Silly me; I was under the impression that such behavior had existed since the invention of speech.
So what's his problem? Every time some DUmpster dweller expresses the opinion that America ought to be defeated, suffer more terrorist attacks, etc, somebody on FR links to it or even quotes it verbatim.
The Web is the birthplace of "flamers" and "trolls," people who launch no-holds-barred attacks on others with opposing views....[ship]...But despite the rise of so much partisan noise, it's hard to say without a doubt that we're living in the most divisive time, or that the Net is to blame. Research in the area is relatively sketchy, and the Net still provides a vast galaxy of diverse opinions and objective journalism.
There have been flame wars on the internet for over 20 years (certainly I've witnessed them in my 18 years experience with Usenet). The "net" isn't to blame.
I also remember 18 years ago when Larry King was a late night talk radio host. His guests were frequently of the liberal persuasion (politicians, authors, etc.). Larry could get hot under the collar when dealing with conservative callers. He'd call them "DUMB!" and hang up on them. Compare this to the way conservative talk radio hosts treat liberal callers (leaving them on the air for minutes at a time to expose their lack of a grasp on the topic they call about).
The only place the government COULD or SHOULD have a say in this is forcing sites that claim to be non-partisan (and exploit a 501c3 Non-profit tax status) to be sure to include links to all sides of an issue. (see RocktheVote.org's liberal leaning tax cheating website for such a website needing government intervention or revocation of tax status).
After all, history is written by the victors.
How many Americans choose to make a foreign news bureau their chief source of news regarding America? By choosing an American press agency, they've already accepted a level of bias in their news. Some writers may be more "pro-America" than others but some foreign news sources could be expected to offer NO support (total opposition) to issues in America.
Most people in America agree in principle with the United States Constitution (even if that interpretation may vary depending on a person's politics). Take yourself outside of America and there are nations that do not support our constitution.
Here on Free Republic we are a subset of the population and while many of us are "conservatives" there is still a great deal of difference of opinion on issues.
The major point I'd emphasize is the risk that when like-minded people speak mostly to one another, there's more division and polarization and less mutual understanding. 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."Journalism is politics, and always was.
Journalism which claims to be wise ("objective") is intolerant of dissent and therefore extremely political.
People who think journalism is objective are at most risk of living in a political echo chamber because their prejudice is constantly reinforced by the presumption of those whose word they take on faith.
The main reason the discourse is so harsh is that the country is evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, between 'Rats and Republicans. We're essentially a 50/50 nation right now, and liberals are upset that they no longer dominate political discourse. Of you look closely, the worst demagoguery comes from the left.