How utterly ironic it is that the more pluralistic our lines of communication get, the harder it is for us to understand each other.

Take as examples two occurrences from the last few weeks. One uproar resulted from the publisher of an Atlanta Jewish newspaper suggesting that assassination of an American president might be one avenue for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take in seeking to protect the State of Israel. After a major hue and cry, the publisher resigned and indicated his intention to sell the newspaper.

Another brouhaha came on the heels of Ami Magazine’s depiction of a White House draped in Nazi flags with stormtroopers standing in front of the building. The rabbinical editor of the publication, which reaches a wide swath of the Orthodox Jewish community, admitted the insensitivity of the picture, which was supposedly intended to point to a rise in anti-Semitism in America.

Neither publication made a very wise choice in its respective column or doctored photograph-that is a given. The more interesting focus, however, is how and why these kinds of decisions come to be in our current communications environment.

You’ve no doubt read about this being the Era of Micromarketing. There is a magazine, TV show, website or blog for every taste. If you obsess about Elizabethan weddings, or Irish rugby, or places to line dance in Little Rock, no doubt you can find the info somewhere.

No harm there, of course. But the same trend holds true in politics and international affairs. You can choose a radio or TV network to validate the things about which you care and in which you believe. Even though there has never been more access to information that would broaden our horizons, many of us shun alternative viewpoints so that we many live comfortably within our own personal dogma.

The same holds true within Judaism. Those who find President Obama weak on Israel can turn to hawkish publications and electronic streams. Liberal Jews can find the same on the opposite side of the center.

It’s an ugly trend, quite frankly. The amplification of voices that match our own allows us to shun the ones we can truly learn from, namely, those with whom we disagree.

It’s in this context that the two recent examples are hardly surprising. We can be so easily propped up by those in our own corner that we lose perspective on where we stand, and we forget how others who don’t think like us might react to our more aggressive posturing. When publishing choices such as those made in the Atlanta paper or Ami Magazine occur, we can only imagine that there wasn’t encouragement of the dissenting voice, the one that whispers in your ear, “Hey, are you sure you want to do that? Do you understand how that might look to those who have maybe some different beliefs or different perceptions about how the world works?”

It’s quite the dangerous proposition. If our skills atrophy and we can only talk to those with whom we agree, and if we can only craft messages in a way that’s directed to those with whom we agree, we’re in deep trouble. Because then we will have effectively lost the ability to communicate in a manner that allows us to shape compromise and effect results that work for not just ourselves but for others.

We like to joke at the Light that we’re happy when those at all points on the political spectrum disagree with us, that it means we’re doing something right. Well, the truth is, not necessarily-the fact that people respond to us with invective doesn’t guarantee we’ve been fair, rational or appropriate. What we do believe, however, is that to agree carte blanche with anyone or any particular view is to check our brains at the door, and we prefer to bring them to the party.

We’re not naïve; everyone comes to every issue with predispositions, and having a position is healthy and positive to advancing a dialogue. But intransigence and, even more subtly, avoidance, is something that scares us deeply. The most perilous thing we can become is a world of private cocktail parties open only to those who agree with the host. The more we move in that direction, the harder it’s going to be to open our doors down the road.