I was sitting and reading through the news this morning and came to this article over the "intellectual ghetto" phrase. Basically, it would mean ( by the way the writer wrote it).....that you've customized your news to such a degree, that you only read news from five to ten sources, which favor your view of the news and events. If you were a liberal in the intellectual ghetto.....then you stay with the Washington Post, the NY Times, MSNBC, and the 3-letter networks. If you were a conservative, then you stick with Drudge, Fox News, and a dozen-odd web sites.
What is then said about the intellectual ghetto is that it's a bad thing and forces into a tribal-like setting....where we aren't grasping the big picture.
For example.....if you are the conservative guy, then you aren't grasping gun control, welcoming immigrants, more taxation, etc.
In a way, it is a group viewing another group as being from some parallel universe.
What some news folks tend to believe is that this is merely a new trend, and didn't exist before. I tend to disagree. If you go back to the 1880s to 1920s.....several US newspapers operated in the form of a intellectual ghetto as well.
A bad thing/ No. It means you have to go and read six to ten news sources, to get a dozen facts on the table and you.....only you.....come to a rational point of understanding what the topic is about and how things are stacked or slanted. Most people, probably 98-percent....don't have the time or desire to read that much news. So....like some investment consultant.....they eventually go to someone they trust. Up through the 1960s to the 1990s.....Paul Harvey tended to be the guy who most Americans felt was the guy capable of telling you the simple facts to an episode. Today? I'm not quiet sure.
Should we be afraid of the intellectual ghetto? If the thugs get bad enough.....we will pack up and leave. Reality dictates that.