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

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

[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.

[Brilliant]

It's not just the internet--it's the media in general. The internet has just opened up some competition from the average guy.

[marty60]

Amen. I agree totally. A good conversation on FR is educational and enlightening. FR has the most intelligent, witty, and informed members. FR is like visiting a highly charged debate society. But, lefties can't take the truth. That is what makes them uncomfortable. As well as the fact that no one can spout the pathetic mindless venom that comes from the keyboards of DUMocrats and not be called to account.

[cajungirl]

very fine post and I agree with you absolutely. Reagan and Limbaugh virtually saved us. It has amazed me. And without the internet we would be still so threatened. But I don't think they can put this genie back in the bottle.

[Threepwood]

"...the Internet provides innumerable forums and political sites so anyone can fire off a torrent of rhetorical brickbats"

That's just a sucky sentance. Fire off a torrent of rhetorical brickbats? What the heck is a brickbat? Do they correspond to a machine designed to throw or propel them?

It behooves us to avoid outdated images and phrases.

[sergeantdave]

That may be a sucky sentence, heavy on cliches and outdated imagery; however, the author of that sentence might disagree with you.

sergeantdave recommends you take this matter up with the writer of the aforementioned sentence. If, perchance, you cannot discover the author of that sentence, sergeantdave recommends you simply forget this thing and go fishing instead.

sergeantdave recommends a good walleye jig, with worm attached, on 6 lb line, between the hours of 7:14am and 10:07am, a peak fishing period according to his local almanac.

sergeantdave relays his personal thanks for pointing out the outdated imagery in that sentence and sympathizes with your view, although he is non-committal on possible remedies.

Sincerely,

sergeantdave's editor

ps - sergeantdave sells brickbats though he is out of them today. They fly out so quick. He expects a new delivery next week. Would you like to buy 1,000?

[Threepwood]

Hmm. Grammar or Fishing? That's a hard call...for some people! The only thing is that we fish for Northern Pike here. Walleyes are pretty had to come by. Sound advice though.:)

[steve-b]

The Web is the birthplace of "flamers" and "trolls," people who launch no-holds-barred attacks on others with opposing views.

Silly me; I was under the impression that such behavior had existed since the invention of speech.

[steve-b]

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

So what's his problem? Every time some DUmpster dweller expresses the opinion that America ought to be defeated, suffer more terrorist attacks, etc, somebody on FR links to it or even quotes it verbatim.

[bobsatwork]

67 percent of Americans prefer getting news from sources that don't have a political point of view. Well, then the study shows that 67% of those polled are morons. There is no source that doesn't have a political point of view.

[Jeff Head]

The fact is that the major media outlets had a virtual monopoly for so long in reporting and slanting news as they saw fit...now there's an alternative and they are finding that many people are voting with their cyber feet.

[Neanderthal]

"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..."

I'm still curious about that. What was it she got miffed about?

[Salamander]

The sheep have awakened.
[Time to pick up clubs and beat them back into the fold?]

There are times I wish I'd never found this place because it grieves me to learn the truth I'd never before known.
But, it's too late now and I can never "go back to sleep" again.

I had to watch the 2000 election debacle with only MSNBC to keep me "informed".
I don't -ever- want to be forced into that position again.

God bless FR, even though its truths are often agonizing.

[JasonC]

Sometimes there is truth, and sometimes there are lies. Why do we give these bastards the pretence of equality and respect, that their stupidity and lies are just "another point of view"? It isn't. It is an interested tendentious ideology founded on invincible self importance and contempt for their own country and its citizens. This is not "just another point of view", any more than arson is just another profession.

[weegee]

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.

There have been flame wars on the internet for over 20 years (certainly I've witnessed them in my 18 years experience with Usenet). The "net" isn't to blame.

I also remember 18 years ago when Larry King was a late night talk radio host. His guests were frequently of the liberal persuasion (politicians, authors, etc.). Larry could get hot under the collar when dealing with conservative callers. He'd call them "DUMB!" and hang up on them. Compare this to the way conservative talk radio hosts treat liberal callers (leaving them on the air for minutes at a time to expose their lack of a grasp on the topic they call about).

[weegee]

In "Republic.com," Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.

The only place the government COULD or SHOULD have a say in this is forcing sites that claim to be non-partisan (and exploit a 501c3 Non-profit tax status) to be sure to include links to all sides of an issue. (see RocktheVote.org's liberal leaning tax cheating website for such a website needing government intervention or revocation of tax status).

[VOA]

No, it is enabling voices to be heard that were ignored or discounted by traditional
media in the past.

That's the major factor.
Thanks to the 1960s and years after...the academics think that the liberal students
and the faculty ARE the voice of America...and that only a few folks like
Timothy McVeigh spoil their new utopia.

Liberals hate the Internet and talk-radio when it refuses to dance to
their tune alone.
Their soulful intropection of "why is this" (actually, "how can we shut down
the conservatives?") is a lot like the liberal wailing about "The Passion".
Suddenly, they realize the liberal view not only has serious competition...
it may be a truly minority viewpoint.

Their truly great fear? Wonder which of the non-commital family, friends
and co-workers frequent freerepublic.com and/or paid admission to see "The Passion".

Myself, I'll always remember my first couple of listens to Rush Limbaugh while I was
in the socialist swamp of graduate school.
I thought to myself "My G-d, this is what is like to listen covertly to Voice Of America
behind the Iron Curtain. And I'm not alone!".

[weegee]

I'll also say that most people DO want biased news.

After all, history is written by the victors.

How many Americans choose to make a foreign news bureau their chief source of news regarding America? By choosing an American press agency, they've already accepted a level of bias in their news. Some writers may be more "pro-America" than others but some foreign news sources could be expected to offer NO support (total opposition) to issues in America.

Most people in America agree in principle with the United States Constitution (even if that interpretation may vary depending on a person's politics). Take yourself outside of America and there are nations that do not support our constitution.

Here on Free Republic we are a subset of the population and while many of us are "conservatives" there is still a great deal of difference of opinion on issues.

[VOA]

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.

Yep, time to bust up The Sierra Club, MoveOn.Org, etc.
Correct?

This person needs to research and write the next book on "the right of free association"
for punishment.

[weegee]

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.

Some on the left had other ways of getting Big Media in their back pocket...

President Johnson got editorial/news backup from the Chronicle in exchange for a bank merger

He knew, too, how to pull on the pursestrings. Pressed by financial backer George Brown, chairman of Brown & Root, to approve a merger of two Houston banks sought by John Jones, president of the Houston Chronicle, Johnson proposes a quid pro quo: "I want John Jones to write me a letter . . . saying, 'Mr. President . . . I just want you to know that we're making arrangements for special coverage in Washington for the Chronicle . . . and that so far as I'm personally concerned and the paper's concerned, it's going to support your administration as long as you're there. Sincerely, your friend, John Jones.'" When Johnson gets the letter he wants, he phones Jones. "From here on out," he tells him, "we're partners." "Thank you," Jones replies. "Sure are." (Five days later, the merger went through.)

[rolling_stone]

This is the most exciting change in journalism in my lifetime.

I'll add Fox News to that as two most important changes in recent history... some new Voices of America....