Because when the media has been running with "Fake but Accurate" stories against Republicans for decades, they need to become more committed to presenting truth as they perceive it. https://twitter.com/NGrossman81/status/1308786073791799297

The problem with Grossman's quote isn't his desire for the media to value truth over balance. That's the ideal. The problem is that human psychological processes make this almost impossible. Motivated cognition shapes what we view as facts AND how we interpret them.

By being balanced in reporting, journalists mitigate their own motivated processes. These motivated processes aren't conscious. They aren't "controllable" in the short term and the more you know and smarter you are the more powerful motivated reasoning is.

The only way to overcome motivated reasoning is via neutral processes, constant questioning of your own assumptions, and "bothsides-ism." The neutral processes are the most important, but require bothsides-ism for long term reflection.

The constant questioning doesn't do as much as you might imagine, but combined with long term processes (as opposed to "type 1"/'stage 1" affective reasoning) can overcome some effects of motivated reasoning, but it requires active work.

Arguing as Grossman does here that the media should focus on "truth" and not "balance" implies that he/they know the truth. Motivated processes make this very challenging.

Let me put it this way. Any look through my feed will demonstrate that I am HIGHLY partisan. I have HUGE biases. I know this. I actively work to stop them. I cannot. They are deeply ingrained and require A LOT of information to counter.

My cognitive processes engage in massive motivated reasoning. It's not willful or intentional. It just happens. I KNOW this and I'm still affected by it. My affective reasoning is highly motivated.

The last think I would ever claim is that my opinions are "the truth," even though I believe they are. Because I'm skeptical of my own motivated reasoning.

This is exactly why I value my friends who disagree with me and read things across the aisle.

As Bail et al (2018) showed, my exposure to opposing arguments may actually make me MORE partisan. This is why I also engage with stuff that is non-political and with people genuinely in the middle on issues.

Berelson et. al. argued that indifferent voters were the cement that held American democracy together. Partisans are highly informed and deeply committed. Sociable man is a vital part of democracy.

Sociable man needs balanced information and not "truth" from motivated reasoners of only one side.

Thoughts from @PsychRabble might be appreciated on this thread.