"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.

[sweetliberty]

"and how about that little "Freedom of Assembly" thing in the Constitution???"

It startted on the path into history with desegregation. I'm not saying that desegregation was a bad thing, just that it went too far and as a result, more of our constitutional protections were eroded.

[truth_seeker]

"Are the liberals now upset because someone else besides liberals can post and discuss news?"

Of course. Listen to the derisive tone by them, when mention is made of Limbaugh, Drudge, Hannity, etc.

These sources of news information clearly got their credibility the hard way: They earned it in the competitive marketplace for ideas.

Whereas the network media hacks got their credibility by way of monopoly. The NYT is the NYT; same WP, CBS, CNN.

The typical citizen of earlier times assumed credibility (even balance) from the "esteemed" news sources. My 78 year old mother is of that type.

She doesn't know any better. She thinks she is too old to learn computer, too old and tired to change her thinking. She "trusts" the mainstream media.

She was raised a Republican, but has drifted leftward, largely by media manipulation.

[fire_eye]

Have the conservatives finally found out how to use the Internet to bypass us to get to the truth?

You think you're joking... but Sarah Brady *literally* complained that gun owners were influencing public opinion by "Using The Internet To Go Around The Media" (an exact quote). (Why, the NERVE!!!)

[fire_eye]

You will find your share of hippy-head-cracking jackboot lickers right here on Free Republic.

whaaaAAAAT???

There's no way I'm going to lick my jackboots after cracking some dirty hippie's head open with them!!

[ccmay]

Matt Drudge, the nom de plume of a conservative

Hmm? It's his real name, I think, not a nom de plume (pen name, for the folks in Rio Linda.)

-ccm

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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."

Journalism is politics, and always was.

Journalism which claims to be wise ("objective") is intolerant of dissent and therefore extremely political.

People who think journalism is objective are at most risk of living in a political echo chamber because their prejudice is constantly reinforced by the presumption of those whose word they take on faith.

[tessalu]

Yes, Free Republic gives us a voice every day of the week, it is irreplaceable

[Clintonfatigued]

The main reason the discourse is so harsh is that the country is evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, between 'Rats and Republicans. We're essentially a 50/50 nation right now, and liberals are upset that they no longer dominate political discourse. Of you look closely, the worst demagoguery comes from the left.