It's maybe a trend seen across the developed world now, but I can see it in Britain at least. Society seems very divided and, while there have always been political/tribal differences, these divisions appear to be more deeply entrenched now thanks to the modern media. For Brits (or others around the world, if they can also relate) may assume this is a criticism directed at the opposite view to themselves- but there is a good chance that I direct this at you IN ADDITION TO not INSEAD of them.
As I said, while there have always been political differences, people had in the past at least been unified by accessing news from a very limited number of sources, be it newspapers, television, or news websites. This limited number, and the stated aim of the BBC to be a neutral news source, meant more commonality of sources of news, meaning that, whilst people would still have differences of opinion, those opinions would be based upon mostly consistent facts. Over recent years though, there has become a plethora of news sources, with the likes of YouTube, Twitter, and podcasts becoming a lot more popular in addition to (and maybe instead of) the original sources. And these new sources unquestionably have benefits: they can allow you to focus on more niche news stories that interest and concern you. However, they have drawbacks that concern me: when absorbing news from these alternative sources, they have a tendency to be under far less regulation and scrutiny for accuracy, and they can also cherry-pick facts and focus on subjective opinions instead of more objective facts.
As a consequence of the above, I feel that, instead of a majority of people taking their news from the same or similar sources, and basing their opinions on largely the same facts; an increasing number are instead focusing on niche sources that have a specific outlook and clear bias, and seem set to reinforce existing opinions, rather than paying much (if any) attention to alternative viewpoints. Seeing different stories and a range of opinions can feed our own, and inform them, rather than encourage us to become increasingly more narrow minded. For example: the British politicians, Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage. Many readers may think one of these figures is always right and the other always wrong (or almost always) and take the view that, whoever supports the other politician is ignorant. People who sympathise with Corbyn may write-off Farage supporters as racists, while Farage supporters may mock Corbyn backers as not being in touch with the real world.
It is perfectly fine and natural for there to be differences of opinion but, in a democracy, we should respect all opinions (including those we don't share) and, whilst we may disagree to varying strengths, we should at least try to see where those of other opinions are coming from, rather than just writing them off as ignorant in some way. And it seems healthier to me to, instead of having a black and white view, where something is either purely right or wrong, or good or bad, actually looking for merits in both sides- even if you do clearly have leanings one way or the other. After all, compromise is a major part of democracy: it is unlikely that a politician or political party exactly reflects your views, so you have to compromise and support who you agree with most. To conclude: think of where you get your news from, how much you are receiving objective facts from it (rather than being fed specific, biased opinions), and if you are genuinely exposed to a range of points of view, so that you really are well-informed in your opinions.
