The Role of The Mind and Its Influence on The Media
The human mind is both a marvel and a paradox. It is capable of profound creativity, yet susceptible to cognitive biases, prejudices, and the allure of self-serving narratives. Journalists, as purveyors of information, are no exception.
Often, their reporting reflects deeply ingrained societal biases, limited perspectives, or the psychological constraints of the newsroom —tight deadlines, competitive pressures, or editorial restrictions. Pragyaapradh, or the mistake of the intellect, arises when the intellect succumbs to the mind’s distortions. For journalists, this manifests in sensationalism, selective reporting, and echo chamber effects. Media messages shaped under such conditions rarely approximate reality but instead represent, misrepresent, or under-represent the truth.
In the modern era, journalism faces a complex interplay of internal and external challenges that fundamentally reshape its practice and purpose. These challenges stem from cognitive and genetic limitations, personal biases (such as pragyaapradh, or the mistake of the intellect), and external factors including digital convergence, digital divide, digital addiction, digital affluence, and the exponential growth of big data and user-generated discourses. This section explores these challenges in detail, highlighting their implications for the journalistic profession.
Cognitive Dissonance and Journalism
Cognitive dissonance, or Pragyaapradh as described in the context of Ayurveda and ancient Indian philosophy, has profound implications for journalism and society. This “mistake of the intellect” arises when the mind, influenced by material consciousness and cognitive biases, loses touch with holistic awareness. When this occurs, perception, decision-making, and behavior can become distorted, leading to significant consequences in both individual and collective contexts.
Impact on Journalism
One of the primary ways cognitive dissonance manifests in journalism is through bias in reporting. Journalists, like all individuals, are influenced by their pre-existing beliefs and experiences. When faced with information that contradicts their worldview, they may unconsciously favor evidence that aligns with their existing narratives. This can result in selective reporting, where conflicting facts are ignored, dismissed, or downplayed in an effort to maintain consistency.
Another critical issue is the formation of ‘echo chambers and confirmation bias’. Journalists may inadvertently seek out information that reinforces their perspectives while avoiding material that challenges them. This can lead to a media landscape where only certain viewpoints are amplified, limiting the diversity of perspectives available to the public. The result is an information bubble that can shape public opinion in a skewed manner.
To cope with the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, some journalists may prioritise sensationalism and misinformation. Emotionally charged or sensational stories often attract more attention and engagement, making them appealing to both journalists and media organizations. However, this focus on dramatic narratives can sometimes come at the expense of depth, accuracy, and critical analysis, contributing to the spread of misinformation.
Cognitive dissonance also plays a role in resistance to correction. When confronted with evidence that contradicts their reporting, journalists or media organisations may struggle to acknowledge mistakes. Instead of correcting misinformation, they might rationalize or dismiss new facts, fearing that admitting an error could damage their credibility. Ironically, this behavior can further erode public trust in journalism.
Lastly, cognitive dissonance contributes to polarisation in society. Media outlets catering to specific ideological audiences may reinforce divisive narratives, deepening societal divides. Instead of fostering balanced discourse, journalism can sometimes exacerbate ideological conflicts, making it harder for people to engage in constructive dialogue.
Impact on Citizens
Just as journalists are susceptible to cognitive dissonance, so are citizens. One common effect is selective perception, where individuals consume information that aligns with their beliefs while rejecting content that challenges them. This creates an environment where people remain entrenched in their existing views, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and reinforcing ideological divisions.
Cognitive dissonance can also lead to polarisation and tribalism. When individuals encounter conflicting information, they may react defensively by aligning more strongly with their social or ideological groups. This “us versus them” mentality fosters hostility and prevents constructive discussions between differing viewpoints.
Furthermore, cognitive dissonance affects decision-making and behavior. Citizens may continue supporting policies or leaders that align with their beliefs, even when presented with contradictory evidence. Admitting a mistake requires overcoming psychological discomfort, which can be a significant barrier to rational decision-making.
On a personal level, prolonged cognitive dissonance can impact our mindset as the internal tension between conflicting beliefs and behaviours can lead to stress, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion. Over time, this can erode resilience and contribute to a sense of unease or dissatisfaction with one’s worldview.
Journalist and Reporter Biases
Reporters can be subconsciously influenced by their own emotional intelligence just like you and me. Aristotle’s definition of emotional intelligence includes emotion, obsession, anger, fear, desire, dislike, passion, preferences and prejudice.
Coupled with their own perspectives, experiences, and beliefs it can influence their coverage of a story. For example, if a reporter has a specific political leaning, he may be tempted to focus on different details over others. He may present information with a particular tone that aligns with their views. This is not always a conscious decision, but biases like confirmation bias can lead journalists to highlight information that fits their worldview. (Nickerson, R. S.,1998)
Example: During the Brexit debate, news coverage in the UK varied widely depending on the outlet. Some news organisations emphasised the potential benefits of Brexit, focusing on national sovereignty, while others underscored the risks to the economy and international relationships. Readers would get contrasting impressions of the same event based on the reporter’s personal and organisational biases.
Journalists are as prone to cognitive biases as anyone else, including biases like the bandwagon effect (following popular opinion), framing bias (the way issues are presented) and availability bias (relying on readily available information), gaslighting bias and personal bias.
Mistakes in judgement can lead to unbalanced reporting, especially under the pressure of deadlines. Hence, Goleman (1995), Mayer, Salovery and Caruson (2000) and Reid (2011) as cited in MP Singh and Jyotsna Sinha (2021),foregrounded the necessary ability to: (a) determine what is emotional intelligence: (a) the ability to identify, assess, and control of one’s own, other’s and group’s emotions, (b) recognise their own and other’s emotion in order to motivate ourselves in relationships with others and (c) perceive, manage and evaluate emotions.
Example: In crime reporting, availability bias can cause journalists to disproportionately cover violent crimes because they are easier to report and more memorable. This creates a misrepresented picture of crime rates, often leading the public to believe crime is rising when it may actually be declining.