In a recent incident that sparked controversy and debate, NBC News hired and then quickly parted ways with Ronna McDaniel, the former chair of the Republican National Committee. The decision to bring McDaniel on as a paid contributor was met with fierce pushback from journalists and commentators within the network, who criticized her ties to former President Donald Trump and her promotion of baseless claims about the 2020 election. The swift reversal of McDaniel’s hiring highlights the challenges media organizations face in presenting diverse political perspectives while also upholding journalistic integrity and safeguarding democratic norms.
The importance of diverse viewpoints in media cannot be overstated. A robust and healthy democracy relies on the free exchange of ideas and the ability to engage with a wide range of perspectives. Media outlets are responsible for presenting their audiences with varied opinions and experiences, particularly in an era of increasing polarization and partisan division. By exposing viewers and readers to different ways of thinking, the media can foster a more informed and engaged citizenry equipped to grapple with our society’s complex issues.
However, the McDaniel incident also underscores the complex balance that media organizations must strike between promoting diversity of thought and preserving the very foundations of our democratic system. The challenge lies in determining when a perspective crosses the line from legitimate political discourse to dangerous misinformation that undermines public trust and erodes the fabric of our institutions. Here, we encounter the paradox of tolerance, a concept that has taken on renewed relevance in our current political landscape.
The Paradox of Tolerance
The paradox of tolerance, as articulated by the philosopher Karl Popper in his 1945 work “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” presents a fundamental dilemma for any society that values openness and diversity. Popper argues that unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance itself, as those who are intolerant will inevitably use the very principles of tolerance to undermine and ultimately destroy the tolerant society that granted them a platform.
It’s a troubling thought that bears careful consideration in our current media and political environment. If we are to maintain a truly open and free society, Popper suggests, we must be willing to defend it against those who would exploit our tolerance to promote intolerance. In other words, a society has the right, and perhaps even the obligation, to not tolerate the intolerant to preserve its existence and values.
This is not to say that we should shut down all dissenting voices or controversial opinions, far from it. The paradox of tolerance does not give us license to silence those with whom we disagree, nor does it absolve us of the responsibility to engage in good-faith debate and dialogue. However, it does suggest that there are limits to the kind of speech and behavior that a tolerant society can accept without undermining its own foundations.
When we encounter perspectives that actively promote hatred, bigotry, or anti-democratic ideals, we have a duty to speak out and to make clear that such views will not be tolerated. This is not a matter of partisan politics or ideological disagreement but a matter of upholding the basic principles of equality, freedom, and the rule of law that make our democratic system possible.
Applying the Paradox of Tolerance to Media and Politics
So, how does the paradox of tolerance apply to the world of media and politics? In a word: directly. Media organizations are responsible for presenting diverse viewpoints and fostering robust public discourse, but they are also obligated to uphold the truth and avoid giving a platform to those who would undermine our democratic institutions.
As the Ronna McDaniel incident makes clear, this is not an easy balance to strike. On the one hand, NBC News was right to recognize the importance of including conservative voices and perspectives in their coverage. There are legitimate disagreements and debates to be had across the political spectrum, and a responsible media outlet should reflect that diversity of thought.
But there is a big difference between conservative ideas and baseless conspiracies. When a prominent figure like McDaniel, who served as the chair of the Republican National Committee, promotes the false and dangerous narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, she is not engaging in good-faith political discourse. She is actively undermining public trust in our electoral system and giving credence to a lie that has already led to violence and a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
By giving McDaniel a platform as a paid contributor, NBC News was not just presenting a different perspective; it was legitimizing and amplifying a viewpoint that directly threatens our democracy. Inviting guests with diverse opinions onto a news program for a thoughtful discussion or debate is one thing. It’s another thing entirely to pay someone to spread misinformation and sew doubt in our most fundamental democratic processes.
The damage done by promoting these baseless claims of election fraud cannot be overstated. It’s not just a matter of political disagreement or partisan bickering. It’s a fundamental assault on the very idea of truth and the rule of law. When we can no longer agree on the basic facts of what happened in an election, when we allow conspiracy theories to take hold and spread unchecked, we erode the foundation of our shared reality and our ability to function as a democratic society.
An Erosion of Public Trust
The erosion of public trust is perhaps the most insidious consequence of spreading misinformation and baseless conspiracies. When people are constantly bombarded with false narratives and misleading claims, they lose faith not just in the media or in politicians, but in the institutions that form the bedrock of our democracy.
We see this erosion of trust play out in real-time with issues like crime and public safety. Despite the fact that FBI data showed a significant decline in violent crime and property crime over the past year, with murder rates dropping at a particularly rapid pace, the vast majority of Americans believe that crime is actually on the rise. This discrepancy between public perception and empirical reality is staggering, and it has real consequences for how we approach issues of policing, criminal justice reform, and public policy more broadly.
So why do so many people believe crime is skyrocketing when the data tells a different story? The answer is partly due to the role of partisan politics and media consumption in shaping false narratives. When politicians like Congresswoman Nancy Mace and Governor Ron DeSantis go on air to criticize rising crime rates under President Biden, they are not just engaging in partisan sniping. They are actively promoting a view of reality that is not supported by the facts, and they are doing so for political gain.
The same is true when media outlets and social media platforms prioritize sensational crime stories and viral videos over more nuanced and data-driven reporting. Focusing on the most shocking and outrageous incidents creates a distorted picture of the world that feeds into people’s worst fears and biases. And when those fears and biases are confirmed and reinforced by the echo chambers of partisan media and online communities, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to distinguish between what is real and what is not.
The consequences of this misinformation and erosion of trust are profound and far-reaching. When people no longer believe in the basic integrity of our elections, when they see every institution as corrupt and every fact as suspect, they become vulnerable to the kind of demagoguery and authoritarian appeals that threaten to undermine our democracy from within. They become less likely to participate in the political process, less willing to engage in good-faith dialogue and debate, and more prone to tribalism and polarization.
Diverse Perspectives with Democratic Principles
So, how do we bridge this divide and restore trust in our institutions and democratic processes? It won’t be easy, but it starts with a renewed commitment to facts, evidence, and the pursuit of truth.
Media organizations have a critical role to play in this effort. They must be willing to hold all perspectives accountable to the same standards of accuracy and integrity, regardless of partisan affiliation or political power. This means fact-checking claims, providing context and analysis, and refusing to give a platform to those who repeatedly spread misinformation or promote baseless conspiracies.
At the same time, media outlets must also be willing to take a stand against views that promote hatred, bigotry, or anti-democratic ideals. This is not about censorship or limiting free speech. It’s about recognizing that some views are so toxic and dangerous that they have no place in a healthy public discourse. When a politician or commentator engages in racist, sexist, or xenophobic rhetoric, or when they actively undermine the legitimacy of our elections or the rule of law, they should be called out and held accountable.
However, the responsibility for fostering a fact-based public discourse doesn’t fall on the media. Political leaders also have a crucial role in setting the tone and the standards for our national conversation. Too often, we have seen politicians prioritize partisan advantage over the common good, sewing division and distrust for their own political gain. This is a deeply cynical and destructive approach to leadership, and it must be rejected by all those who value our democracy.
However, the power to restore trust and bridge our divides lies with each of us as citizens. We must demand more from our leaders and our media, holding them accountable to the truth and rejecting those who traffic in lies and hate. We must seek out accurate and reliable sources of information, engaging with perspectives that challenge our assumptions and biases. And we must be willing to have the difficult conversations and debates that are necessary for a thriving democracy, always grounding our arguments in facts and evidence rather than fear or ideology.
None of this will be easy, and there will undoubtedly be setbacks and challenges along the way. But the alternative is a world in which truth becomes relative, institutions crumble, and democracy itself is left vulnerable to the forces of authoritarianism and extremism. That is not a world we can afford to inhabit.
Some Final Thoughts
The challenges we face in finding the right balance between tolerance and the preservation of democratic norms are daunting, but they are not insurmountable. It will require hard work, honest reflection, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves and our society. But the stakes could not be higher.
We must recognize that our commitment to diversity and inclusion cannot come at the expense of our fundamental values and principles. We can and should engage with a wide range of perspectives, but we cannot tolerate those who seek to undermine the very foundations of our democracy. We must be willing to draw clear lines and defend them, even when it means facing pushback or criticism.
At the same time, we must also recognize that the preservation of democratic norms requires more than just defending against attacks. It requires a proactive commitment to truth, accountability, and the rule of law in all aspects of our public life. This means holding our leaders and our institutions to the highest standards of integrity and transparency and being willing to speak out when those standards are not met.
This commitment to truth and accountability is especially critical in the media and politics realm. We cannot allow ourselves to be misled by those who would manipulate facts and sew division for their own gain. We must demand more from our journalists and elected officials, insisting on accuracy, honesty, and respect for the principles underpinning our democracy.
Ultimately, the health and stability of our political system depends on the active engagement and participation of all those who value these principles. It is not enough to sit back and hope others will do the hard work defending our democracy. Each of us has a role to play in shaping the kind of society we want to live in.
This means staying informed and engaged, even when the news is difficult or discouraging. It means holding ourselves and others accountable to the truth, and being willing to speak out against lies and misinformation. It means participating in the political process by voting, advocating for causes we believe in, or running for office ourselves.
Most of all, it means never losing sight of the values and ideals that have guided our nation since its founding – the belief in liberty, justice, and equality for all, the commitment to free and fair elections, the respect for the rule of law and the institutions that uphold it.
These are the principles that have allowed our democracy to endure through even the darkest of times, and they are the principles that will guide us through the challenges we face today. But they require constant vigilance and constant effort to maintain. They require a willingness to stand up for what is right, even when it is difficult or unpopular.
The paradox of tolerance reminds us that the defense of democracy is an ongoing struggle that demands the best of us as individuals and as a society. But it is a struggle that we cannot afford to lose. Ultimately, our commitment to these values and principles will determine the fate of our nation and the future of freedom and democracy itself.