopting Common Core remains, and the education of Michigan’s children hangs in the balance – and that is all thanks to partisan selective exposure. Partisan selective exposure has permeated several different facets of American life. It has taken its toll in the world of political journalism – primarily in online newspapers – and has affected American citizens on not only national but also more local levels. This essentially means that many Americans are exposed to varying degrees of partisan selective exposure on a daily basis, and this constant exposure to a highly influential political concept can be dangerous for the future of America in the way that it influences political opinions that eventually determine the future of the country. One may only hope that this concept may fade out of American politics in order to preserve a bright future for generations yet to come, free of untruths.