Newspapers were incredibly political and partisan during the turn of the twentieth century. People would choose to read a certain newspaper simply because it fit their political viewpoint. I don't think the internet is changing that much. If liberals or conservatives (but lets face it, mostly conservatives) choose to live in a box they could do it with fewer choices. It's not that difficult.

This guy's vague centrist politics betrays some objectivity (his claims that there are nothing wrong with extremes notwithstanding). He ignores the fact that liberal opinion talk shows are not nearly as prevalent as conservative talk shows. He ignores this fact to make himself seem more objective but it actually makes him more biased. Attempting to be a centrist can often make you just as biased as the extremes.

..."more ways to avoid information we don't like.

Conservatives are increasingly seeking only conservative views,

liberals are seeking only liberal views,..."

We ALL get a steady stream of 'Conservative' Pravda-style

propaganda from establishment/corporate media.

And baby... it ain't hardly never liberal.

... has retired from even trying. Lame.

Anyone who characterizes opinions as "right" or "wrong" displays insufficient intellectual rigor to be credible as a "sage" in any field of intellectual inquiry. Readers will be better served when Salon learns to rein in its tendency toward hyperbole and taking dictation from publicists when describing its interview subjects.

Sunstein’s position is like that of a cop, who, upon seeing the town bully start to beat on his wife, charges them both with a crime because they were both "participants" in the fight. It may be technically correct, but it dumbs thing down to the point where laziness and cowardice trimph over good judgment and common sense.

The bully scenario, by the way, is an excellent model of the current political dynamic. Republicans are boldy abusive and the Dems are too cowed to fight back. And since the cops, the court, and the media are on the bully's side, things are not looking so great for those Dems.

Sadly, American society is filled with people like Sunstein who have either astonishingly poor judgment (even my staunch Republican neighbors could not come up with one good reason to vote for W, and they had a week to think about it) or else refuse to exercise any judgment at all. And it's not limited to the internet.

The "echo chamber" effect is all well and good, but to suggest that the Internet is part of that problem is absurd.

The Internet provides instant access to all forms of opinions and journalism. That people CHOOSE not to use it in that way has nothing to do with the Internet and everything to do with the PEOPLE.

This has not changed. In the pre-Internet days, the very same people who are interested in reading/seeing a wide array of opinions had a much harder time doing so. They'd have to buy books, really, or seek out "alternative" press outlets. In many parts of America, there's no market for those perspectives.

The Internet permits you to read O'Reilly about a given subject and then instantly go check out what Keillor has to say.

So most people don't do that. Surprise surprise. Most people really aren't interested in the functioning of the republic, either.

That's the "problem" that we should be talking about, not the Internet. The Internet is at best a symptom.

(Purely visceral response--that guy's a bonehead.)

There was a time that men of learning were truly that. These men either owned or had access to a large (and rare) library of hand crafted manuscripts that contained all the great literary works of their time. Because of this knowledge they were considered wise and consulted for their educated advice.

Then the Gutenberg press entered history, and it made "scholars" of a large number of people. Still, there were certain areas that still remained the provenance of experts. Doctors, lawyers, and especially scientists were still trusted for their specialised learning.

The modern day equivalent of the Gutenberg Press (Google) has made "experts" of us all. And so we now have to listen to the tired musings of people like the Climate Change doubters...you know these blowhards who pull all kinds of stats out of their selectively biased Google searches.

By doing so, the entire landscape of intelligent and constructive dialogue has evaporated. Anyone sitting in a trailer park with a keyboard and his two friends "copy" and "paste" by his side can now sound like an expert. A stranger in a neighboring trailerpark reads what expert 1 writes, thinks it sounds authoritative, and so adopts this amateurish conclusion as his own and becomes expert 2 on the subject. His "teaching" of others then commences and we have an epidemic of misinformed stupidity.

Viral ignorance at its best.

Doubt this? Just take at look at the whole science behind climate change. Why is the incredibly complicated science of Climatology now considered to be a debateable topic by non-scientists? Because of the Internet and Google.

The Internet is just a transmission vehicle for this new mental disease afflicting mankind. Sadly, the results of this illness are affecting the planet in ways that may not be reversible.

I trust that in 90 comments this has been said already, but just to re-iterate:

Bipartisanship is dead. It was brutally, viciously murdered by Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater, Newt Gringrich, Tom DeLay, Fox News, Karl Rove, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, and all the other despicable, un-American, Anti-Democratic, anti-Constitution, wingnut freakazoids who call themselves republicans.

The only hope for the nation and the world, Cass, you idealistic ninny, is vicious, take-no-prisoners partisan liberalism that will restore the secular nation the founders created.

Go back to your filthy Straussian nest in Chicago and leave leadership to those willing to sacrifice for it.

OK, well that certainly positions you as an authority figure whose analyses I definitely want to hear.

"There's a lot of echo-chamber-ism on both sides, and I don't know that it's worse on one side or the other right now."

Right. He doesn't know if Fox News is worse than liberal blogs. This is classic argument-shifting. Instead of addressing the argument that says that the right-wing used media outlets like Fox News to distort the facts used to justify war or to Swift Boat Kerry, say "well, liberals distort facts, too." Instead of countering arguments about this administration's malfeasance, ineptitude, and poor judgment, say "why are you being so partisan, why can't you listen to the other side?"

You know why I, as a liberal, don't listen to "other voices" like Fox News or Bill O'Reilly? Because they spin facts like they're children playing with tops. Saying that liberals should "see the other side" of an argument that defends the Iraq war, warrant-less spying on Americans, Abu Grahib (which Limbaugh likened to fraternity hazing) and Guantanamo, and increased executive power is just another way of defending the status quo and marginalizing people who oppose it. I can and do listen to the other side, but not the part of it that consistently defends what is indefensible.

Just because there are two sides to every argument doesn't mean that every argument is equal or worthy of consideration.