In search of a wider opinion...
Cass Sunstein paints a curious view of the world in his article about the Daily We. In his world, we all live in increasingly isolated bubbles, cut off from any opinions that do not fit with our own perceptions of the world around us. Our ability to customize and personalize the news and opinions we are exposed to means we are continually reinforcing our own views of the world and our own prejudices, never allowing those views to be compromised by an opposing opinion or thought.
The alternative, says Sunstein, is for us to return a world that I believe few of us recognize or consider credible. For instance, he suggests that in times gone by people were exposed to diverse views because they could go to public parks and listen to people and hear those opposing views.
Really? Well, sorry to disappoint Mr Sunstein, but when I lived in London for 10 years Speaker’s Corner in Hyde’s Park wasn’t my top choice for a day out. Furthermore, when sitting at my desk in London, my colleagues would regularly discuss issues in the news, challenging any opinions I may have already formed.
Sunstein may well point to examples such as the current debate on stem cell research as evidence that opinion has become blinkered, and that if people had more exposure to differing views, public opinion would change. But reading today’s editorial in the NY Times, it seems to me that the issue is not about a lack of debate – I find it hard to believe that those opposed to the expansion of stem cell research are not aware of the potential benefits of more research.
Christopher Reeve’s campaign before his death last year did much to publicize the issue with people who may not have been interested in it previously. Indeed, this seems a good example of the crisscrossing communities that Jenkins talks about in his response to Sunstein. No, the issue seems to be a case of President Bush trying to impose one group’s deeply held religious beliefs on the wider community, in contravention of the intentions of the first amendment in seeking to maintain a separation of church and state.
If anything, people who have heard about the benefits stem cell research could bring can now use the Internet to get access to information religious groups are denying them, and in doing so, persuade the President not to use his first veto to deny millions the hope that such research could bring.
The alternative, says Sunstein, is for us to return a world that I believe few of us recognize or consider credible. For instance, he suggests that in times gone by people were exposed to diverse views because they could go to public parks and listen to people and hear those opposing views.
Really? Well, sorry to disappoint Mr Sunstein, but when I lived in London for 10 years Speaker’s Corner in Hyde’s Park wasn’t my top choice for a day out. Furthermore, when sitting at my desk in London, my colleagues would regularly discuss issues in the news, challenging any opinions I may have already formed.
Sunstein may well point to examples such as the current debate on stem cell research as evidence that opinion has become blinkered, and that if people had more exposure to differing views, public opinion would change. But reading today’s editorial in the NY Times, it seems to me that the issue is not about a lack of debate – I find it hard to believe that those opposed to the expansion of stem cell research are not aware of the potential benefits of more research.
Christopher Reeve’s campaign before his death last year did much to publicize the issue with people who may not have been interested in it previously. Indeed, this seems a good example of the crisscrossing communities that Jenkins talks about in his response to Sunstein. No, the issue seems to be a case of President Bush trying to impose one group’s deeply held religious beliefs on the wider community, in contravention of the intentions of the first amendment in seeking to maintain a separation of church and state.
If anything, people who have heard about the benefits stem cell research could bring can now use the Internet to get access to information religious groups are denying them, and in doing so, persuade the President not to use his first veto to deny millions the hope that such research could bring.
