It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media

It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media makes money when they get viewers / ad-clickers, and appealing to people's viewpoints, rather than making them uncomfortable by challenging those viewpoints, is the best way to engage users. Isn't it sad that very talented software developers are being used to find out ways to get people to click ads? Is this the world we envisioned as children when we were so captivated by computers and what we could do with them to make the world a better place? I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse. I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own? With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views. [0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org http://debate.org