Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Comments extremely polarized

Comments extremely polarized

Jul 13, 2006 - 02:10:00 CDT

By GLENNJACKSON
Bismarck

It is interesting reading the comments people have added online to the various news stories and commentaries posted on bismarcktribune.com. However, the single biggest item that concerns me in reading these news stories and comments is the polarization that appears to grip the commentary.

Can it be that we do not take a moment to think about what our words will do when we click "send?" Words do send a message. Words reveal our thoughts and therefore have a type of energy or action associated with them. When our words are polarized, we lose the civility necessary to sustain our society.

Each of us has a valid perspective. No one has the only true perspective or the only correct answer to the situations and questions in life. If it were so easy to get it right, our politicians could do it. But it is not that easy.

Therefore it demands from us that we talk, discuss and listen to each other's points. It requires effort to have an open mind and be prepared to change a position. It is not easy to tolerate an opinion that is contrary to the basic beliefs inside. But that is freedom and democracy.

We do have a great country. We do have some significant problems. We do have the capacity to overcome the problems we face. But I do not believe we will overcome them with any sense of true united achievement as long as our conversations remain so polarized the civility is erased.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Comments extremely polarized

Comments

Beesh wrote on Jul 20, 2006 8:44 AM:

" to G, I surmise that you do not recognize literary sarcasm. If one debator open the door with a derogatory comment, their party is open to the same comments. The repetition of Darrell's name as he submitted it is used to push a point along with the quotation of his grammatical errors. I agreed with Glen because and only because Darrell presumed we do not believe in freedom of speech. Thanks for trying. "

G wrote on Jul 19, 2006 11:10 PM:

" Beesh it looks like Darrel really hit a cord for you. It looks like you verbally lost it! I guess you proved some of Glenn's points. "

Beesh wrote on Jul 19, 2006 10:06 AM:

" To Darrel (your real name), Glen and I HAVE heard of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and it "is are (our) right". As long as we're calling media people names (ie Rush(Pill Popper) Limbaugh) how about Al (don't pay back the misappropriated Air America loan from a NYC boys club) Franken or Dan (made up documents to hurt Bush, but it's "inaccurate but true") Rather. How about Ken (If it's Republican, I hate it) Obermann. My favorite is Howard (IIIEEEEEAAAAYAHH) Dean. The list goes on. Oh, Darrell (your real name), I do not believe the first version of any news I read. I did look at the UN, Security Committee and military studies and findings, and that is what I referenced in my comments. I go to the source. I also go by what soldiers have told me about conditions on the battlefield and attitudes of the locals. And "Gee", my son is on the way to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. Bush decided to cut off the source of money and training of terrorists before cutting out the Osama cancer. I don't pull punches either Darrell, so I hope you can accept it "like it is.. " "

Darrel (my real name) wrote on Jul 18, 2006 10:45 PM:

" Hey Glen ever heard of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I thought that is are right. Maybe you see things in black N white and agree with what you see or read in the media. Why doesn't news media tell it like it is and instead of sugar coating everything. Maybe you live in a perfect world. Its people like you that probally listens to Rush(Pill Popper) Limbaugh. And to BEESH You believe everything the government tells you or reports? Oh I forget they never LIE! They just sweep it under the rug. Gee they still can't find Bin Laden. He couldn't be that well hidden.. everyone has the right to say what they want to whether it is negative or good. Iam not afraid to tell it like it is.. "

How apropos wrote on Jul 18, 2006 6:10 PM:

" We can't even be nice to a nice responce anymore. When you rant and rave and use profanity in your posts everyone misses the point and see's only the hatred behind the words. People are sick of hearing the same old thing over and over again, and that too is part of the problems that makes it no longer a valid debate but more and more a bunch of nonsence. Hatred is hatred. Polarization is happening because as americans we are spoiled, and we want what we want, we are also too lazy to do any research for ourselves so we jump on our respective party bandwagons and beat the heck out of eachother. I thought this war was against terrorists oversea's but it appears to be a political cival war in our own country. Debates are debates these forums are nothing more than hot heads extramist from all parties trying to stroke their ego's. We are all better than this. This nation has been falling apart long before Bush. What ever happened to nieghbor helping neighbor, more people now days say to hell with neighbor I want was is owed to me. It is real sad to come to these sites and over and over again see people bash one another when you don't even know who they are. One day you could pull up a chair next them at a bar, in a resturant, on a plain and have the best conversation you have ever had in your life but if all you have is hate in your heart you will let that day pass you by. I don't think we should just all get along, I don't think we can, Give Peace a chance common people we are not living in the late 60's yearly 70's and freebasing dope anymore. But hate is too all consuming and frankly too much work. Just look how it has worked out for the Middle-East, and again that was going on long before Bush. "

Beesh wrote on Jul 18, 2006 1:18 PM:

" to NASCAR Dad, you got to stop watching the cars going round and round, that's scrambled your brains. President Bush is a uniter because he has reached out to the Democrats from day one, only to get that hand bitten by the angry left. The true polarization is by Democrats like Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Al Sharpton, Chuck Rangel, Jesse Jackson, and the list goes on and on. He went to the natins of the world to back the US in ridding the world of the terrorist. A large number did just that. The countries and the UN being bribed by Hussein naturally opposed it. Bush's decision to take on terrorism first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq was based on intelligence reviewed by all Congressional Security commitee members, introduced to Congress and overwhelmingly voted for. Hussein and the terrorist he trained and employed had 12 YEARS to comply to the 15 UN Resolutions to disarm, but he refused. When WE were attacked on 9/11 the time to act was now, not after months or years of hand wringing. This president does what is right, not what will boost his poll ratings like Clinton. I think the world and this nation will look back and rate George W Bush one of the top five presidents in US history. So go back to your top fuel obsessin and leave the decision making up to those not under the influence of gas fumes. "

NASCAR Dad wrote on Jul 17, 2006 10:57 PM:

" The President, His staff and His handlers are to blame for the current polarization of opinions and viewpoints. I recall that He ran on the slogan of "Uniter, not divider", or something to that effect. He has in fact become the most divisive president in recent memory. His decision to invade Iraq was the tipping point of American status in the eyes of the world, and we are now on the downhill slope of our prominence as a Superpower. We as citizens of this great nation will rue the day Bush 43 was selected as president. "

hlk wrote on Jul 14, 2006 2:58 PM:

" I had to look up polarized in the dictionary. uff da. "

Valid Perspective? wrote on Jul 14, 2006 12:15 PM:

" "Each of us has a valid perspective?" Really??? So Hitler and the Jews just had different valid perspectives? I'm afraid of people like Mr. Jackson who don't seem to believe there really is 'right' and 'wrong'; just opinions. I'm afraid because if that's how people think, it also means they're unwilling to stand up for what's right and to correct what's wrong. "

Why are Republicans so angry wrote on Jul 14, 2006 9:30 AM:

" Andy - you completely missed the point. Republicans have the power. You guys are in control of the government and just about everything else that matters. Yet, you get so angry whenever anyone challenges you. I am actually an independent, so don't pin the partisan on me. The point is, even though Republicans have the power they keep talking like they are an angry oppressed minority. Take the chip off your shoulder. You won. You are the leaders. Start talking like it. "

Andy wrote on Jul 14, 2006 8:32 AM:

" To “GOP Angry”: Let’s see, we have Cindy Sheehan out there comparing G.W. to Hitler, left-wing Hollywood elitists threatening to leave the country if G.W. is re-elected, leftist professors calling 911 victims “little Eichmanns” (Ward Churchill) and threatening conservative blogger’s children (Deb Frisch), Howard Dean saying, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization”, and Hillary Clinton stating, “I wonder if it's possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.” There are plenty more examples available, but I think my point has been made. Hmmm…all are left of center on the political spectrum, and all seem to be very capable of spewing “anger” or “hatred” as you might say. Republicans are the only ones with an anger problem though? You’re blinded by your partisanship, which is exactly the point of this editorial. The rancor can be found on both sides. "

Why are Republicans so angry wrote on Jul 13, 2006 11:23 PM:

" It just amazes me that Republicans are so angry. Just listen to Rush, Ann Coltier, all those Fox people and the Republicans on these blogs. You have control of almost all of our country. Any time someone points out an alternative view you just retort something like well Democrats to that too. Get a grip. "

To Paul wrote on Jul 13, 2006 6:39 PM:

" What does your comment have to do with this letter to the editor? "

Paul Dale Roberts wrote on Jul 13, 2006 5:59 PM:

" In all of the newspapers and news magazines across the nation and the world, there is talk of impending danger. That danger consists of North Korea testing their missiles, the War in Iraq and the uprising of insurgents, possible nuclear threat in Iran, the global terrorist threat and of course most recently Israel vs. Lebanon. On the website entitled “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists”, the Doomsday Clock which was started in 1947, now stands since 2002 at 7 minutes to midnight. The Doomsday Clock is a symbol of global level of nuclear danger and state of international security. If you throw in ‘state of international security’, we could include ‘global warming’ too. With all of the threats that now face us, perhaps our Atomic Scientists should change the clock to ‘one minute to midnight’. Things seem to get worse, before they get better. "

Rebecca wrote on Jul 13, 2006 5:12 PM:

" Anyone else see the irony here? Blatant political attacks on an article that has nothing to do with politics but instead has to do with respect for each other. Thanks for the laugh everyone. "

Andy wrote on Jul 13, 2006 4:12 PM:

" To “Rick” - I’d appreciate it if you would not use my screen name to promote your own opposing views. It’s confusing to the readers, and embarrassing personally to me to have people think I am arguing with myself. By the way, the three people you named, (while simultaneously slandering their names…how apropos), do deal in the realm of ideas and issues about 90% of the time. No one said Republicans are angels, but they certainly don’t have a trademark on viciousness. Your posts are a prime example, and the hypocrisy is quite evident. The war on terror in Iraq is a debate for another column and another day… "

Good Letter wrote on Jul 13, 2006 4:12 PM:

" I don't know that the blogs are always about taking a side or opinion. It seems that sometimes people are also asking questions. There are pros and cons to these blogs, as mentioned. One of the biggest pros I've seen is that there is often false information - whether intentional by parties interviewed, or because something was left out/not worded correctly in a story by Tribune reporter. The blogs offer opportunities to provide more accurate information. I do agree that some of the personal attacks aren't needed - they normally add no relevance to anything. There are examples even in these blogs. And, people who can't express their thoughts without profanity are not the type of people anyone should listen to, anyway, so it's good that those comments are removed. "

Barney wrote on Jul 13, 2006 4:08 PM:

" Andy - you want names here goes: James Carville, Paul Begala, Keith Olberman, Jeanne Gerafalo, Al Franken (who won't even go by his real name Tavis Smalley), Ariana Huffington, Howard Dean, George Soros, David Corn, Jimmy Carter, Ward Churchill, Louis Farakhan, etc. and if you notice I can name them without calling them names as you and Rick did. Should I name more? "

Andy wrote on Jul 13, 2006 3:51 PM:

" War on terror, your not talking about Iraq are you? they had nothing to do with 9-11. And talk about personal attacks, what is Limp Rush, O'Reilly, and Coltier Republican Saints. In fact name anyone on the Dem side who slam's people like those 3 Chicken Hawks. You know Andy there is an old saying, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. For 10 years all we heard was you great Republican saints slam Clinton. What goes around comes around. "

Andy wrote on Jul 13, 2006 3:37 PM:

" Isn't it amazing that no matter what the subject matter, there's always a few diehard Bush-haters out there willing to blame the latest problem on the administration? For you people, is Bush actually Satan, or just a close relative? FYI: There is plenty of vitriol on the left - probably more so than on the right. While Bush and the GOP are busy trying to come up with new ideas (fighting the war on terror, fixing social security, cutting taxes to increase government revenue...etc.), all we seem to get on the left is constant criticism and personal attacks. Here's a small sample, if you care to check it out: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003801.htm Who has cheapened the public discourse again? "

Barney wrote on Jul 13, 2006 1:55 PM:

" Well Mary - then write a letter to the editor, get reporters to write a story on the "bigger" issues that are out there and the discussion can began. Discussions can't begin with only 1 person participating and unless you engligten us to what "your" bigger issues are we can't agree/disagree or help with those issues and the issue may remain yours alone. I would be glad to participate. "

Glenn Jackson wrote on Jul 13, 2006 12:40 PM:

" Thank you all for your comments. It is, again, interesting to read the opinions of people, as it helps provide clarity on the subject at hand. It is not the content of the subject matter that is my focus. Rather, it is the "how we do what we do" aspect of the discussion. I can tell you something without providing a judgement or accusation about your person. It is the reduction of the conversation to personal judgement that renders it uncivil. The reason I used polarization is to emphasize the nature of the commentary. There is a significant far left and far right positioning by many people. It lends itself to the idea that the views being expressed are generated from a polarized position, which again, if added to personal judgement comments, brings up a lack of civility. "

Agree with Mary wrote on Jul 13, 2006 11:53 AM:

" Posting comments on posting comments. Let's move on. "

Call me polarized wrote on Jul 13, 2006 11:52 AM:

" To JD - Maybe you didn't read my whole post. I said "absent profanity or libel." I am supporting the way the forum is currently moderated. I never mentioned that I think "hatred" needs to be used to get a point across. Therefore I don't see any need to go to a different forum. If you feel the Tribune should have stricter policies please explain what the editor has allowed to be included that upset you. I haven't read anything that I thought was unfit for children. "

JD to "Call Me Polarized" wrote on Jul 13, 2006 11:17 AM:

" I agree with you for the most part. It is great that we can respond harshly to other harsh opinions and posts. But remember that this is a public site that your children and grandchildren have the ability to read as well. Some limits must be set. I would tell you that if you don't like it, then YOU should find another avenue that does not censor posts. I have seen many blogs that allow profanity and hatred that our children do not need to see, read or hear. "

mary wrote on Jul 13, 2006 10:54 AM:

" Why are the comment boards such a huge issue I think that there are more important subjects that are out there that maybe should be getting attention other than a silly editorial about people voicing their opinions!!!Move on people - "

Call me polarized wrote on Jul 13, 2006 10:39 AM:

" Absent any profanity or libel, I for one actually appreciate when people speak their minds on these boards. I have had my comments lambasted by others before but I don't get insulted. I don't want everyone to "politely" disagree with me if they feel I am the scourge of the earth. This is one of the few places where you can get a real cross-section of opinions. We all know that in face-to-face conversations people will hide their true feelings to avoid conflict. I feel the editor already does a good enough job screening the comments and if you think the dialog is too harsh, maybe you should find a different place to air your concerns. This is only one avenue among many. "

JD to Dave Bundy wrote on Jul 13, 2006 9:48 AM:

" Thank you for your comments, and I also thank you for allowing posts on your web page, and for deleting those posts that are beyond reality and contain profanity or spew hatred. I appreciate the work you do and thank you for the opportunity to discuss issues anonymously. It is sad that some people can not act responsibly on these message boards. "

G wrote on Jul 13, 2006 9:47 AM:

" Glenn, You hit the nail right on the head. That is why those who have written negative things about your article are - I would guess - the very ones who write as Mr Bundy writes "Maybe divisiveness or incivility are better words than polarization." My thoughts. "

Dan wrote on Jul 13, 2006 9:29 AM:

" Barney--good point about the registration stuff. LOTS of newspaper websites require registration just to access the site's stories. I used to try to keep up with some of the news in the Cities, but both major papers there have gone to registration-only websites. Same with the Forum. NO THANKS. Like Dave Bundy said, anonymity allows freer discussions, but I would like to see a bit more restraint and maturity from posters. However, we all know the likelihood of THAT. Chances of people posting things like grown-ups are between slim and none...and Slim just left. ;-) "

Rick wrote on Jul 13, 2006 9:14 AM:

" My thoughts on your comments. It is my belief that this division started before the Iraq war when anyone apposed to the war was called a traitor by Limp Rush, Sex fen O’Reilly, and Big Mouth Coltier. It is real sad when chicken hawks can call Hero’s traitors. "

Dave Bundy, editor wrote on Jul 13, 2006 9:05 AM:

" Maybe divisiveness or incivility are better words than polarization. I see many comments, including ones containing profanity or potential libel that we can't post, and I understand the main point of Mr. Jackson's letter. The tone of some comments and some exchanges is less polite than I'd prefer. The up-side of anonymity is that it promotes freer discussion. The down-side (which some may see as an up-side) is that it lets people say things they probably wouldn't give voice to publicly. "

dante wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:50 AM:

" dan, if i want people calling me, coming to my house, or to other wise harrass me for my views, i will post my name, address, and telephone number in these posts. until then, i wont. "

Barney wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:44 AM:

" It would be interesting to see what name this writer uses when posting/comment on the stories - we may indeed find out that his words are "polarizing". Does this reader want the Tribune to require each of us to register our name w/ them before we post or even read the Tribune on-line - which is something I hope doesn't happen. "

NKH wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:41 AM:

" blah blah blah...I see your mouth moving but nothing is coming out. "

Get a backbone wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:40 AM:

" Mr Jackson is either like most Democrats of the past 30 years -- whimpy go-along types -- or a Republican who wants to make sure Democrats continue not standing up for anything, or he is just too afraid (whiney) to actively participate in democracy. Excuse me, but the GOP has our country pretty much in their control. There are only Republicans from Bismarck and Mandan in the state legislature, the Republicans have over 70% of the gerrymandered legislature and almost all state offices, they have the president, congress, the Supreme Court, the corporate media and most corporte types. The point is THE GOP SETS THE TONE AND THE DIRECTION. Republicans are doing their part. Where are the Democrats out there who have the guts to actually lead an alternative? "

jw wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:34 AM:

" To Wisconsin. That type of comment is exactly what this letter was talking about. I think Glenn had a very valid point here. I too have felt many comments posted here have been harsh, belligerent and very ignorant. What every happened to a little compassion or even a little more open minded people. Too many people judge or off handed comments not knowing the full story. Until everyone has the full story or has walked in that persons shoe's or lived in that person's house, we all should be a little more careful of what we say. Or how we comment on what is written.. . "

JD wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:19 AM:

" Sounds like the writer had his feelings hurt recently. Remember they are only words. People should be civil in response, but they are only words. Is "polarized" really the right word? (Definition: To cause to concentrate about two conflicting or contrasting positions.) Doesn't seem appropriate, please justify for me. "

NorthDakota wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:10 AM:

" Wisconsin you are the type of individual the letter was directed toward. You are a rude person who lacks empathy. "

Dan wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:08 AM:

" The biggest reason for the extreme polarization on these comment forums is called ANONYMITY. People can spew whatever form of political or social hatred they wish (as long as it passes the editor's test for profanity, libel, etc.) and they don't have to attach their names to their comments. I think a good share of the comments made here would be much tamer in nature if those offering the comments had to own up to them. Many posters in this forum would never dream of saying such things in public, but with the anonymous nature of the internet, they're free to regurgitate just about anything they wish and they'll never have to answer for it. "

Yeah, But........ wrote on Jul 13, 2006 8:02 AM:

" Yeah, I can agree with that. However, somtimes it is necessary to vigorously rebut irrational or false information. Our country has been running on false information for some time now (for example, the war in Iraq was started on false information, Bush was installed as president in 2000 against the will of the people because he lost the popular vote). The rightwing extremists are in complete control of our entire federal government and it didn't happen because of people being civil or reasonable. It happened because the Republican party launched war on democracy, decency, fairness, liberalism, and sanity and it has been remarkably successful for them. "

Beesh wrote on Jul 13, 2006 7:52 AM:

" My comments are to encourage personal responsibility and ambition instead of the rampant victimhood and entitlement I see in most posts. We have to remember that everyone has struggles and everyone has to learn to overcome them, not profit from them. "

u wrote on Jul 13, 2006 7:04 AM:

" You just now noticed what has been going on in the news and the political arena for the past few decades? I agree, however, that is getting worse. "

Wisconsin wrote on Jul 13, 2006 6:25 AM:

" Some cheese to go with that whine?? "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.