Cass Sunstein in Republic.com worries about group polarization as the Internet makes it possible to restrict your daily diet of news to like-minded news sources. He suggests that there is something lost when don't all participate in the same national conversation. This threatens the fabric of our republic, Sunstein suggests.
In my review of his book, "Whose Republic?" (Univ. of Chicago Law Review 2002, available here), I suggested that this was a graver problem for majority communities than for minority communities. It would be hard for minority communities to remain unaware of the majority's views and interests: "[G]iven the relentless drumbeat of the mass media, the kind of media that Sunstein praises, one wonders how easy it is for minorities to insulate themselves from contrary opinions, on the Internet or otherwise."
I suggest that recent national news events have demonstrated that Sunstein's fears have, at least as yet, not come to be fully realized.
Earlier this year, I promised myself that I would avoid all news about Michael Jackson's trial. But it turns out that is extremely hard to do. I can probably give you a fair summary of the trial, even though I have not read one news story about it.
I think the Jackson case demonstrates that Sunstein can rest easy, at least for now. The republic is secure, that we can still engage in a national conversation, however bizarre it is.
Yet, given the huge national and international crises that are currently ongoing, it would be nice to see national attention focused so intensively on these other major crises. Imagine if the news broadcasts came daily from an anchor in Darfur. Or from a hospital treating Medicare patients.