Now most everyone has the Internet and cable TV which can provide the type and slant of news most any individual desires. In addition to cooking, pet and golf channels there is Fox which caters to the right and MSNBC on the left of center. This tends to polarize the politics of our nation and could certainly be a significant cause of our gridlocked government that , like the weather, everyone complains about but no one seems to be able to change.
However, that said, I must respectfully (there’s a word you don’t hear very often anymore) disagree with my colleague. Newspapers, even in their heyday, were divided into right, left and center politically in their editorials and worse, their choice of headlines demonstrated their political leanings. I recall back in the Sixties a headline from the Manchester Union Leader stating, “UN Mercenaries Invade Congo”. Of course, this was the opinion of the owner (Loeb) of the publication but the people who regularly purchased this paper were also the choir he was preaching to. This seems very little different than what Fox and MSNBC News are doing when they broadcast the opinions of Hannity and Maddow. Actually Fox and MSNBC are being more intellectually honest and transparent with us as they do not claim that Mr. Hannity and Ms Maddow are newscasters but are merely commentators. And as commentators, they can vent their biases to their bases rather freely. The issue is, however, when you sit down for a meal, do you want your soup with one flavor overpowering all of the others or would you rather they all work to complement each other?
Whether the “good old days” when the Fourth Estate (i.e. newspapers) chose which news was worth reporting were better than the cornucopia of TV channels and Internet (includes newspapers) sites that are currently available is debateable. If I have to chose between the elite few publishers who decide what news is and the delicious diversity of offerings on the Internet, on the whole, I have to go with the choice that maximizes my choice. I think it’s better to have too much choice than not enough even though there are times when too much choice seems overwhelming --- like shopping in a super-duper market for cereals for example. In fact, some think that this overabundance of choice contributes to the sense of ennui and irony of our age.
Unfortunately, having an abundance of choices does not necessarily mean we will use them wisely. Sites that analyze Twitter feeds clearly show that visitors to conservative and liberal websites do not overlap very much at all; if you are a conservative you visit mostly conservative websites and liberals visit liberal websites. One would hope that a plethora of information would inform the populace and promote toleration of other’s viewpoints but, sadly, this does not seem to be the case. Instead of tolerance we get arrogance and righteousness which leads to insularity and polarization. And although it was Abraham Lincoln who said, “A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have.” we must ask ourselves: Are we all in this together or are we not? Sulking in our enclaves is not only counterproductive, it is just plain childish.
Maybe we can find some ironic solace in the message from Kahlil Gibran, “I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers." If we could just follow his example but learn instead to be grateful to those teachers I’m sure the world would be better for it.