What has become of the "shared public forum"?

This morning I was reading blogs about security (yes, I read blogs at work; "security" is both about practice and attitude) and found this:

Media reform advocates point to multiple forces slowly killing the shared public forum: the Internet, the proliferation of cable television, media consolidation and conglomeration, and the demise of American newspapers.

In this environment, even excellent films ... can only reach a limited and compartmentalized potential audience. ... [S]hared experience is critical for the American public to engage in reasoned ... deliberation, and this seems particularly true regarding the appropriate use of military, political, and diplomatic power. *

OK, it's talking about film, but it speaks to how we communicate in general, and how, in this media- and device-driven age, we share our experiences.  Media fragmentation means that while we have more and more ways to communicate, the outcome is that we are communicating with fewer and fewer people.

I've said before that social media brings good news and bad news: the good news is that we're able to find people like us; the bad news is that we're able to find people like us. When media reached vast numbers of readers/viewers (through TV news, newspapers, wide-circulation magazines, etc.), we discovered people like us through the experience of directly exchanging our views. That experience enlarged our reality of what "people like us" could mean. But with social media's "like" and "friend", "follow", and "recommend", our shared experience is now restricted to those we have explicitly identified, or who have been crowd-sourced to us, as "people like us". The more we stick with people like us, the more limited our experiences are and the more compartmentalized we become.

We are becoming less likely to share our thoughts or opinions with those we don't know. We are becoming less likely to attempt "reasoned deliberation". Why should we, when we're already comfortable with so many "people like us"? Strangers, if you're not liked or friended or followed or recommended, stay away.

Our individual behavior is epitomized in the halls of Congress. We claim that Congresspersons should act in the best interests of the nation, but when "people like us" exerts such overriding control of our activities and behavior, there is no such thing as "the best interests of the nation". Congress, by virtue of the electoral process, is the microcosm of society at large. Look at your list of "friends" and "likes" and "followers" and "recommenders". Do you ever look beyond them? Why should Congressperson look beyond their friends and followers if we will not?

How's this for a New Year's resolution? The next time you "like" or "friend" or "follow" or "recommend", pick someone - a complete stranger - in that group of "people like you" and reach out to that person. Find out how much that person is like you, and how different. Find out why you're in agreement about what you've just liked, friended, followed, recommended.

If we're going to share experiences, enlarge our personal communities, and engage in productive discourse, let's do it on solid ground, with personal interactions. You can't build relationships with computer clicks.

 *http://www.harvardnsj.com/2010/11/the-forgotten-filmography-of-the-global-war-on-terror/