Nicholas Kristof has an interesting column in the New York Times this week about what kind of news we read.
He argues that the advent of online news has actually given us a narrower worldview -- that, because we can pick and choose what we read online, we tend to read articles and blogs that express only viewpoints we agree with. He says we're far less likely to take the time to parse through legitimate arguments that refute our own beliefs -- and that the Internet makes it much easier to ignore them.
It's an interesting premise, and I can see where he's coming from. No one likes to be told they're wrong, which is why what Kristof calls "The Daily Me" is so tempting. Why run the risk of having your beliefs questioned and your ideology scorned when you can live in a bubble of like-minded opinions? Why bother fuming over another viewpoint when you can just tune it out entirely?
In my own way, I'm guilty, too -- every now and then, I listen to talk-show hosts with opposing viewpoints because, but only because I find them hilariously terrible, not because I want to expand my worldview. Maybe I should follow Kristof's lead and start reading opinions that I wholly disagree with. Is there a very high chance that I will dismiss it all as ridiculous bunk? Of course. But will I be better for it? Kristof seems to think so, and maybe I will, too.
-- Aubrey
