My wife and I spent this week at the Chautauqua Institution, a cultural, educational, and family vacation retreat in upstate New York. We had been told that attending one time would have us coming back again and again for years. And I must admit we are hooked.
The main morning program for the week was moderated by Jim Lehrer, retired host and executive producer of the PBS News Hour, and was focused on a review of all of the issues related to the current presidential campaign. The topics ranged from the latest political poll findings, to the polarization of the parties, to the role of presidential debates, to the future of science and research, to an analysis of what voters need to know.
Only several times was the role of the media itself mentioned. Finally on Friday, Michael Gerson, former aid to George W. Bush and current conservative Washington Post Columnist, suggested that the new media world of 24/7 cable channels, talk radio, and bloggers has created a situation where people can now select only what they want to hear. There are no editors, and no effort to achieve balance of viewpoints. People therefore end up reinforcing their biases and further polarizing their opinions, rather than expanding their understanding and tolerance.
What we need now is a situation where people become their own editors, and where a personal objective of theirs is to learn from other points of view. They can no longer demonize and treat opponents as enemies. We must find a way to return to the day when we debate during the day, socialize in the evenings as friends, and then sit down and work out our differences in an environment of mutual respect.
At the end of the week I concluded there is much to be discussed about the role of the media in all of this polarization. Do too many of today’s journalists see polarized gridlock as a happy source of ongoing daily headlines? Should the modern journalist bear some responsiblity for reminding people to become their own editors, and to show them how to do it? In the final analysis, is the media part of the problem, and should we have more discussions on campuses, in schools, and at places like Chautauqua about the psychic and social consequences of media?
Larry D. Lauer 
I agree 100 percent. People never have to leave their comfort zones and attempt to understand the other side. Heated rhetoric and name calling/labeling is damaging faith, community and the governing process. I do believe media are partly responsible – because they know rhetoric increases ratings, page views, etc., they focus on that. That trains politicians to act that way to get media attention, sound bites, etc. It is a vicious circle with no obvious solution.