Selective Exposure to News: Is There a Solution?

In their article, Iyengar and Haun argue that selective exposure to news sources may contribute to further polarization of the news audience. As one would expect, republicans are more likely to watch FOX, and Democrats more likely to watch CNN. Many people may see this as problematic, as the heterogeneity of new media allows people to simply watch things that reaffirm what they already believe (What the authors refer to as the "echo-chamber"). Democracy should be based on healthy debate and opposition, but if people are completely unaware of what the other side has to say, the competition is no longer healthy. Citizens should be exposed to both liberal and conservative viewpoints. The easiest solution is to suggest that citizens should expose themselves to both liberal and conservative news sources.

However, taking a more cynical and perhaps realistic viewpoint, will exposing people to the "other" side really effect how and what they think? As we all know, according to "Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq" people interpret facts differently base on preconceived notions. In fact, the more involved you are in politics, the more firm your beliefs, and the less likely you are to be swayed by media that does not support your beliefs. As a democrat, I can recall watching FOX news and thinking, "See, this is why I'm not a Republican. They are so biased". I finish watching FOX being less convinced by the "conservative" argument than I was before. Using heuristic cues, I pass judgement about the FOX news segment before I even watch it,

In addition, the new media environment serves one main purpose: to give the people what they want. Is it wrong to want to watch news that reaffirms your beliefs? If it is, then the problem is not about what people are being selectively exposed to, but what they want to be exposed to. The only solution I can think of is to limit the amount of news information available to the public, providing only non-biased political information. However, this would threaten the idea of democracy, free speech, and a free-market economy.