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 ...
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.
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.
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.
You may be interested in this thread analyzing the perspective of journalism.
. . . 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.
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?
Lots of options are good, but it's not so good if people sort themselves into echo chambers.
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.
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.