Parallel universes: We all live in our own echo chambers

This recent election really hit it home for me: even though we may be physical neighbhors, we can live in entirely separate universes. This is a result of the increase in media choices and human nature. 

We all know that liberals watch network news and read Huffingtonpost.com and conservatives watch Fox news and read the National Review online. We get excited when our views are reinforced and supported. We get mad when people make arguments that seem to rest on assumptions we disagree with. This creates a reinforcing cycle where we seek our "news" sources that reinforce our general perspective. 

I am not going to argue that "news" channels do not in fact base their reports on verifiable facts. Let's assume that they do for the moment and give them the benefit of the doubt. 

The problem is a deeper and more subtle bias. With so much going on in the world and so many facets of everything that can be given focus or not combined with our limited human attention we are forced to choose what is important enough to call "news." 

There are people who know everything happening to Jennifer Anniston and Modonna, and maybe even what private school President Obama will be sending his children to, but know nothing about the platform on which he campaigned. (These people watch E! television and similar channels.)

There are people who know estimates of what tax increases might look like under Obama's administration and the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq too early. (These people watch Fox news.) 

And there are people who don't know or think much about those things but know that McCain would keep us in Iraq and know that Obama plans to invest in alternative energy. (These folks read Huffington Post.) 

This is a problem for several reasons. 

1. Since we live in a democracy and we are responsible for choosing leaders who will serve our interests, it is essential that we know what our candidates proposing to do, with both probable positive AND negative effects. 
2. As we fragment ourselves into smaller and smaller and more and more distict media segments, we hear more and more of those things that reinforce our existing biases. This means that although we may lives next door to each other, our views of the world may be different enough, and our interpretation of what the relevant "facts" are sufficiently disjoint, that we literally do not know how to relate to each other.

There are few people who can help us with this problem other than the media. Ithink the media needs a new and expand set of ethics for these modern times. Or perhaps a better approach would be the creation of a new "meta-jouralism." 

This meta-journalism would compare and contrast these disjoint views together and explore their similarities and differences, fundamental assumptions, framing and central facts. It would fact check every assertion made.It would also be sure to look at what people said at point A in time, compare it with actions and the unfolding of events over time, and how that relates to assertions and results at point B. It would maintain a tracking system for people quoted in the media, providing a summary of relevant history and a picture over time. In the United States of Amnesia, this historical perspetive is critical. With this new information we could better understand where we fit in the world, and how everything connects.

At first only the committed would seek out this meta-journalism, but over time the regular news would start to include elements of its analysis, or at least references to it. This will enrich our pictures of what is really going on, and get us out of our personal echo chambers. This will in turn enrich out society and our democracy, promoting deeper understanding of others and the connections between us all.