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 ...
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.
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 eyesDo what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with youI 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 miseryDo what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with youAlthough 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 shouldDo what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with youThink for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Sunstein even suggested that the government might have to step in and force Web sites to link to opposing opinions.Reads a little like this:
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.
Remember in the early 90s, when talk radio became huge, how "polarizing" and "damaging to the national debate" and -- wait for it -- "unfair" it was? Note to libs: you already have ABCNNBCBS, PBS and NPR. Internet and talk radio are here to stay, get over it.
And they are the first ones to ask, "But what does it mean?" when you do report just the facts.
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."
I hate the smell of fascism
People want information. It's not so much that people care about the opinions of the people providing it, they just want it to be accurate and complete.
The reason why the alphabet broadcasters have lost viewers and daily newspaper circulation had dropped like a brick is not because they're "liberal" it's because they're liars or they fail in their job of providing information that's relevant but in cross-purposes of what they think is best for society.
And I'm sure the liberal media is tearing its collective teeh out over the fact that they are no longer the monopoly on information that they once were.
I wonder how Campaign Finance Reform will be applied to Internet communication? Come to think of it, didn't Hillary offer some kind of proposed legislation to shut down Internet discourse using CFR as the precedent-setting law?
Bush made a huge mistake when he signed that bill.
teeh = teeth.
Sometimes I think faster than I type.
Eggzakly! And, unless I'm mistaken, it was the Marxists with their class view of society who first pointed it out. Yep, there is always a point of view, always a bias of some sort or another. What's troubling though is this:
"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."
It tells me (and not the first time) that most people in this country have swallowed hook line and sinker the idea, promoted for many decades by the Big Media, that there are "sources that don't have a political point of view". NFG!
No it's not. Flamers go back to the days pre-Usnet, on Compuserve BBS's, and trolls are not "flamers", they're disruptors who add statements that have no inherent value to threads upon which they're posted on forums such as this, or on Usenet. This guy must be another term that's used widely online. A newbie.
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.