[Jeff Head]

Not polarizing...just finally revealing both sides where the major media squelched the conservative/constitutional/patriotic side for so long.

[murdoog]

The Web is the birthplace of "flamers" and "trolls," people who launch no-holds-barred attacks on others with opposing views.

Shows how much this guy knows. These terms AND the corresponding behaviors were around on USENET before anyone had heard of the World Wide Web. (And he has the definition of a troll wrong.)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

No, it is enabling voices to be heard that were ignored or discounted by traditional media in the past.

[The kings dead]

Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.

Ass. People who want opposing opinions can easily find them (has this clown never heard of search engines or portals?), and people who don't won't click the links.

[Semper Paratus]

Whatever happened to "Let a hundred flowers bloom!"?

[stuartcr]

Definitely polarizing...as the article said, people want what they want.

Soon, the only thing that will be believable, will be whatever one sees or hears themselves, in person. It's too easy to manipulate digital data.

[Onelifetogive]

Sunstein believes that like-minded people discussing an issue amongst themselves tend to move to more extreme viewpoints. ...[snip]In "Republic.com," Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.

But can they force me to "click" on the links.....

Oh yeah.....and how about that little "Freedom of Assembly" thing in the Constitution???

[sergeantdave]

What a moron. Note how this propagandist wants to weigh down web sites with alternative opposing views, yet he neatly sidesteps the idea of Dan Rather, et al, being forced to turn over their chairs on TV newscasts for alternative views.

This is more left wing tripe from Marxist dinosaurs who are losing the information war.

[risk]

In January, Pew Internet found that 67 percent of Americans prefer getting news from sources that don't have a political point of view...

Anyone journalist who isn't pro-American has a point of view. He's made his choice.

[Spiritus Gladius]

No, web opinion sites like FR and DU are safety valves. Without this desperately needed opportunity to vent, a certain small percentage of the population would be wearing aluminum foil hats and making bombs in their garages.

[muir_redwoods]

"Polarized" is a term used when the opposition objects to our unity. I may differ with other conservative/libertarian voices on some substantive issues but we know the importance of keeping the left out of power. We are polarized in the same way the colonists/revolutionaries were. Let's hope for the same success.

[OpusatFR]

"one prominent political thinker believes this could lead to a closed-minded society and the eventual ruin of democracy. ...[snip..."

Yup. The left has done that for decades by using the mainstream media to block out conservative views. Just about ruined the Republic until the advent of the internet.

[Don Corleone]

Free and open discourse is never polarizing...it is enlightening. The left is just scared S---less now that their one world socialist schemes are being uncovered.

[Piranha]

There's always a point of view.

Say you are a statehouse correspondent. There is a scandal in your state about illegal kickbacks by contractors to wives of certain officials in the administration. The Governor is giving a speech to the business council in the largest city in the state, and he doesn't mention the scandal. He is announcing a new industrial bond program to bring in a leading medical device manufacturing facility.

You have the chance to ask a question. Do you ask about the medical device facility (his agenda) or do you ask about the scandal that's on everyone's mind?

If you don't have the chance to ask a question, do you mention the scandal in your article? To you it hung over the entire event. Yet neither the governor nor any other speaker mentioned it.

There's always a point of view.

What the internet, through weblogs and Free Republic, does, is to give those who believe that their own viewpoint wasn't expressed, the opportunity to reframe the issues. Because FR, in particular, has such a broad base of informed readers, there is a very good level of factual accuracy, even as there is wholesale revision of the opinions and attitudes reflected in the news media being criticized.

This is the most exciting change in journalism in my lifetime.

[So Cal Rocket]

Ah... USC's Annenberg School of Journalism... Home to Professor Robert Scheer (admitted socialist/communist writer for the LA Times).

Every time the USC Alumni Association calls me for a donation, I tell them that I stopped giving when Scheer started "professing" at USC and I will give again once he leaves.

[subterfuge]

What I see are leftists/socialists probing and searching for a chink in the armor of the freedom of the internet. From Hitlary's thinly valed comments to this deep-thinker's tripe, they are just dying to get control of 'net.

[SunStar]

While news futurists have dreamed of the day people could create their "Daily Me" -- a newspaper or Web site with only the news they want (and agree with) -- one prominent political thinker believes this could lead to a closed-minded society and the eventual ruin of democracy. ...

Translation: If we don't read the New York Times every day, we might stray from the leftist plantation, ruining their aspirations for world domination!

[randog]

This is a serious problem for American democracy. Lots of options are good, but it's not so good if people sort themselves into echo chambers."

Yeah, places like churches and synagogues are dangerous. They're magnets for like-minded simpletons and only serve to indoctrinate fools with dangerous concepts like absolute morals and good vs. evil. The gub'mint ought to step and so something about this.

[af_vet_rr]

I think what's happening is the people who actually care on both sides are able to more easily express themselves to others who think the same they do (especially the radicals).

I think most Americans don't take politics as seriously or care as much as those of us who post in various internet forums. The various political discussion groups on usenet have been going for well over a decade and it hasn't changed American politics all that much.

I just think it comes down to people are able to find others on the internet with the same opinion, much easier.

The press on the other hand, holds up those of us active on the internet, through sites like FR, even DU, as being representative of regular Americans, when we are clearly not.

[Preachin']

Title should be:

Have the conservatives finally found out how to use the Internet to bypass us to get to the truth?