After midnight, Grand Central Terminal takes on a catatonic, almost zombie-like state. Exhausted commuters are stuck waiting for trains (knowing they’ll have to get back on them again in a matter of hours) and resort to idly shuffling through newsagents’ shops because they’ve got nowhere to sit. After the witching hour, it gets deathly silent.

Which is why I was puzzled at all the shouting that greeted me as I emerged from the subway and steeled myself for the interminable wait for the last train to suburbia. Was it possible I was about to witness to what transit workers so euphemistically refer to as “an incident?”

My mistake. It was just the noise of talking heads on cable television going at each other, reverberating from the TV screens of Hudson News.

The pundits involved don’t really matter, nor does the subject of the so-called “debate.” Even if you have only a superficial familiarity with what passes as political discourse in much of mainstream media today, you already know the score. Accusations were flung, offensive labels were invoked, and oversimplified talking points were repeated ad nauseum, all at ridiculously high volumes.

It got so painful that I had to take refuge in the adult magazines section, where the promise of “Limey Lesbian Lager Louts” on the cover of Juggs seemed a relative oasis of decorum and civility.

The experience made me realize how much mainstream news has become degraded, not only by partisanship, but also by didactic, reductive and absolutist rhetoric. Topics that affect all of us are too often depicted as black or white, liberal or conservative, pro or con, without delving into the complexities and nuances that make up the reality of life.

One of the wonderful things about working at The Issue is that, while there’s a great variety and diversity of opinions, the level of discussion is not only thoughtful and respectful, but also incisive and thorough.

I feel privileged to work at a place where deeper questions are asked and pondered earnestly. Where the trajectory of dialogue is not simply “you believe X, so you must be labeled as Y,” but something more like, “My instincts tell me that this belief is right, but what evidence do we have to back it up? What happens to our initial reactions when we look at this from a different angle?”

Much of my pride in The Issue (and there’s a lot of it) stems from the fact that we aspire to offer you an alternative to mainstream news, not only by presenting multiple sides of a given topic, but also by digging deeper and examining the harder questions.

By navigating the fertile and varied territory of the blogosphere, we also have the advantage of hearing a chorus of impassioned, detailed, and very personal voices. We get to explore not only what different people believe, but why they believe it –that is to say, we get a uniquely intimate look at the personal experiences that shape an individual’s viewpoint.

To me, this “why” of opinion is a unique opportunity for a more elevated and productive form of discourse. If we can see what has makes people think the way they do, if we aim to truly view things from their perspective without prejudice, we’re one step closer to not only listening, but truly hearing each other in a new way. And my hope and my goal is that The Issue will be a gateway to a many more open ears.