Posted on 04/23/2004 7:53:47 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Mark Glaser Posted: 2004-04-22 ...While people on the left and right can turn beet-red with anger on TV shows such as ABC's "This Week," CNN's "Crossfire" or Fox's "Hannity & Colmes," the Internet provides innumerable forums and political sites so anyone can fire off a torrent of rhetorical brickbats. The Web is the birthplace of "flamers" and "trolls," people who launch no-holds-barred attacks on others with opposing views.
...[ship]...But despite the rise of so much partisan noise, it's hard to say without a doubt that we're living in the most divisive time, or that the Net is to blame. Research in the area is relatively sketchy, and the Net still provides a vast galaxy of diverse opinions and objective journalism.
In January, Pew Internet found that 67 percent of Americans prefer getting news from sources that don't have a political point of view, while 25 percent prefer news sources that share their point of view. Scott Keeter, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, told me that people who use the Net are even less likely to say they want news from sources with their viewpoint. ...[snip]Other researchers believe that ideological journalism is just another way to serve a niche audience. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, says that the recent State of the News Media 2004 report showed a demand for targeted media in general, and not just ideological media.
"We are in an on-demand world," Rosenstiel said via e-mail. "People want what they want when they want it. They don't want a one-size-fits-all news. For those who want to make their niche a conservative audience, that has given them a comfortable spot. ..."The danger of echo chambers
While news futurists have dreamed of the day people could create their "Daily Me" -- a newspaper or Web site with only the news they want (and agree with) -- one prominent political thinker believes this could lead to a closed-minded society and the eventual ruin of democracy. ...[snip]Sunstein believes that like-minded people discussing an issue amongst themselves tend to move to more extreme viewpoints. ...[snip]In "Republic.com," Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.
The book was originally published in 2001, but Sunstein recently told me he's softened his view on government regulation. "I didn't say that such regulation is necessary; only that it's worth considering," he said via e-mail. "I'm not sure I still think so ... The major point I'd emphasize is the risk that when like-minded people speak mostly to one another, there's more division and polarization and less mutual understanding. This is a serious problem for American democracy. Lots of options are good, but it's not so good if people sort themselves into echo chambers."
...[snip]The good side of partisan media
Of course, not everyone thinks ideological journalism is such a bad thing -- in moderation. Michael Cornfield, research director at the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University, says that respectful debate has its place.
"I wouldn't be so quick to equate partisan/ideological with coarse and bad if I were you," he told me via e-mail. "There's nothing wrong with partisan dialogue, provided that it is grounded in facts, oriented to policymaking, and suffused with respect. True, some of the online dialogue doesn't meet those standards. But we can criticize, and click elsewhere." ...[snip]The Guerrilla News Network fancies itself an antiestablishment, anti-corporate Web site with music-fueled political videos. Most of its work has been critical of George W. Bush, but its top editors say GNN wants to take on powerful Democrats and Republicans. Executive editor Anthony Lappé says the site's forums are much more open to opposing viewpoints than partisan forums such as Free Republic or Democratic Underground. Creative director Stephen Marshall says GNN hopes to give more space to conservative voices in the future Related Links ABC News: "This Week" Air America Radio AlterNet Bill Powers: On the Media CJR's Campaign Desk CNN CNN: "Crossfire" Cass Sunstein's "Echo Chambers" essay (Acrobat file) Cass Sunstein's "Republic.com" Centrist Coalition Daily Kos Democratic Underground Fox News Channel Fox News Channel: "Hannity & Colmes" Free Republic Guerrilla News Network Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet Knight Ridder newspapers MSNBC National Journal National Public Radio National Review Online NewsMax Nielsen//NetRatings Pew Internet Project report Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Political Wire Project for Excellence in Journalism Rush Limbaugh Salon Slate State of the News Media 2004 TomPaine.com USA Today University of Chicago Department of Political Science University of Chicago Law School
Rick Heller, Centrist Coalition blogger
Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online editor at large
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos
Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law and political science professor
Bill Powers, National Journal media columnist
Scott Keeter, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
©1999-2004 Online Journalism Review. All rights reserved. Site design and development by Red Metro.
(Excerpt) Read more at ojr.org ...
Translation: If we don't read the New York Times every day, we might stray from the leftist plantation, ruining their aspirations for world domination!
Yeah, places like churches and synagogues are dangerous. They're magnets for like-minded simpletons and only serve to indoctrinate fools with dangerous concepts like absolute morals and good vs. evil. The gub'mint ought to step and so something about this.
Bingo...We've got an winner..short and sweet! :)
I think most Americans don't take politics as seriously or care as much as those of us who post in various internet forums. The various political discussion groups on usenet have been going for well over a decade and it hasn't changed American politics all that much.
I just think it comes down to people are able to find others on the internet with the same opinion, much easier.
The press on the other hand, holds up those of us active on the internet, through sites like FR, even DU, as being representative of regular Americans, when we are clearly not.
Have the conservatives finally found out how to use the Internet to bypass us to get to the truth?
Does anyone else smell the "Fairness Doctrine" again? I will happily link to a relevant article from DU, inasmuch as they are so hate filled and illogical over there that they would make my arguments for me.
I wonder if he would force the NYTimes to reference editorials at the WSJournal, or have the WashPost reference the WashTimes?
That will happen when monkeys fly out of my butt!
One of the major reasons I FReep is to hear things I never could have thought of myself.
...esp. if you discount the actions of Freepers in Fla. courthouses during "the count" after the Nat. Election in Nov. of 2000.
....when Al "the tree" Gore (and his Ilk), seemed to be trying to steal the election....Its' not how many votes you win, Its' who counts the votes....said "Papa" Joseph Stalin, right Shrillary? :p
FR is a great source for news. It is the dialog surrounding the threads that has folks like this author up in arms.
Me, I like a good argument.
The left yearns for the good old days when they could waltz into local radio stations and log complaints that the stations were not fa-a-a-a-a-air and threatening the station owners' FCC licenses.
In "Republic.com," Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.
No surprise that papers like the nyt gave the book rave reviews. I queried amazon.com once and found that the book was a best seller at locales near major universities.
On a local talk station Sunstein was asked, "What about liberal sites? Should they be forced to be fair?"
"What?" he replied, puzzled. Then added, "oh.. uh, yes I suppose so." Like it had never occurred to him that his feeeeeeeeeeelings could be considered unfa-a-a-a-a-air.
Ah, well, that's not as important as making sure that you're exposed to "correct" thinking, especially if you're the type to hang around wrong-thinking message boards. And I'm sure that Sunstein had only wrong-thinking boards like FR in mind when he proposed that, or he wouldn't have proposed it at all. Or do you think that Sunstein would agree that the ADL should be forced to link to the pages of Holocaust deniers, and that the NAACP should be forced to link to Klan websites? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.