The Internet has countless benefits to offer society, but it also has some disturbing aspects, such as the hateful and vicious messages that can be sent in so many ways with an anonymity that helps cover the cowardice of the producers.

But one of the plus factors being heralded is how more Americans than ever turn to the Internet for election news. All well and good, and information that is within easy reach is desirable. But how much good does slanted data really do for people who are leaning in a given direction to begin with?

The fact is that the more people use the Internet for political information, the more they are focusing on Web sites that share their political views. It would be preferable for users to try to get well-rounded presentations. What is actually gained if they only tune in to reinforce what they already have decided? What about discussion rather than simple agreement?

A Pew Internet and American Life Project survey found that Internet use was up substantially regarding politics but that at least a third of those who followed the recent presidential election focused on sites with explicit political leanings.

“People are not blank slates coming to weigh the candidate dispassionately,” said Aaron Smith, a Pew research specialist. “People are really going online to be the first person to find out what’s going on with their team and spread the word. They see themselves as activists.”

So much for notions that the Internet with its increasing use lends itself to broader perspectives for its participants. It will not be surprising to see the trend to tuning in for “the home team” continue to grow, because so many people are willing to let others think for them.

In the battle for readership, newspapers are facing severe challenges from the Internet and broadcast sources. But papers put things in print or provide online summaries that might challenge readers rather that simply telling them more of what they want to know.

It would be good if more people going to the Internet for information were “blank slates coming to weigh the candidate (or any issue) dispassionately.” That could lead to better decisions made on the basis of comparisons and considerations.

More and more, that’s not likely to be the case.