"Is the Internet Polarizing U.S. Political Dialogue?" (FreeRepublic mentioned)

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."

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

Scott Keeter, associate director for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Me, I like a good argument.

I enjoy one as well, unfortunately it appears to be a disappearing art. Too many people fail to use the brains that God gave them, and they reduce themselves to namecalling when they can't make a good argument. Granted we all do it at some point in the heat of things, but there are some people that constantly lower themselves to personal attacks - it's the only way they know how to debate/argue.

That's why I stay away from the usenet groups. I prefer unmoderated forums, but that invites the people who are least equipped to engage in a debate and who have no intention of looking at both sides. I remember seeing JR and others before FR, posting on usenet, and when I heard about FR, I was glad to see it.

Thankfully, FR is free of that. Occasionally you'll see somebody at a loss for words and sink to that level (they'll question your patriotism if they don't like what your saying about this or that, or imply that you are a liberal, or whatever) but for the most part the debates/arguments are great. I think some people really come away having looked at both sides.

Funny, just today I was listening to a song by George Harrison that seems quite appropriate for the whining liberal media establishment:

I've got a word or two
To say about the things that you do
You're telling all those lies
About the good things that we can have
If we close our eyes
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
I left you far behind
The ruins of the life that you had in mind
And though you still can't see
I know your mind's made up
You're gonna cause more misery
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Although your mind's opaque
Try thinking more if just for your own sake
The future still looks good
And you've got time to rectify
All the things that you should
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you

From the early 1900s until about 1965, most liberals and leftists rigorously supported an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment. During the first two-thirds of the last century, they opposed censorship laws, most of which were passed by state and local governments, for the sake of sexual and artistic "freedom." Sexual permissiveness was seen as a remedy for the "repressive" moral codes of past generations that valued discipline, honor, and personal responsibility over self-expression. Artistic "freedom" was considered valuable because modernist painters, sculptors, and writers agreed that the "Puritan" or "Victorian" mores of the old America needed to be overturned in place of an Epicurean, or rather hedonist, worldview. Laws banning sedition, advocacy of overthrow of the government, or advocacy of unions, cooperatives, and boycotts were viewed as instruments in the hands of the wealthy to repress the poor and their political and social demands.

By 1965 (or thereabouts), the long march of the liberals against these laws was complete. Anti-pornography laws, if not overturned by the Supreme Court, were unenforced and virtual dead letters. Virtually any loon could advocate anything from satanic rituals to Maoism without fear of the magistrate.

About this time, liberals came to realize the old right wing press barons of old, like William Randolph Hearst and the McCormicks in Chicago, were gone and their editorial staffs populated with their fellow liberals. The new national TV networks had become America's preferred way of obtaining news; these networks, especially CBS, were liberal without fail. Also, the prestige newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post were liberal, as were at least two of the three major news magazines. The Johnson landslide of 1964 gave the Democrats both houses of Congress with filibuster proof majorities as well as the Presidency. Conservatives had turned on one another, with William Buckley excommunicating Objectivists and Birchers into the outer darkness. Young Americans for Freedom was fracturing between libertarians and traditionalists, with far fringes of the two groups spinning off into anarchism and white supremacism, respectively. The Johnson administration enforced the "Fairness Doctrine," effectively shutting down conservative broadcasters.

The period from 1965 to 1980 was the "golden age" of liberalism. To survive politically, conservatively inclined men like Nixon redefined themselves as centrists, making statements like "we are all Keynesians now." Conservative public opinion was confined mostly to low circulation magazines of varying levels of crankiness: National Review, Human Events, American Opinion, and Reason, to name the more prominent. There were also numerous newsletters with even lower circulation. There were telephone services like "Let Freedom Ring," where you could hear that day's conservative message. It was sort of like trying to find model train enthusiasts in your home town. You could find them if you asked around, but you had to put in the effort to locate them.

The one man who planted the seeds that are growing into an end to the liberal monopoly was, fittingly, Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator. It was in his administration that the Fairness Doctrine was overturned. But it was at the tail end of his administration that a 40ish Missourian made effective use of the open airwaves to create the first mass market conservative voice in decades. The Rush Limbaugh Show generated a horde of imitators, but the EIB's "Golden Microphone" took a top spot in talk shows that no one, not Dr. Laura, not Howard Stern, not Sean Hannity, has taken away in over a decade. By 1995, the first major fissure in the liberal monopoly was broken. AM talk radio had become a fixture in the lives of many Americans, especially white males in "flyover country." It was this medium that, along with Bill and Hillary Clinton's hubris, gave both Houses of Congress to the GOP in 1994, for the first time since 1946. Not even Reagan's coattails accomplished this! The House of Representatives has stayed in the GOP's hands for four election cycles since, the first time the Republicans accomplished this feat since the days of Harding and Coolidge.

The second crack in the liberal monopoly was the Internet. As little as 20 years ago, to be an "important news source" meant having huge budgets fed by enormous advertising revenue. A practical means of cracking the news media's flagship magazines and prestige newspapers did not come along until the rise of the Internet. Then Matt Drudge, the nom de plume of a conservative whose interests combined those of a newsman and a computer geek, developed a pioneer on-line newspaper. In 2004, his Web site is viewed daily by over seven million people, more than read Time and Newsweek combined. Following in his footsteps were WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, and many others of varying quality and accuracy.

At this point, the only option the liberals have to put the genie back in the bottle is by gunpoint: reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and harrying the conservative and libertarian Web sites out of business. No one should kid themselves; given the opportunity to do so, the liberals will crush their foes by force of law. Then get used to the future: a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

Let's do a historical analysis. In 1800, there were only 8-12 major newspapers in America that served a significant audience, politicans used lots of alcohol on election day to sway votes, and corruption was rampant in counting votes. In 1900, there were over 150 newpapers in America (all had "their" candidate), politicans still used lots of alochol to sway votes, unions were becoming a launching vehicle for politicans, and corruption was rampant in counting votes. In 1930, radio had arrived and politicans to talk directly to the voters, thus reducing the impact of the newspapers. Unions and corruption was still a major part of the election process. By 1960, TV had come to unseat radio, and further push newspapers back to the 3rd position. Clever ads and campaigns became the heavy sway vehicle. Unions and corruption were still players but decreasing. By 1990, public speaking, special interest groups, and TV were the domiant force in reining in the public vote. The public was now being thrown so much information that they weren't capable of making a totally rational decision on who they voted for or why. By 2000, the internet became a major force. At least 25 million American votes will likely be swayed by what they see or think on the internet. You could take down a California governor and elect the Terminator simply by pushing the internet talk to the extrem. Everyone is talking...chatting...discussing...via the internet.

What led to the downfall of Rome...was the extreme public grasp of democracy and how they should all fit into it...not just the politicans...but the little guys too. We are marching in the same direction. I don't advocate a different form of government...but when everyone is into politics and demands to be heard...the dissatisfaction level is extreme when they aren't heard. Nothing good can come out of this situation.

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.