With a presidential election year well upon us, it's pretty clear what a hyperpartisan nation we have become.
It seems everyone is increasingly viewing topics through a lens of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. Far worse, many now express their opinions in a knee-jerk fashion, one less about the intellectual rigor of an argument but instead merely an attempt to either reinforce their own ideological viewpoint — or attack someone else's.
To be sure, this trend is not exactly new. There have always been partisans on both sides of important issues. But until recently, they have stayed largely free of the financial services arena.
Amazing as it may seem, when I joined American Banker 12 years ago, the banking committees largely operated on a bipartisan basis. Moreover, the tenor and tone of the debate about various topics – including tough issues like subprime lending, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, financial privacy – were far more dispassionate and reasonable than they are today.
Now, you can hardly write or say anything about banking without riling up somebody. The biggest example of this is, of course, the Dodd-Frank Act. While it was clearly controversial when it passed two years ago, if anything, it has become far more divisive since then.
On one side are bankers, and some Republicans, who appear to view Dodd-Frank as the financial Apocalypse that will destroy banks' business model. On the other are consumers and Democratic lawmakers who defend the law as a necessary response to the financial crisis.
For journalists like me, this huge divide is both a blessing and a curse. Let's be honest: our business thrives on conflict and debate. When intelligent people disagree over a significant issue, there's usually a story there. On the other hand – if I can take you behind the scenes for a minute – it has become increasingly difficult to try and talk about these issues.
In an era of partisan media, many people only want to hear an echo of what they already believe. If an article challenges that belief – or worse, provides evidence that it is flawed or incomplete – many readers no longer engage in self-reflection, but instead shoot the messenger. Rather than consider their own views, they claim the article, or the reporter or editor behind it, is biased.
While this has always been a risk for journalism, it has become far more prevalent in the past few years, and particularly true in the past 12 months. Frankly, we can't write anything about Dodd-Frank these days without being accused of taking sides. Sometimes a single article has been attacked by both sides as "proof" of bias. Speaking personally, I have been accused of being an industry lackey and a socialist revolutionary — two ideas that are generally incompatible with each other. Or perhaps I'm the first socialist in history with a pro-bank bias.
Consider these comments, posted on American Banker's website, that perfectly capture what I'm talking about.
After a recent post analyzing the presidential campaign, a banker wrote: "More and more, I find myself wondering just who or what the 'American Banker' publication supports – banking or the big government? You repeatedly post articles that declare the impending death of community banking, the need to give the CFPB a chance and more incredibly inane positions … You are either clearly out of touch with your subscribers, or are trying desperately to nudge them toward a political outcome."
