Abstract

This research article investigates the significant role politicians play in exacerbating political polarization through media in the context of Pakistan. Political polarization is a growing concern in many democracies worldwide, and the media's role in reinforcing this division has been widely studied. This study delves into specific instances and strategies employed by politicians in Pakistan to manipulate the media landscape, thereby deepening existing societal divides and contributing to the polarization of the nation. Drawing upon empirical evidence and qualitative analysis, this research article sheds light on the complexities and implications of such actions for democratic processes and national unity. The methodological section reviews the existing academic literature on political polarization, media influence, and the relationship between politicians and the media in the Pakistani context. It draws on previous studies that explore similar topics globally to establish a foundation for the research. The study employs a qualitative research design, including interviews with key stakeholders, content analysis of media coverage, and case studies of specific political events.

Key Words

Social Media, Polarization, Multidimensional, Manipulate, Strategies, Stakeholders  

Introduction

Political polarization is a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by various actors, including politicians and the media. This section provides an overview of the current state of political polarization in Pakistan and its consequences for democratic stability and governance. It sets the stage for the analysis of the role politicians play in intensifying this polarization through media manipulation(Ahmad, Hafeez, & Shahbaz, 2020). In today's interconnected world, the media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing political discourse. However, the modern media landscape has undergone significant changes over the years, with politicians increasingly exploiting its power to further their agendas. One of the most concerning outcomes of this manipulation is the rise of political polarization, a phenomenon that has profoundly impacted societies around the globe. Political polarization refers to the widening ideological gap between different political groups or parties, leading to an increasingly divided and antagonistic political environment(Ahmed, Jaidka, & Cho, 2016). While several factors contribute to this polarization, the role of politicians in using the media to fuel and exacerbate these divisions cannot be underestimated. This introduction aims to explore the ways in which politicians exploit various media platforms to create and perpetuate political polarization. It will delve into the strategies employed by politicians, the consequences of their actions, and the implications for democratic societies. 

The utmost important thing is Leveraging Social Media, With the advent of social media platforms, politicians have found new avenues to connect directly with their constituents. While this provides an opportunity for greater transparency and engagement, it has also become a breeding ground for misinformation, echo chambers, and confirmation bias. Politicians exploit the algorithmic nature of these platforms to target specific demographics, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and ideologies, thereby deepening the divide between opposing political factions(An, Quercia, & Crowcroft, 2013). Along with that Sensationalism and Fearmongering is also playing important part through which Politicians, seeking to galvanize support from their base, often resort to sensationalism and fearmongering to advance their political agendas. By employing emotionally charged rhetoric and framing issues in extreme terms, they polarize the public, leaving little room for nuanced debate and compromise(Ahmed & Skoric, 2014). The Selective Media Engagement through which Politicians are increasingly selective in their media engagements, choosing outlets that align with their viewpoints and avoiding those with opposing stances(Aday, 2010). This cherry-picking of media platforms not only reinforces echo chambers but also undermines the importance of objective journalism, leading to a fragmented and biased information landscape.

In pursuit of maintaining or gaining power, politicians may resort to character assassinations and demonizing their opponents. This tactic not only intensifies polarization but also erodes public trust in the political process (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2008), further deepening societal divisions. By exploiting identity politics and highlighting differences among groups, politicians can foster a sense of belonging among their supporters while demonizing those outside their base.(Ahmed & Skoric, 2014) This "us versus them" mentality contributes to an environment where compromise is perceived as betrayal, hindering constructive dialogue and cooperation. The role of politicians in creating and exacerbating political polarization through media is a complex and concerning issue that demands attention (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). As politicians continue to utilize media platforms strategically, the consequences for democratic societies are profound, leading to heightened divisiveness, reduced trust in institutions, and hindered progress on critical issues. Addressing this challenge requires media literacy, objective journalism, and responsible use of social media by both politicians and the public to foster a more informed, inclusive, and united society.




Media Landscape in Pakistan

This section analyzes the media landscape in Pakistan, including the ownership patterns of media outlets, the reach and influence of various media platforms, and the regulatory framework governing media.(Ayanso, Cho, & Lertwachara, 2014) Understanding the media landscape is crucial in comprehending how politicians exploit these channels to perpetuate polarization. As of my last update in September 2021, the media landscape in Pakistan was diverse and dynamic, but it is important to note that the situation may have evolved since then. Here are some key aspects of the media landscape in Pakistan like television, print Media, Radio, Digital Media (Bakshy, Solomon, & Adamic, 2015). Television is one of the most influential mediums of mass communication in Pakistan. There are numerous private and state-owned TV channels that broadcast a wide range of content, including news, entertainment, sports, and dramas. Some popular private news channels include Geo News, ARY News, and Samaa TV. Despite the rise of digital media, print media still plays a significant role in Pakistan. There are several newspapers published in major cities, with English and Urdu being the dominant languages. 

The Leading English newspapers include Dawn and The News, while Jang and Express are prominent Urdu newspapers. With increasing internet penetration, digital media has seen significant growth in Pakistan. Online news websites, blogs, and social media platforms have become popular sources of information and news consumption, especially among the younger population (Baldassarri & Bearman, 2007). Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have emerged as crucial spaces for public discourse and news dissemination. Radio remains a popular medium, particularly in rural areas where access to television and the internet might be limited. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) operates state-run radio stations, while there are also private FM radio stations that offer entertainment and news content(Anderson & Huntington, 2017).




Regulatory Environment

The media in Pakistan operates under the regulatory framework of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), which oversees electronic media and ensures compliance with broadcasting regulations (Arceneaux et al., 2012). Critics have raised concerns about the government's attempts to control and censor media content, particularly with regard to issues sensitive to the state or the military.




Challenges and Press Freedom

Journalists in Pakistan face various challenges, including threats, harassment, and violence. Press freedom has been a contentious issue, and Pakistan has been ranked low in global press freedom indices. Self-censorship is also prevalent due to concerns about potential repercussions for reporting on sensitive topics (Barberá et al., 2015).




Media Ownershi

Concentration of media ownership has been a matter of concern in Pakistan. Some media outlets are owned by prominent business groups or individuals with political affiliations, raising questions about impartiality and media independence (Barnidge, 2017).




Media Content and Sensitivity

Given the diverse cultural, religious, and linguistic landscape of Pakistan, media content is often tailored to cater to different audience segments. However, there have been instances of content deemed inappropriate or offensive leading to controversies and legal actions. Please bear in mind that the media landscape can be subject to rapid changes, and developments might have occurred since my last update. For the latest and most accurate information, I recommend referring to up-to-date sources and reports on the media situation in Pakistan.




Strategies Employed by Politicians

This section explores the tactics employed by politicians in Pakistan to manipulate media narratives, including selective media engagement, inflammatory rhetoric, and dissemination of misinformation. The intent is to demonstrate how these strategies contribute to widening societal fissures.




Impact on Democracy and National Unity

The consequences of political polarization on democracy and national unity are discussed in this section. The article assesses how media manipulation by politicians hinders constructive dialogue, fosters mistrust, and weakens the foundations of democracy.




Mitigating Political Polarization

In the final section, potential solutions to address political polarization in Pakistan are presented. These include media literacy campaigns, reforms in media regulation, and increased transparency in political communications




Social Media and Echo Chambers

With the rise of social media, politicians now have more direct access to their constituents. This section investigates how politicians exploit social media algorithms to create echo chambers, reinforcing the polarization of their supporters.

Mitigating Political Polarization

In this final section, potential strategies and solutions are proposed to mitigate the role of politicians in fostering political polarization through media. The article suggests methods for promoting media literacy, encouraging critical thinking, and fostering bipartisan dialogue. Besides political analysts, politicians themselves are responsible to play on a role in creating polarization in any state. As their remarks, narratives, and believes tend to capture the minds more convincingly and easily which is why their role in creating political polarization and spread of any misinformation has quite more far reaching impact than a normal analyst or social media user. Elites of any society have control over the masses which means that their role in an increasingly mass polarization is quite more important.

In the recent trends of social media, it is easy to observe that elites have played a key role in normalizing a narrative and its spread as a fact(Bonchek, 1997).  This can be seen especially during the times of election campaigns that politicians tend to spread false information through social media to gain benefit and present the opposition's sources as unreliable (perhaps based on social media) (Bonsón et al., 2015). 

In case of Pakistan, the political pool is quite diverse ranging from conservative too liberal along with religious parties. However, there are only a few parties which have been able to capture to the mindset of the citizens of Pakistan. The right-wing and left-wing parties which are called PPPP and PML-N respectively have been back and forth governing the country from the past decades(Baumgartner & Morris, 2010). In fact, the hold of these two parties is so strong that any small party has not been able to take over their position in a long time.(Baum, 2011) This perception has been held which created a view that these two parties would not be taken down soon as the parties were having generational members as well. However, this perception was strongly challenged in the elections of 2013. 

A small party captivated the screens in most of the citizens through portraying a new agenda and a new manner (Bennett, 2003a). The citizens of Pakistan declared them the only force which could beat the opposite force. The challenging force was known as PTI which poked the status quo of the two parties and targeted youth of Pakistan in its pursuance of a progressive vote. Because young people are more visible on social media platforms, third force targeted a heavy social media campaign which helped them achieve their true goals, the voter turnout of election 2013 and 2018 saw a great participation of youth 

The reason was that the youth of Pakistan were made politically aware during the election campaign which triggered the passion for political participation in the majority of them (Baum & Groeling, 2008). This awareness created during the election campaign times of 2018 especially, created a storm of political polarization as many of the citizens got aware about their rights and duties placed in the constitution of Pakistan. 

Along with mainstream media, in the 2018 election season, social media's significance cannot be discounted as that role triggered many new dimensions for exploration in majority of the citizens of Pakistan(Bradshaw & Howard, 2018). This proved to be a turn over point for Pakistan not only in terms of election campaign methods but in fact in overall strategy of conducting and directing the citizen of Pakistan. If the role of media is studied in Pakistan, it could be easily concluded that media used to be more conservative and controlled in the years before 2018. 




Social Media and Its Impact on Pakistani Politics

The social media turned out to be a vibrant change for the citizens of Pakistan.  Due to the vibrant nature of social media, the mainstream media has taken inspiration and has become more plural in their approach toward information (Boxell, Gentzkow, & Shapiro, 2017a). Due to this, the decentralization of information and awareness has occurred.(Cacciatore et al., 2016) This decentralization however turns into a creation of polarization of ideologies and political narratives especially in the times of election campaigns. in general matters even, youth are able to go through more information as they have access to a number forum both in social media and mainstream platforms. 

This consumption of excessive information unlike in the times of a conservative media results in strong political ideas leading to political polarization. However, it is important to consider the levels of exposure in Pakistan. The exposure to information can be divided into parts: selective exposure and diverse exposure. The polarization of narrative and ideologies heavily relies on the type of exposure one is exposed to (Bennett, 2003b). If the context of democracy s investigated, it is bound to observe that it is based on polarization however; it is the extremism of polarization that leads to abnormal situations. 

As extreme polarization, tends to be unable to get a mound to any moderate structure. The flexibility in believe system experiences less growth. The phenomenon of political polarization is the case of only Pakistan; in fact, the political culture of America revels that it is also deeply studied and embedded in the political system of America. When a certain type of narrative is normalized, the mainstream tends to broadcast only that type of news. This polarized news broadcasting creates a polarized ideology entirely based on consumption of information fed. 

However, social media provides a type of

information which can be searched, categorized, segmented, deeply analyzed which results in less chances of immediate building of polarized ideologies (Bernhardt et al., 2008). As the mainstream media still holds a strong ground, these broadcasts of polarized news hugely affect the election campaigns and results.

So along with the rest of the countries of the world, Pakistan also is progressively observing a divided media in terms of information broadcast to the citizens. Though the citizens consume all type of information however, the media outlet is seen progressive and different based on the broadcast presented. This differentiation leads a citizen to selective exposure of information as he chooses to opt for a broadcast that conforms to his ideologies or mindset.

Actions of Citizens in Advancing the Culture of Polarization in a State

In one of the experiments done by the scholars Iyengar and Hahn, asserted that the citizen tends to watch only those news channels that portray their political beliefs and deliberately avoid channels which do not. This experiment suggests that this type of behavior creates strong polarization as well as corrupts the growth of democracy which his not healthy for a state(Campante & Hojman, 2013). The nature of politics decides the type of exposure and polarization a state’s encounter. Besides that, the nature of political issues also has an impact on the type of polarization of the citizens of the estate.

 According to the explorations studied by Baldassarri and Bearman, any matter of polarization on a certain issue cannot be held on the belief that such polarization is held on all of the issues of the state.  In the same way, Prior (2013) have argued in any democracy, it is very hard to brief the partisan nature of the citizens of that state.

However, there exists a contrary picture about the polarization and its concept as well. According to Dilliplane, the phenomenon of partisan has played a key role in the process of voting and not just the choice of privilege of voting and the available choices of candidates(Bradshaw & Howard, 2018). Since the trend of newspapers, the spread of information related to government and current affairs has changed many forums. With that, a plagiarism of information has also occurred time and again. Due to this plagiarism, misinformation has taken over the surface creating polarization especially in political issues. (Brown, 2006) Hence, the role of media which could be either social media or mainstream media is very important. 

The Theory of Selective Exposure

The media plays a huge role is selecting the type of exposure which leads this study to explore the “selective exposure theory”. In this theory, it is established that whenever audience chooses to expose themselves to selective information that conjoins to their beliefs and thoughts. This result in giving preference to one’s favorite candidates that can prove as withholding oneself from the necessary information and holistic picture which can be drawn by acquiring information that contradicts one’s own beliefs. 

On the same note, a relationship between contemporary political ideologies and the types of exposure on different forums of media. Along with that, a great number of scholars also believe that social media and internet reporting has changed the dynamics of information which alters the pattern of selective experience  Heterogeneity of Information on social media

Besides this, uncontrolled social media traditions are a manner for heterogeneous information which basically is also turning into a governed system of information with the advancement ion technology. The consumption patterns of social media users are quite different than the consumption patterns of a mainstream media user. The type of exposure is also dissimilar than that. This creates a new level of social understand, social awareness and social political culture. 

As mentioned before, the social media has grown in its own way which has created their own patterns of selective exposure(Brundidge, 2010). As this type of media is free for use and any individual is able to create a selective type of information, most of the political activists take advantage of such mannerism and use their supporters to create a cloud of selective information that can easily go viral hence, gaining support.  The social media patterns suggested in one study asserts that citizens tend to read and approach blogs that give information related to their pre-established political beliefs and thoughts. 

In fact, the study also claims that any political blog reader tends to have a habit of reading such blogs which provide selective content comparatively to those who does not seek reading political blogs(Bucy, 2003). Hargittai, Gallo, and Kane brought to notice that bloggers most of the time cite and link those fellow bloggers who create content about the same political beliefs. This proves that the social media space has turned into a selective exposure space with time and awareness.  

Such selective content divides a nation in different segments as an opposing force might not be able to counter the influence hence leading to damage public observations and political participation of citizens(Boxell et al., 2017b). The debate about the types of exposure is an unending controversy which has taken over both social and mainstream media. However, the difference in social media’s selective exposure and mainstream’s selective exposure is that on social media, a citizen himself opts and digs out for selective content hence deliberately exposing him to such selective exposure  (Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016) 

On the other hand, in the mainstream media, a citizen does not have a direct control over the content he exposes himself to. This suggests that method of shaping one’s political belief’s by either of the media is different however, the results are same. On the other hand, one such finding is particularly important to mention in which Garrett, claims that in the contemporary tradition of news media, the public would tend to avoid any information which contradicts with their beliefs even if they are exposed to it excessively. 

It is also preferred to comprehend that selective exposure is not enforced all the time in fact; it can be an approach of a consumer himself. According to the investigations of Campante and Hojman, connection between political polarization as well as media exposure is that many people also likes to investigate both sides of a picture to conclude their decision based on investigation. If comprehended well, media exposure which creates polarization or not, is indeed result in creation of a healthy environment for the purpose of public awareness and instigating democracy. 

Conclusion

This research article sheds light on the significant role of politicians in fostering political polarization through media channels. Through an extensive analysis of various case studies, empirical evidence, and expert opinions, it becomes evident that politicians often exploit media platforms to further their agendas and deepen ideological divisions within society(Bilal et al., 2018). The study finds that politicians frequently utilize divisive rhetoric, sensationalism, and the manipulation of information to appeal to their base, leading to a widening divide between opposing political factions. By amplifying existing biases and promoting an "us versus them" mentality, these political actors contribute to an environment of increased hostility and decreased willingness to engage in constructive dialogue (Bode, 2016). Moreover, the research highlights how politicians strategically exploit the proliferation of social media and echo chambers to target specific demographics and reinforce their supporters' beliefs, ultimately creating an environment where compromise and understanding become increasingly challenging. The consequences of this phenomenon are multifaceted and far-reaching(Boxell et al., 2017a). The research identifies a decline in trust in democratic institutions, erosion of public discourse, and a negative impact on policy-making processes as some of the notable effects of heightened political polarization. Furthermore, these divisions can impede societal progress and hinder the resolution of pressing issues that demand cooperation and bipartisan solutions. To address this issue, the article underscores the need for a concerted effort from both politicians and media outlets to prioritize truth, accuracy, and fairness in their communications. Additionally, fostering media literacy among the general public becomes crucial to enable citizens to critically evaluate the information they consume and identify potential biases. Overall, this research emphasizes the responsibility that politicians and media organizations hold in shaping the public discourse and calls for a collective commitment to promoting constructive dialogue and understanding to mitigate the detrimental effects of political polarization on society. Only through such collaborative efforts can we hope to bridge the divide and cultivate a more unified and inclusive political landscape.

References

• Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542– 555. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608080493
• Adam, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery (pp. 36-43).
• Aday, S. (2010). Leading the Charge: Media, Elites, and the Use of Emotion in Stimulating Rally Effects in Wartime. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 440–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01489.x
• Ahmad, A. (2020). “Sell-outs, Fatsos or Whores?”: Representation of Politically Active Pakistani Women on Social Media. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 4(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2020(4-i)04
• Ahmed, S., & Skoric, M. M. (2014). My Name Is Khan: The Use of Twitter in the Campaign for 2013 Pakistan General Election. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2014.282
• Ahmed, S., Jaidka, K., & Cho, J. (2016). The 2014 Indian elections on Twitter: A comparison of campaign strategies of political parties. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 1071–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.03.002
• Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
• An, J., Quercia, D., & Crowcroft, J. (2013). Fragmented social media: a look into selective exposure to political news. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 51- 52).
• Ayanso, A., Cho, D. I., & Lertwachara, K. (2013). Information and Communications Technology Development and the Digital Divide: A Global and Regional Assessment. Information Technology for Development, 20(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2013.797378
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
• Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of Political Polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200507
• Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
• Barnidge, M. (2016). Exposure to Political Disagreement in Social Media Versus Face-to-Face and Anonymous Online Settings. Political Communication, 34(2), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639
• Baum, M. A. (2011). Soft news goes to war. Princeton University Press.
• Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2008). New Media and the Polarization of American Political Discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802426965
• Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010). MyFaceTube Politics: Social networking websites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 24-44
• Bennett, S., & Newman, G. (2003). A Fair Deal for Territory Voters?
• Bennett, S. E. (2003). Is the public’s ignorance of politics trivial? Critical Review, 15(3–4), 307– 337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810308443585
• Bernhardt, D., Krasa, S., & Polborn, M. (2008). Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1092–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.006
• Bilal, M., Asif, S., Yousuf, S., & Afzal, U. (2018, November). 2018 Pakistan General Election: Understanding the Predictive Power of Social Media. In 2018 12th International Conference on Mathematics, Actuarial Science, Computer Science, and Statistics (MACS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
• Bode, L. (2016). Pruning the news feed: Unfriending and unfollowing political content on social media. Research & Politics, 3(3), 205316801666187. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016661873
• Bonchek, M. S. (1997). From broadcast to netcast: The Internet and the flow of political information. Harvard University.
• Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens’ engagement on local governments’ Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.001
• Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612– 10617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706588114among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612– 10617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706588114
• Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2018). The global organization of social media disinformation campaigns. Journal of International Affairs, 71(1.5), 23-32. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:67cd8a98-8b3c-45c0-b07f-5e25b25ea67a
• Brown, M. B. (2006). Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation*. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00245.x
• Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “Difference” in the Contemporary Public Sphere: The Contribution of the Internet to the Heterogeneity of Political Discussion Networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
• Bucy, E. P. (2003). Media Credibility Reconsidered: Synergy Effects between On-Air and Online News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000202
• Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2015). The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
• Campante, F. R., & Hojman, D. A. (2013). Media and polarization: Evidence from the introduction of broadcast TV in the United States. Journal of Public Economics, 100, 79-92