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

Annenberg Journalism School, USC ^ | April 23, 04 | Mark Glaser

[Ciexyz]

I was amused to see my local leftie paper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, push an article titled "Majority of Americans falsely believe in Iraq-Al Qaeda connection". The whole article lamented the fact that so many "dumb" Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and the Al Qaeda network, in spite of all the media had done to erase and bury, er, correct that "misconception". The writer was probably thinking, If only Americans would listen to the leftie/lib newspapers, then they would see how dumb George Bush is and fall lockstep in behind Kerry (tee hee hee).

[Piranha]

Some 100 years ago, newspapers always used to have a point of view, unabashedly. If you look at American newspapers from the time of the American revolution on forward (they are available at the New-York Historical Society, among other places), you will be struck by their loyalty to political parties and movements throughout the 19th century.

The age of so-called "yellow journalism" came to a head as William Randolph Hearst beat the drum for the Spanish American War. After that, there was a self-conscious professionalization of journalism, where the model became an attempt to become neutral and objective.

This was hard enough to accomplish when America was considered a melting pot with identifiable American values (from the 1910s through the mid-1960s). Now that our self image is that of a multicultural nation (a "gorgeous mosaic, as Mayor David Dinkins of New York used to say) where the pressure seems to be not to conform rather to conform, it is difficult to find a common frame of reference and the ideal of journalistic neutrality seems impossible.

I think that most critical readers of the New York Times will tell you, for example, that that newspaper is orders of magnitude more biased now than it ever was during the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, etc. Until recently, its biases showed up more as lapses, such as Walter Duranty's fraudulent reporting on the Soviet economy in the 1930s and the paper's editorial decisions to ignore the Holocaust during World War II. Today, the entire paper is cut on the bias.

I don't think that Marxism had anything to do with it.

Regarding the Pew survey, if people say that they prefer getting their news from sources that don't have a political point of view, I think that they are nostalgic for an earlier America and haven't yet adapted to the internet age of weblogs and Free Republic, where newspaper articles are posted (or excerpted) and then "Fisked", or pulled apart, with their biases exposed and analyzed. We are the future!!

[WilliamofCarmichael]

That is a great read! Thank you.

It is how I remember things.

I am puzzled by parts of YAF "spinning off into anarchism and white supremacism," however.

Yes the left needs the "fairness doctrine." Well I lived through the liberals use of the "fairness doctrine" and I swore that never again would I stand by and watch. Free speech is worth spilling blood for -- our free speech, their blood. That goes for both Rats and RINOs.

[txhurl]

Wow. Pleasure to see you again!

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[Piranha]

Interesting article by Okrent at the Times today, denigrating the idea of the "newspaper of record. Consider these paragraphs (fair use excerpt, registration required: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/weekinreview/25bott.html ):

In a heterogeneous world, whose record is one newspaper even in the position to preserve? And what group of individuals, no matter how talented or dedicated, would dare arrogate to itself so godlike a role? If you rely on The Times as your only source of news, you are buying into the conceptions, attitudes and interests of the people who put it out every day. It cannot be definitive, and asking it to be is a disservice to both the staff and the readers. I mean no disrespect to The Times, but what discriminating citizen can really afford to rely on only one source of news? And can't all discriminating readers contextualize what their newspapers (or television stations or radio hosts or Web logs) tell them?

There seem to be more and more articles in the mainstreem media (like the ABC News weblog; I've lost the link to the article) admitting to media bias. When they think about it, they will come to appreciate sites like FR for relieving them of the burden of trying/pretending to be objective.

[E.G.C.]

Here are my thoughts on the subject.

Apparently, it hasn't occured to the writer of this blog that if it weren't for the eixstence of conservative only web site like Free Republic, this nation would be in major political crises like a number of other nations are right now.

Web sites like this are vital not just to the sanity and health of this country but so like-minded people like myself can have the chance to address public policy issues without some Bill Clinton butt kisser bullying me around.

As I've explainded before I came to this place from a local message board put toghether by one of Oklahoma's major newspapers. It was spammed continously by out of state Democrat butt-kissers who tried to play thread police with us conservatives. Acccusing me for example of wasting bandwith everytime I tried to make a case for President Bush in 2000 while the Al Gore butt kissers were allowed to campaign for their beloved political diety without harrasssment.

Thankfully, that message board is shut down and no longer in existence. There's simply no way in the world people like me are going to accept the idea of conservative only web sites being mandated to post leftist links and allowing leftists to post on them while other web sites of political exclusivisity allowed to maintain their modus operrinti. That's just not acceptable to me or anybody else after what I had to put up with at that other message board.

Whether anybody likes it or not conservative only web sites are not going away. They're here to stay so learn to live with it. We conservatives are not going to kowtow or cupuliate our ideas to other ideoloiges just because our ideas cause disconfort to certain individuals or groups. Those days are over. Get over it and accept it.
Regards.

[pc93]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1122668/posts?page=124#123

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You may be interested in this thread analyzing the perspective of journalism.

[Vigilanteman]

There's nothing wrong with partisan dialogue, provided that it is grounded in facts, oriented to policymaking, and suffused with respect.

. . . except that those restrictions would eliminate liberals from most dialogue. The number of liberal columnists who stick to facts can be counted on the fingers of one hand-- Camille Paglia, Gregory Kane and Clarence Page are the only three who immediately come to mind.

[Piranha]

Wow! A three-year thread!

[Hacksaw]

But can they force me to "click" on the links..... Oh yeah.....and how about that little "Freedom of Assembly" thing in the Constitution??? FYI - Sustein is one of the law profs helping Schumer out on obstruction policies.

[eno_]

Not surprisingly, they miss the real story:

The lamestream press has bought the post-New Deal expansion of federal power. The legitimacy of government actions are never questioned.

This isn't a matter of Left or Right. You will find your share of hippy-head-cracking jackboot lickers right here on Free Republic. They think any law that makes hippies unhappy is just dandy, whether or not the roots of that law are in the putrid dirt of the New Deal coup against the Constitution.

But here on FR, the power of government is called into question. That is what is now different.

[eno_]

Nothing good can come out of this situation.

That's rather pessimistic. Maybe some eggs get broken but what is it worth to bring the question "Does the Constitution mean what it says?" out in the open?

[Wallace T.]

Re the reference to YAF, I was referring to (1) some of the more extreme libertarians, who tended to be anarcho-capitalists of the Murray Rothbard stripe, moving to alliances or at least discussions with the New Left regarding opposition to the Vietnam War and the military industrial complex and (2) the rise of a group, which I think was called the National Youth Organization, by some self-styled traditionalists who had been active in the Youth for Wallace campaign. This movement was bankrolled by Willis Carto. In the 1960s and early 1970s, YAF was more an umbrella group for a wide range of non-liberals than any other organization on the Right. Ultimately, people with as disparate "patron saints" as Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Bill Buckley, Gary Allen, and Francis Yockey could not stick together forever.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thanks for the information.

[GOPJ]

Echo chamber? Liberals speaking to each other through Network TV, all newspapers but two, NPR, CNN, Hollywood, and Madison Avenue -- that's the Echo Chamber. What these folks fear is our voice -- our small voice in the internet wilderness.

Lots of options are good, but it's not so good if people sort themselves into echo chambers.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.

That's an utterly repulsive and disgusting comment. I wouldn't even want to force that on the DUers. Let them drink their sewage. Their choice.

[tubebender]

Did Jonah Goldberg contributite to the article and isn't he the son of Lucy Goldberg and didn't she post here at one time until she got miffed about something and started her own site...

[Fiddlstix]

I started to read this article, Then I noticed "Annenberg" as the source.
(Liberals all)
Maybe I'll read later when I have time on my hands.