cross the aisle
Updated: 3 days ago
A few years ago, I started Cross The Aisle, an initiative aimed at highlighting media bias so that we, as news consumers, could become more aware of where our information was coming from. The idea was to draw from multiple news sources on a story, allowing readers to understand it from the various points of view and, ultimately, form their own opinions about it.
The concept came off the back of watching the “debates” during the last few US federal elections. I use the term generously: the 2016 Clinton - Trump and 2020 Biden - Trump debates were less like debates and more like prolonged exchanges of insults, personal attacks, and attempts to expose the other candidate for anything they could find, rather than focusing on the issues that matter to people.
So caught up in it, they made it about themselves, rather than about the citizens of the country they sought to represent.
The quality of political discourse from leaders can shape at a citizen level how we engage with opposing views. And so, when the discourse is poor, hostile, or overly partisan, it can push people towards increasingly narrow-minded views and a form of political tribalism.
I have noticed a seismic increase in people’s unwillingness to engage with those who hold opposing political views. Political allegiance seems to have become increasingly solidified, with people viewing their party as an aspect of their identity - inclined to defend their 'side', rather than considering the merits of any individual idea or policy proposal.
And the only way democracy can thrive (or for that matter, even survive) is if we protect its fundamental principles: the willingness to listen to others, to disagree without being disagreeable, and to recognise that compromise is not a weakness, but a necessity. "Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise… or when we listen only to those who agree with us" - Barack Obama in January 2016.
Obama, and many leaders who came before him, were ambassadors for the idea that political disagreement does not mean personal animosity. In some cases, these leaders went even further, developing friendships. They demonstrated that it is possible to disagree deeply on matters of policy and principle while still respecting the other person.
And, today, social media is no ally to us in this respect. The algorithms that shape what we see, read, and hear have been designed to reinforce what we already engage with, often placing us in digital echo chambers where our existing views are repeatedly validated rather than challenged. The more we consume one perspective, the more of it we are shown, creating a cycle that can make our own views feel self-evidently correct while making opposing perspectives increasingly unfamiliar, or even unacceptable.
In this way, the new media landscape can narrow our worldviews rather than broaden them, reinforcing the very division we should be trying to overcome. I've written about digital echo chambers in another article titled driverless humans.
To alleviate this, there are several excellent initiatives. One is the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart, which provides an interactive graph of where different news outlets sit politically. This gives us context when researching a topic, helping us understand where a particular message may be coming from. Another is AllSides, which brings together perspectives from across the political spectrum, allowing us to see how different sides approach the same issue.
The very existence of these platforms are so important because, today, there are so few online (or real life) spaces where a healthy debate can take place. Because even when spaces are created, the temptation and desire to 'go viral' can often take over: headlines become misleading, and content is sensationalist and full of hot takes, rather than to celebrate the nuance of the conversation itself.
Even in voting, for example, remains optional in many democracies - something I find difficult to comprehend. But that’s a reflection for another time and another day. Or, even better, if there’s somebody who is pro-optional voting, I would love to speak to you.
Specifically, when it comes to political rhetoric, elections where voting is optional can be shaped by something as simple as logistics and convenience. Instead of leaders approaching voters with the mindset of, “You have to vote, and here’s why I believe you should vote for me,” the message can become, “You just need to vote for me so the other person doesn’t get in.” It makes voting feel less like a civic responsibility and more like a defensive choice - and, in turn, can undermine the quality of the political dialogue itself.
I am a firm believer that voting is imperative to any democracy. Not just because of the outcome, but because participation itself is part of what makes a democracy work - that every voice is heard and accounted for.
Very few democracies have mandatory voting. Yet as our world becomes increasingly interconnected - through climate change, global supply chains, migration, technology, public health, and countless other shared challenges - our futures are becoming ever more closely intertwined. The choices made in one country can have consequences far beyond its borders. In such a world, we should remind ourselves that, despite our differences, none of us can navigate these challenges alone.
Diplomacy and dialogue are among the most powerful tools we have to build understanding, prevent division, and create a future in which progress is measured not by how much one side gains, but by how much we can achieve together, for the benefit of all humankind.
I hope this article serves to remind us that we can have disagreement and yet recognise each others common humanity. So that the next time we meet someone whose views differ from our own, we’ll be open to crossing the aisle.