Every day, I see more evidence that people filter information through the lens of their political beliefs.
Case in point:
Yesterday, the White House announced the appointment of Cecilia Muñoz as director of the Domestic Policy Council, making her one of the president's top advisers.
Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times covered the appointment with straightforward stories, describing her background and the significance of her new position.
In its online headline, the Journal highlighted her role as an advisor on immigration matters; the Times positioned her as an "Hispanic advisor."
By 10 a.m., the Times' story had generated exactly one comment, suggesting that the president should further reshuffle his senior staff by asking Joe Biden to step aside as candidate for vice president in favor of Hilary Clinton.
The Journal story, meanwhile had generated 158 comments, compared to just nine comments on the appointment of a new White House chief of staff, announced the same day and also reported in the paper.
Most of the Journal comments were similar to this beaut from James Jenkins: "And while they are at it, how about turning Homeland Security over to Al Quada? Unbelievable, does this appointment come with a full surrender to Mexico? King Obama is showing his true colors; Anti-USA! When do the treason trials begin? Or has Mexico successfully bought off Congress as well?"
Apparently, Mr. Jenkins, who wisely chose to keep his online profile private, is concerned that Ms. Muñoz was once a senior officer of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino advocacy group. She also advised the Obama administration on immigration policy, though her previous job was to oversee inter-governmental relations. Her parents are immigrants from Bolivia, not Mexico.
I will probably dig into this a little more when I have the time, but my general impression is that the Journal's readers tend to comment on the paper's stories at a higher rate than the Times' readers. If that's true, it would be fun to figure out why.
Meanwhile, it's becoming increasingly clear that we are what we read and we read what we are.
Comments