Noel,

I can't argue with the ideas here, but did Mr. Kristof mention the liberal one-sidedness of the news coverage that was responsible for the rise of the "conservative media" and driving conservatives to it? If they had actually had been even-handed in the first place, presenting all the facts in a balanced manner, we would all still be watching CBC, NBC, and ABC. I would argue that FoxNews, is the closest to being neutal and/or balanced as there is (at least compared with the others), but I somehow doubt Mr. Kristof would agree. If he can name another neutral source for news and political discussion (that I can verify), I'll watch that source and be happy to have my political philosophy challenged - as long as it's honest and fair.

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

That's just psycho-babble. He has left out a lot of other information about how and why people form opinions. I certainly didn't need the internet to form my opinions. Hitler didn't either.

I'd put it all down to "birds of a feather" and leave it there.

___________________________________ 

The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech

There is a lot of truth to what he says.  I have found very few sites that have discussion between lefties and conservatives.  I enjoy these sites since I feel they tend to sharpen my critical thinking.  I will sometimes go to dKos or Firedoglake (both sewers of stupidity) just to keep my outlook broad.  But I'm beginning to wonder how necessary that is since NB and most any conservative site spends a lot of space rehashing the MSM and thus the Democrat party line.  And this really gets old.  There is little reasoning or evidence and lots of emotion and hateful ad hominem attacks in these lefty sewers.  I think it is really true that lefties tend to be less well informed than conservatives.  And all of the left is quick to jump on the latest talking points from Stephanopoulos and Emanuel.  We can't escape their weak-a** pseudo arguments.  And they show no interest in differing views.  They have to spend so much time on their valued diversity they don't have time to listen to those they have already demonized beyond the pale.

What exactly does he mean by "pre-existing views"....?

That is nothing more than liberal double speak that means "obviously your views are in error until I tell you how to think".

Obviously like minded people tend to gravitate toward those like them but it is not because of an stubborness of pre-existing views.

Not all groups are equally as accomodating to those with different opinions.

For example,I have been banned on the DailyKos,The Huffpo,Pandagon and Democratic Underground in less than twenty four hours after joining.In some case it only took six or less comments or just two hours.In short,conservative bloggers are not welcome there.I can't post there unless I conceal my views.They don't want to hear dissenting views and get rather angry when they read one.

Here of course we have our obvious leftie retards but they are welcome to stay as long as they play nice.No one gets banned merely for an opinion.As a matter of fact it makes it rather interesting to have them here as a counter weight.

In my opinion leftie websites have no tolerance for opposing views and have their troll squads that will dislodge a right-winger in short time. DKos is famous for that.On the other hand right-wing sites almost enjoy their leftie counterparts and treat them like some sort of pet that they can  play with and bust upon but rarely ban them.

Mister Kristof claims that Americans are least likely to discuss politics is probably because someone like myself grows weary quite quickly of listening to some left-wing meathead like Keith Olbermann spew his propaganda and he wouldn't speak to me very long becaus he is a bitter hate filled man who despises anyone who disagrees with him.

Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.

Regardless of whether or not I agree with what he says, I can't help but view Mr. Kristof's article as a self-serving attempt to justify the MSM that arbitrarily decides what is news and what isn't.  In reality, I don't think the internet has any negative impact on people's acquisition of news whatsoever.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Those who are only interested in one side are going to ignore anything from the opposite side no matter what the medium is (how many hardcore lefties watch Fox, arguably the closest thing to a balanced network?), but those who are interested in getting the whole picture have the resources to do it through the net, not through the MSM.

www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi

I agree with his point.

Take a current example.  How would a liberal go about convincing me it is better to trample the Constitution's provision against Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws than allow a contract to be fullfilled?

I'm not sure I can be convinced.  Sure, I'd like for the OJ trial to have been fair and honest, but it wasn't, and our law against double jeopardy denies a retrial.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

....I enjoy a passionate debate about the issues.  My sister is a doctor/academic at the University of South Florida.  She works with special needs children and her experience has been that these children will not be cared for in a free market society.  To her, socialism is the only way these children (and families) can get the medical and spiritual attention they need.  I really can't argue with her about that.

But then she'll try to apply the need for socialism to the environment and that's where I have to draw the line.  In this arena, she is not well informed and she has a hard time believing that the liberal viewpoint on the environment is arrogant and disingenous.  (We know better than those dropouts!)  So I carefully point out the inconsistencies in the global warming alarmist arguments, hoping she will listen and learn.  But alas, I can't hold her attention that long.

If I could find others like my sister to spar with, I'd gladly do it.  But sadly, my experiences on liberal blog sites or MSM sites like Washington Post have shown me that most liberals just want to shout down alternate points of view.  They regularly use insults and sarcasm to tear down the opponent rather than discuss the issue basted on its merits.

I see some of the insults here and I try not to participate in them.  The way some of us argue with trolls is kind of embarrassing.  Many of these "troll" posters are dishonest in their motives and should not be responded to.  Others, like Jer, are worth reading because they look at things from a completely different perspective. 

More often than not, I just don't feel like arguing.  If I want to shoot arrows all day and take rapid enemy fire in return, I would have gotten into radio or politics.  However, I am quite grateful to folks like Newsbusters and Rush and Laura who are willing to fight the good fight on my behalf.   

"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."

. . . maybe Kristof is telling us that media bias really doesn't matter that much.  After all, our minds are already made up.

"But after discussing the issue with like-minded people for only 15 minutes, liberals became more liberal and conservatives more conservative"

This might be another case of a study reading the results they want to into their data. If not, maybe just looking for the seemingly obvious answer instead of the correct answer. I have a slight southern accent. When I lived in Indiana or Ohio my accent faded even more. Yet when I went to business meetings in Kentucky (where I was born) and around people who had a stronger accent, my accent would tend to match theirs. I didn't notice this, my friends from Ohio and Indiana noticed. This might relate to this study. It isn't that people become more conservative or liberal after a fifteen minutes or more chat. It's just that people like to fit in and be agreeable to a large extent. The test would be to take those people who talked for fifteen minutes and put them in the same isolated room for a month and see how long it takes them to scream for anyone else to talk to.

I'd also point to Howard Stern as another example. A high percentage of people who listened to Howard Stern claimed to hate him. But they listened because they wanted to hear what he would say next.

So while there might be an element of truth to the article, It has some problems. A lot of people don't go out of their way to start conflict. If they can talk about their views without conflict then sure they will do it and they will still try to be polite and agreeable. But does that say anything about the information they seek in private? You might not admit you listen to Howard Stern unless you know you are around other listeners. But that doesn't mean you don't listen. You might also hear a story on the news and ask yourself "let's see how Juan Williams tries to defend this one". So I think the conclusions in the article are suspect.

I have to say, as a person who uses mostly the internet and talk radio to get news, I am amazed at the number of people who soley use print and television for information who are truly not well informed.  And for some, are downright ignorant of the issues.

I live in DC so I am surrounded by liberals.  Sometimes I meet whom I can't even have a conversation with because they lack the necessary information to make the debate fruitful.

While he may have a point about people wanting to be in their comfort zones, traditional media is not the best place to find real debate, diversity of opinion, or even just the plain ol' facts about the events/issues of our day.

The echo chamber was built by and is maintained by the Leftist media.

As far as polarization, I have seen nothing from the Communists in the way of compromise or abandoning failed ideologies.

I'm for any system, plan or project that works, is Constitutional and is moral regardless from which side of the political spetrum it originates.

Also, I'm strongly Conservative, but there are indeed right wingers out there who I believe to be potentially dangerous and off their rockers.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

I listen to the King all the time. The King just said something that bumps up against my worldview. Still listened.

First of all, all I want is the truth.

Second, I need a good filter. Because there is a lot of incoming truthful information and I only have time for what is important. That is what draws me in to certain sites.

Third. I don't need to relearn lessons I have already spent copious time on. That is why I don't talk to liberals. I know socialism does not work. It has been tried and failed. We know why. Do I need someone to sit and tell me it just has not been done right and we are just the people to do it correctly?

Fourth. The reason liberals do not learn is because they have yet to learn the results of the policies they advocate. We have not had massive inflation for 30 years because we have has a somewhat rational monetary policy. The result is a LOT of people that do not realize what bad monetary policy looks like. So they vote in a man that does not know or does not care what bad monetary policy looks like.

  Let's say we don't fight the current adminstration with all our heart and soul. And it gets everything it wants. Massive growth of government. More government monopolies of certain sectors. They already have primary education and retirement. We get more monopolies. Secondary education. Health care. Energy. We know government monopolies fail because there is no incentive to make things efficient. We will take more money out of the private economy and put it into bloated wasteful monopolies. We are going to get high inflation, high unemployment, little or no growth, and growing threats against this country because we cannot afford a powerful military to protect us.

 We get all of the above and liberals finally see the results of their policies. When liberals finally get hit upside the head with actual results, then we will be less politically segregated. It is at that point that we get a Ronald Reagan or a Newt Gingrich.

  The ignorant stay ignorant because they live off the largesse of the informed. But the problem now is - the informed are outnumbered.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Uh, yeah.  I live in one of those counties where the blue votes dramatically outnumber the red votes.  But since I’m in the distinct minority, it’s difficult to be complacent.  (My best friend’s husband thinks Nancy Pelosi is fabulous.  How’s that for a debate starter.)

A half truth is still a lie and drinking poison still makes you sick.  What Kristof advocates is only one sided, do you really think he meant he is advocating his liberal friends to read the NY Post or Washington Times?  Do you really think he is advocating watching FNC to his liberal allies???  I think not.  

The most he and his liberal stripe got from the article is a stroking of their self righteous elitist snobbery.  Let's face it, he wants us to read the NYT because without us he is out of a job when his bird cage liner closes shop.

Furthermore it was confirmation bias that gave us AGW and Socialism by the liberals, the very people who claim the issue is settled by the consensus of THEIR experts.  It's all good and well to be open minded, except one shouldn't be so opened minded that your brains fall out on the floor.   The whole argument by Kristof ignores the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism - liberals based their world view upon the agenda (utopian dream), conservatives base their world view upon the perponderance of facts (reality).   It is not we conservatives who have the issues with confirmation bias, it is liberals by the nature of their world view. 

Let me make it very simple why confirmation bias is not a conservative problem:  If you do not base you opinions (search for truth) upon the facts then you aren't a conservative!  The basis of conservativism is rooted in the real world, "the sum of the facts is the truth."  The moral underfooting of this philosophy is based in the OT Psalm 119:160 "The sum of Your word is truth"  What Kristof really advocates is something we were warned against by a very wise person, some of you might know him by these words:  "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees"

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

even the stuff I read on here.  (sorry guys!) :)

~kat

In an effort to show how open minded your readers should be perhaps you should take this article to the NYT's conservative (a real one not one you call conservative) and see what he/she thinks of your issue. I won't hold my breath until you find one.

This is a potential problem and I don't want to minimize the effect it could have but coming from "Echo Room Central Command" I give it little credence. When we hear of the media having their own websites and meetings with political leaders to establish story lines they are on very loose ground in questioning the open mindedness of the public.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

  I am where I am because I do listen. I was not born a conservative. I became one because I had an open mind.

  It is liberals that are closed to listening to differing viewpoints. Don't listen to me. Try American Thinker.

Refuting Global Warming Alarmists can be tiring and repetitive, since most liberals don’t accept reason and logic as rejoinders against their emotional hysteria.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/the_cure_for_global_warming_al.html

I still beg to differ.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.