While rational, I think this is fundamentally flawed. People just don't want their views challenged. They want them reinforced. The rise of social media has ensured that is going to be facilitated and more traditional media has polarized to remain relevant.<p>I think the real question is,<p>In the age of social media, can news outlets remain unbiased and relevant when presenting the news?<p>Again, while rational, this quote from the article demonstrates how the author has glossed over the partisan reality:<p><i>this is how we conduct jury trials — we assume that a panel of average citizens, presented with the facts arguing for and against a conviction, will reach the right conclusion most of the time. So why not expect the same of our society when it comes to reading the news?</i><p>Except this is not how jury trials work at all (assuming a case ever gets to a jury).<p>Tell the lawyers during voir dire that you have a PhD or that you harbor strongly held views for or against issues the trial addresses and you will almost certainly be excused. Lawyers don't want juries that are interested in facts or worse understand the facts, they actively seek juries they can manipulate with emotional appeals, just as news organizations now do.